a study of english grammar instruction in elementary schools in...

國立高雄第一科技大學

應用英語系

碩士論文

台北地區小學英語文法教學之調查研究

A Study of English Grammar Instruction in Elementary Schools in Taipei

研究生：李碧玉 Pi-yu Lee

指導教授：李美玲 Mei-ling Lee

中華民國九十四年七月


A Study of English Grammar Instruction in Elementary

Schools in Taipei

研究生：李碧玉 Pi-yu Lee

指導教授：李美玲 Mei-ling Lee

國立高雄第一科技大學

應用英語系

碩士論文

A Thesis Submitted to Department of English

National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Master of Arts In

English

July 2005 Yenchao, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China

中華民國九十四年七月


摘要

英語課程在台灣地區國民小學已實施經年。依教育部所頒佈之課程綱要，國小

英語教師從事教學課程時，應加強溝通式活動之設計，以培養學生口語溝通能力。

然而，在溝通式課程為主的小學英文教學情境中，文法教學究應如何扮演提升學生

口語能力的角色，是極為重要之課題，於該課程綱要卻著墨不多。此外，台灣地區

以英語作為第二外語學習之研究雖如汗牛充棟，不勝枚舉，針對小學英文教師及學

生對文法教學的看法之研究卻相當貧乏，凡此問題，均值得吾人進行調查研究。

有鑑於此，本研究方法以問卷針對 159 位小學英語教師及 731 位小學生施測，

旨在瞭解小學英語文法教學之三大面向：(一) 教師在溝通教學的情境中對文法教學

的看法；(二) 教師常用的文法教學法；(三) 學生對文法教學的觀點。

本研究的主要發現及成果如下：

一、大多數老師對文法教學的重要性持正面的態度，其支持的主要理由有

三：﹙一﹚文法有助於學生之正確造句能力； ﹙三﹚文法有助於學生之

英語表達能力； ﹙三﹚五、六年級小學生之心智年齢，已適合學習文法。

二、大多數老師同意將文法教學列入國小英語課程中。

三、大多數老師已將文法教學融入小學英語課程中，其理由有三：﹙一﹚五、

六年級學生的心智年齡適合學習文法；﹙二﹚文法教學可幫助小學生銜接

i

ii

九年一貫的英語學習課程；﹙三﹚文法教學可配合五、六年級學生的學習

興趣或需要。

四、老師們經常使用之文法教學策略包括：間接教學、學生歸納文法規則、使

用或不使用文法術語、讀與寫的文法練習、意義為主句型分析為輔、間接

訂正文法錯誤等文法教學方法。

五、大多數小學生對文法教學的重要性持正面的態度，其支持的主要理由有

三：（一）學文法對通過各種考試有很大的幫助；﹙二﹚學文法有益於英文

之口語溝通與表達；﹙三﹚學文法有助於造句之能力。

六、學生和教師在間接教學、意義為主句型分析為輔的文法教學法上抱持相

同意見；相較於老師之教學方法，學生普遍喜好由教師歸納文法規則、聽

與說的文法練習及直接糾正學生文法錯誤等文法教學方法。此外，教師偏

好文法教學約佔整體英文課程的 20% 到 30%；學生傾向文法教學約佔整

体英文課程的 40% 到 50%。

iii

A Study of English Grammar Instruction in Elementary Schools in Taipei

Student: Pi-yu Lee Advisor: Dr. Mei-ling Lee Department of English National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology

ABSTRACT

The Ministry of Education in Taiwan has just implemented English instruction as a

subject in all elementary schools. According to the MOE guidelines, teachers are

expected to adopt communicative teaching approaches as the leading learning model in

elementary level curriculum to boost student’s oral proficiency. In reviewing the

guidelines, we find very little explanation as to what role grammar instruction should play

in advancing learners’ oral proficiency. Moreover, there is little direct evidence on how

elementary English teachers and young learners perceive the role of grammar and their

teaching practices and learning in the EFL environment in Taiwan.

In light of this fact, this study aims to discuss the topic in three aspects: 1) How do

teachers view grammar instruction in CLT classrooms? 2) What methods do teachers

often use in grammar instruction? 3) How do young learners view the role of grammar

instruction in the classroom? As a method of research, two types of questionnaires were

iv

designed and administered to 159 elementary school English teachers and 731 elementary

school students.

The main findings corresponding to the research questions are summarized as

follows:

First, most teachers acknowledge the importance of grammar instruction in

elementary education. The top three reasons are “Grammar can help elementary students

construct more accurate sentences,” “Grammar can help elementary students use various

structures to express thoughts” and “5th and 6th graders are cognitively ready for grammar

instruction.”

Second, the majority of teachers agree with the indispensability of instructing

grammar to the young.

Third, most of the teachers report that grammar lessons are actually practiced in their

current elementary school classrooms. Their top three reasons “Grade 5 and 6 level

learners are cognitively ready for grammar instruction,” “Grammar instruction can help

coordinate Grade 1-9 Curricula” and “Grammar instruction can meet the interests and

needs of 5th and 6th graders.”

Fourth, the teaching methods teachers often use to teach grammar are indirect;

deductive; with or without terminology-use; reading and writing focused meaning-based

teaching methods and indirect error correction. The amount of time devoted to grammar

instruction in their current classes is 20% to 30%.

Fifth, a large percentage of learners, higher than that of teachers, recognize the value

of grammar learning in the classroom. Their top three reasons include “Grammar helps

me pass various kinds of tests,” “Grammar helps me speak out English” and “Grammar

v

helps me construct sentences easily.”

Sixth, both teachers and students favor indirect and meaning-based teaching. Most

responses from the students on their favorite learning styles, however, appear to be a

direct contradiction to teachers’ current methods. These mismatches include inductive

teaching, listening and speaking focused grammar practice and direct error correction.

There is also a huge discrepancy in the opinions of both groups with regard to the ideal

amount of class time devoted to grammar instruction. Teachers tend to prefer 20% to 30%

amount of class time for grammar teaching; however, students tend to favor 40% to 50%.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Every time I worked on this thesis throughout the night, I did not feel lonely because

of the many individuals who have invisibly accompanied me through this process. I

cannot credit everyone for all their assistance here, but hopefully, the most important

individuals, at least, can be recognized for their weighty contributions.

Therefore, let me first acknowledge my enormous debt to my chief advisor, Dr.

Mei-ling Lee, whom, I believe, is one of the most influential leaders in English education

on this island. Her insightful comments on the study helped shape my thinking. Her

infinite patience on directing my writing step by step helped me with the organization of

the study. Without her enduring patience and efforts, this tough job may have been

unworkable.

Second, I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Ching-chi Chen and Dr.

Feng-sheng Hung for being the committee members of my oral defense. Their

constructive suggestions helped me to rethink and refine this thesis.

Third, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the teachers in my graduate

classes. Dr. Robert L. Good’s conscientious attitude and Dr. Jeng-yih Shu’s continuous

enthusiasm toward scholarly research have greatly influenced my performance in

completing the necessary research.

Fourth, my heartfelt thanks go to all my classmates (Wanda, Flora, Tiffany, Sherry,

vii

Chloe, Helen, Julia, Brian and Solomon) in NKFUST. During these past three years, not

only have I enjoyed many new friendships, but also their companionships made me feel

wonderful about the process of school life.

Fifth, a special “Thanks” must be given to the elementary school teachers and the

children who helped me to complete the survey. Without their assistance, this part of the

research could not have been completed in such a short time and with such efficiency.

Finally, a special “Thank you” goes to my dearest family members. My sister’s

encouragement helped develop my interest in the academic field. I should also offer

thanks to my three dearest dogs (Sasa, Coco, Fifi), which I recently lost. They

accompanied me through the hardest part of the thesis, but they could not survive to see

the end.

The teaching and learning of English as a subject in elementary education in Taiwan

is now in its infancy. Children here in Taiwan are even more eager to explore the world’s

foremost language. So, this research is just a beginning. Let’s continue the work!

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT (Chinese) .......................................................................................................i

ABSTRACT (English) ......................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS …...………………………………………………………….viii

LIST OF TABLES ….……………………………………………………………….….xii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................4

Teachers’ Arguments in Opposition to Grammar Instruction ....................................4

Teachers’ Arguments in Favor of Grammar Instruction ............................................5

Learners’ Arguments in Opposition to Grammar Instruction ....................................6

Learners’ Arguments in Favor of Grammar Instruction ............................................7

Purposes of the Study .........................................................................................................8

Research Questions ..........................................................................................................10

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 11

Definitions of Grammar ................................................................................................... 11

The Role of Grammar in Communicative Language Teaching .......................................13

Grammar Should Be Excluded in CLT Classrooms ................................................13

Grammar Should Be Included in CLT Classrooms .................................................14

Major Arguments on Grammar Instruction .....................................................................15

ix

Theoretical Advantages of Grammar Instruction .....................................................15

Theoretical Disadvantages of Grammar Instruction ................................................18

Factors Influencing Grammar Instruction and Learning .................................................21

Learners’ Cognitive Abilities ...................................................................................21

Learners’ Preferred Learning Styles ........................................................................23

Teachers’ Preferred Instruction Methods .................................................................24

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY .................................................................27

Research Questions ..........................................................................................................27

Research Method .............................................................................................................28

Participants .......................................................................................................................29

Instruments .......................................................................................................................31

Instruction ................................................................................................................31

Respondents’ Personal Data .....................................................................................32

The Questionnaire for Teachers ...............................................................................32

The Questionnaire for Students ...............................................................................38

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................................41

Data Collection Procedures for the Formal Study ...........................................................43

CHAPTER FOUR DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..........................................46

Statistical Procedures .......................................................................................................46

x

Data Analysis of Research Questions ..............................................................................47

Analysis of Research Question 1 .............................................................................47






CHAPTER FIVE INTERPRETATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........................64

Major Findings and Interpretations ..................................................................................64

Major Findings of Research Question 1 ................................................................. .65

Interpretations of Research Question 1 ....................................................................65

Major Findings of Research Question 2 ..................................................................66








xi



Pedagogical Implications .................................................................................................75

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies ..............................................................77

References .......................................................................................................................79

Appendix A – Guidelines for Grade 1-9 Curricula (Chinese Version) ...........................85

Appendix B – Guidelines for Grade 1-9 Curricula (English Version) ............................89

Appendix C – Teacher Questionnaire (Chinese Version) ...............................................93

Appendix D – Teacher Questionnaire (English Version) ................................................98

Appendix E – Student Questionnaire (Chinese Version) ..............................................103

Appendix F – Student Questionnaire (English Version) ...............................................107

Appendix G – Consent Letter (Chinese Version) ......................................................... 111

Appendix H – Consent Letter (English Version) .......................................................... 112

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.Teachers’ Views and Reasons for and against Grammar Instruction ..................34

Table 2. Teachers’ Views and Reasons for Including and Excluding Grammar Instruction to Grade 5 and 6 Level Learners .....................................................36

Table 3. Teachers’ Current Classroom Practice ...............................................................37

Table 4. Students’ Views and Reasons for and against Grammar Instruction .................39

Table 5. Students’ Feelings toward the Inclusion of Grammar Instruction .....................40

Table 6. Students’ Ideal Percentages of Class Time Devoted to Grammar Instruction and Their Favorite Instruction Methods ............................................................41

Table 7. Teachers’ Responses to the Item “How do I view grammar instruction to Grade 5 and 6 level learners?” ...........................................................................48

Table 8. Teachers’ Responses to the Item “Rank three reasons why I view grammar instruction definitely important or important to Grade 5 and 6 elementary level learners” ..............................................................................................…. 49

Table 9. Teachers’ Responses to the Item “Rank three reasons why I view grammar instruction unimportant or definitely unimportant to Grade 5 and 6 elementary level learners” .................................................................................50

Table 10. Teachers’ Responses to the Item “How do I think English teachers teach 5th and 6th graders grammar in classrooms?” .....................................................51

Table 11. Teachers’ Responses to the Item “Do I include grammar teaching in my current classrooms?” ..........................................................................................52

Table 12. Teachers’ Responses to the Item “Rank three reasons why I include grammar instruction in my current classrooms” ...............................................................53

xiii

Table 13.Teachers’ Responses to the Item “Rank three reasons why I do not include grammar instruction in my current classrooms” ................................................54

Table 14.Teachers’ Responses to the Item “What methods do I often use for grammar instruction in my current classrooms?” .............................................................56

Table 15. Teachers’ Responses to the Item “What is the amount of time devoted to grammar instruction in my current classrooms?” ............................................. .57

Table 16. Students’ Responses to the Item “How do I view grammar instruction?” .......58

Table 17. Students’ Responses to the Item “Rank three reasons why I view grammar instruction definitely important or important” ...................................................59

Table 18. Students’ Responses to the Item “Rank three reasons why I view grammar instruction unimportant or definitely unimportant” ...........................................60

Table 19. Students’ Responses to the Item “Does my English teacher include grammar teaching in current classrooms?” .......................................................................61

Table 20. Students’ Responses to the Item “I think the ideal percentages of class time devoted to grammar instruction should be:” ......................................................62

Table 21. Students’ Responses to the Item “How do I want my language teacher to teach me grammar?” ..........................................................................................63

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Few people would deny the prestigious status that English has achieved in the

international community. More than 70 countries, including India, Singapore, Nigeria and

Rwanda, have made English an official language. Without doubt, English has emerged as

the world’s most widely-taught foreign language. Moreover, it has appeared in the official

school curriculums of more than 100 countries, such as Germany, China, Egypt, Spain

and Russia (Crystall, 1997). Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that English has

become an indispensable skill for anyone who intends to participate in the global market.

Acknowledging the widespread needs of Taiwanese learners, especially children, who are

eager to learn English, the Ministry of Education (MOE hereafter) issued a new foreign

language policy in 2001. Based on this policy, elementary schools are required to offer

English instruction to their students. During the initial stage of implementation, English is

included as an academic subject for 5th and 6th graders. To reach the second stage of larger

scale English education, the MOE, in 2004, announced that English instruction would be

extended down to 3rd and 4th graders for the entire island, commencing with the start of

the school year, September 2005.

To help provide effective English learning programs to young learners, the MOE has

formulated an official set of English curriculum guidelines (See Appendixes A & B) for

local elementary schools to follow. On the basis of these guidelines, three main teaching

goals were outlined: fostering communicative competence, cultivating language learning

1

2

interest and skills, and strengthening cultural learning and international understanding. To

meet these goals, elementary school program designers should emphasize the

advancement of learners’ listening, speaking, reading and writing skills as well as cultural

understanding. In addition, teachers are expected to adopt communicative teaching

approaches as the leading learning model for boosting students’ oral proficiency. In

examining the above-mentioned guidelines for English learning, I believe that most

language teachers, if not all, would support the popular opinion that the pragmatic

functions of language learning should play a central role in English education for

elementary school students. In other words, communication is the main goal of language

learning as specified in the official guidelines. Though a consensus on promoting

students’ communicative abilities has been firmly reached, there has been a disagreement

to achieve such a harmony of opinions among teachers and students as to what role

grammar instruction should play in advancing learners’ oral proficiency. As a matter of

fact, I have found a polarity of views, with some supporting the teaching of grammar to

elementary school students while others strongly opposing the idea.

According to the MOE guidelines, grammar is considered a legitimate component

for fostering learners’ English skills. The guidelines highly recommend meaning-based

grammar drills for classroom learning and discourage the instruction of abstract grammar

knowledge to young learners (See Appendixes A & B). In reviewing the guidelines, I

assume that most teachers would welcome the idea of meaningful grammar learning;

nevertheless, the controversy and uneasiness surrounding the provision of grammar

instruction to Taiwan’s youths still persist among many language teachers. The idea that

puzzles most language teachers lies in the factor of age. To be more specific, many

3

teachers would like to ask the questions: Are elementary school students under the age of

12 cognitively ready to learn these complex rules? Will formal study of grammar at this

age hinder the development of learners’ oral skills? As far as the age factor is concerned, I

am confident in asserting that no educators in Taiwan would argue the suitability of

teaching grammar to junior high school students as they are considered intellectually

mature enough to learn and apply linguistic rules. However, serious doubts emerge if we

apply the same pedagogical idea of grammar-oriented instruction used in secondary

education to elementary school students. Searching through related literature, I have

found that the theoretical and practical advantages of teaching grammar to students at

such a young age have yet to be examined. Uncertainty naturally arises about this issue

because of this lack of theoretical support. For example, is it too early to teach 5th and 6th

graders grammar? Will teaching grammar help or hinder their language learning,

especially their communicative ability? If it is regarded as facilitating, what methods

should be adopted in teaching young learners grammar?

To answer the above questions, a preliminary research study is required to collect

and compare the opinions of teachers and students regarding the implementation of

grammar instruction in elementary schools. After a quick review of second-language

learning literatures, I found that there have not been any such studies conducted in Taiwan.

I believed that it is important to perform such research as it can help inform both teachers

and language program designers how in-service teachers and young learners perceive

grammar instruction in the classroom.

4

Statement of the Problem

In my 16 years as a teacher, teacher trainer and director of private language schools

in Taipei, I have had continuous interaction with elementary school teachers and students.

From this interaction, I have realized that a teacher’s beliefs have a strong influence on

how instruction is actually conducted in the classroom. For example, if a teacher firmly

believes that grammar instruction will impede a young learner’s development of oral

skills, then there is only a small likelihood that the teacher will introduce linguistic rules

during instruction. By the same token, the learner’s attitudes also determine whether the

instruction will be effectively received and learned. If a student strongly believes that

grammar rules can help him do well on tests, then he will feel more motivated to learn

about the structural part of the English language. Therefore, it is important to explore how

teachers and students view the role of grammar in relation to language learning in the

classroom.

Interestingly, in many classrooms, I have observed that teachers and students

generally have rather different opinions about the importance of grammar as well as the

methods of implementing them. The following section is based on my informal

discussions with teachers and students aged 11 and 12, in which we discussed the role of

grammar learning and why some elementary school teachers and students are against

grammar instruction while others are in favor of learning grammar in their classrooms.

Teachers’ Arguments in Opposition to Grammar Instruction

For the past few decades, grammar-oriented instruction has dominated students’

language learning in the classroom throughout Taiwan. Today many teachers consider

5

grammar the major culprit responsible for students’ poor English speaking abilities. They

argue that grammar instruction in the past played only a small role in expanding students’

oral communication abilities. Instead, it tended to hinder beginning learners’ development

of oral skills. Traditional grammar instruction focused mainly on the teaching of abstract

terminologies, complex structures and rules. As a result, those teachers believe that

grammar is too difficult for elementary school students to learn and apply, especially

those as young as eleven or twelve years old. Based on these arguments, teachers who are

against grammar instruction think grammar lessons should be completely removed from

the elementary level curriculum as grammar fails to serve a practical function in oral

language learning.

Teachers’ Arguments in Favor of Grammar Instruction

As mentioned above, some teachers are overtly against grammar instruction because

it not only impedes oral proficiency and is cognitively too demanding for young learners

to study. On the contrary, other teachers regard grammar as an essential component for

learning English in elementary schools. To begin with, those teachers believe that

grammar teaching should be emphasized in the elementary level curriculum as early as

possible. For one thing, learners in Taiwan live in a non-English-speaking environment

and have little exposure to English outside the classroom. Expectedly, learners encounter

overwhelming difficulties in internalizing the rules and patterns of English. It will be

more effective in terms of learning the rules if learners have access to explicit and

systematic grammar instruction in the classroom. Moreover, teachers also point out that

since the classroom contact time is very limited, usually three to four hours per week, it is

6

almost impossible to teach all aspects of English. They conclude that in comparison to all

other skills, focusing on teaching grammar can help learners organize the rules promptly

and pass all sorts of tests. Therefore, for these teachers working with such tight schedules,

grammar is deemed as the most useful aspect of language learning in the classroom.

Furthermore, teachers, who are in favor of grammar instruction, do not see grammar

as an obstacle to language learning as opposed to their counterparts in this issue. They

argue that grammar rules represent the formal knowledge that should be taught in

language instruction. Finally, the teaching of grammar ought to be tightly implemented

because communication without grammar as a solid base leads to deficiencies in later

language development. They are convinced that a well-designed program emphasizing

grammar teaching is the best way to learn English in non-English speaking Taiwan.

Learners’ Arguments in Opposition to Grammar Instruction

In addition to the diverse opinions about grammar instruction among teachers, there

is also a wide variety of attitudes among learners. First, some elementary school students

I have talked to observe that it is too daunting and time-consuming to learn grammar rules.

Second, grammar often obstructs their intentions to communicate. They thus think

grammatical accuracy should not be pursued at the expense of fluency. Third, these

students regard grammar learning as a dull and intimidating job. They express that

grammar rules are something that should be reserved for mature adults to learn. They

conclude that there is no reason for children to learn abstract and complex grammatical

knowledge. Also, due to the extreme difficulties for some, they are absolutely put off the

idea of learning English and only do what they must in order to pass tests.

7

Lastly, speaking from their classroom experience, these students report that grammar

instruction does not benefit their language learning in any tangible way. Also, they do not

think classroom instruction will enable them to internalize grammatical rules to the point

of being able to use them in real-life settings. Thus, these learners claim that due to their

lack of motivation to learn linguistic rules, the implementation of grammar lessons into

EFL (English as a foreign language) classrooms seems to be unnecessary.

Learners’ Arguments in Favor of Grammar Instruction

Some learners are opposed to grammar because of its difficulty and tedium while

others value its importance. Firstly, from the informal interviews with students, some are

convinced that the knowledge of grammar enables them to forge ahead in various

examinations, such as the College Entrance Exam and the General English Proficiency

Test. Secondly, they consider learning grammar equivalent to and indistinguishable from

language instruction, a belief that probably stems from their classroom experiences or

teachers’ advice. Moreover, some learners hold the belief that strong grammar skills can

make up for their weaknesses in other areas such as translation and composition. Thirdly,

as grammar plays a major role in their secondary curriculum, these students feel a great

need to prepare and study grammar in advance so that they can make quick adjustments

to language instruction in junior high schools. Therefore, to coordinate both elementary

and secondary English curriculums, they think that it is essential to receive early grammar

instruction.

In summary, the appropriateness of implementing grammar instruction at the

elementary level has caused a wide diversity of contrasting opinions. On the one hand,

8

grammar instruction is deemed a hindrance to the development of young learners’ oral

skills, and serves few practical functions in language learning. Furthermore, viewed in

light of the learners’ ages, interests and expectations, grammar seems to be a

counterproductive choice for effective language teaching. On the other hand, the idea of

grammar instruction gains wide support from the public, which more or less reflects the

unique test-oriented learning environment in Taiwan. Considering the ideas presented

above, it will be necessary to continue exploring the possible advantages and

disadvantages of integrating grammar instruction into the elementary curriculum. Even

though the execution of communicative-based lessons seems promising, it has yet to be

determined if the attitudes of teachers and students toward grammar instruction will

interfere with the outcome of communicative language teaching.

Purposes of the Study

As discussed in the previous section, the sheer diversity of positions on the issue of

grammar instruction among teachers and students reveals that language researchers need

to investigate how grammar teaching is actually carried out in EFL classrooms. Over the

past few years, virtually no such research effort has been made in Taiwan. In other words,

there is little direct evidence on how elementary school teachers and young learners

perceive the role of grammar in their teaching practices and classroom learning. If we

have no information about the preconceptions held by both teachers and learners, it will

be difficult to describe objectively how grammar instruction is being dealt with in the

classroom. As Horwitz (1985) argues,

9

Prospective foreign language teachers enter the methods class with many

preconceived ideas about how languages are learned and how they should be taught.

These beliefs can directly interfere with their understanding of and receptivity to the

information and techniques presented in the method class (p. 333).

In her later work, Horwitz (1987) comments that not just teachers but also learners’

perceived beliefs strongly influence language learning. Departing from Horwitz’s theory,

to further understand English instruction in elementary schools in Taiwan, it is essential to

take a closer look at the preconceptions held by both teachers and learners toward

grammar instruction.

It is also important to explore the methods that elementary school teachers often use

to deliver grammar instruction and compare them to their beliefs. For instance, according

to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT hereafter), learners’ grammatical errors are

considered the natural outcome of language learning, which might run counter to a

teacher’s hidden belief if that teacher believes errors should be eradicated at any cost.

Furthermore, it remains unclear whether teachers prefer grammar instruction methods that

are meaning-based or form-based, deductive or inductive. Lastly, we must look at

teachers’ perspectives of using linguistic terminology with elementary level learners. For

example, Chalker (1984) notes that decisions about terminology should be related to

learners’ levels. In that case, we are not certain if teachers are aware of age and level of

their students when terminology is involved in explaining grammar rules.

To recapitulate, considering the various problems surrounding grammar instruction

in elementary schools, I was inspired to conduct one of the first studies on grammar

research in elementary English education in Taiwan. The aim of the study is to shed light

10

on the three main issues regarding grammar instruction discussed above: 1) How do

teachers view grammar instruction in CLT classrooms? 2) What methods do teachers

regularly use for grammar instruction? 3) How do young learners view the role of

grammar instruction in the classroom?

Research Questions

Specifically, the current study will investigate the following research questions

based on these three issues.

Issue one: How do teachers view grammar instruction in CLT classrooms?

1. Do language teachers consider grammar instruction an essential part of English

learning for 5th and 6th graders?

2. Should grammar be taught to 5th and 6th graders from the perspective of

language teachers?

3. Do language teachers include grammar teaching in their current classrooms?

Issue two: What methods do teachers regularly use for grammar instruction?

4. What are the most commonly used methods and techniques for grammar

instruction in the classroom?

Issue three: How do young learners view the role of grammar instruction in the

classroom?

5. Do 5th and 6th graders consider grammar instruction necessary or unnecessary in

the classroom?

6. What are 5th and 6th graders’ learning preferences for grammar instruction in the

classroom?

11

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to review related literature with regard to grammar

instruction in the classroom. However, there are very few studies documented in literature

that have investigated how perceptions of students and teachers influence grammar

instruction in Taiwan’s elementary school classrooms. There are even fewer studies that

look at how grammar instruction is being conducted in Taiwan’s elementary schools. In

light of this fact, the focus of my review will be on the findings from related studies

conducted in similar learning contexts. To meet the purpose of the study, I will divide the

discussion of this topic into four sections: (1) Definitions of Grammar; (2) The Role of

Grammar in Communicative Language Teaching; (3) Major Arguments on Grammar

Instruction; (4) Factors Influencing Grammar Instruction and Learning.

Definitions of Grammar

It is not easy to create a single all-encompassing definition of grammar because

individual people perceive grammar differently. However, it appears to be more practical

and less complicated to describe how grammar is actually perceived in the classroom

from the viewpoints of teachers and learners.

In the classroom, teachers who favor grammar instruction often hold the belief that

grammar is an important basis for sentence construction. Without such a foundation, the

likelihood of learners’ mastering a foreign language is small. To borrow David’s (1998)

12

phrase, “if the bricks are not in the correct order, the wall will collapse under its own

ungrammaticality” (p.101). The bricks mentioned here refer to the set of rules that put

words, phrases, or sentences together into a grammatical unit. Beside the theoretical view

of what grammar means, Kerr (1993) reports that his subjects, in a comprehensive survey

of 100 teacher trainees, view grammar either as an abstract set of rules or as a horrible set

of rules. Another rough definition of grammar from a learner’s point of views can be seen

from Ur’s (1988) book, where she argues, “a learner who knows grammar is one who has

mastered and can apply these rules to express himself or herself” (p. 4). Here, it may infer

that people believe studying grammar means studying rules, and as a result studying these

rules will guarantee a good mastery of grammar.

According to Maxwell and Meiser (2001), “People usually give three reasons why

they think students must study grammar: Students can’t put a sentence together; students

don’t know a noun from a verb; students can’t speak or write without making mistakes”

(p. 298). Based on the particular findings in Kerr’s study and Ur’s statement, we may

infer that most teachers probably view grammar as the study of the rules as well. As a

result, they decide to teach grammar rules so that learners can put a sentence together or

speak and write in correct forms.

As pointed out above, teachers and learners generally acknowledge that grammar

carries the meaning of studying rules. Furthermore, nearly all grammar books focus on

studying rules with analyses made at the sentence level. As Hartwell (1985) states, school

grammar “presents the student with parts of speech, sentence patterns, standard usage

forms, conventions of writing and spelling” (p. 105). The purpose of presenting forms and

patterns is to help students internalize the rules of the target language. Finally, the

13

Encyclopedia on the Internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/grammar) also defines

grammar as a study of rules governing the use of language. For these reasons, I adopt the

pedagogical definition of grammar as a study of rules for this study.

The Role of Grammar in Communicative Language Teaching

As defined in this study, grammar refers to a study of rules in the classroom. Many

school teachers believe that the study of grammar rules in CLT classrooms can facilitate

learners’ oral proficiencies. However, the role of grammar in CLT remains to be discussed

further. A considerable body of research tends to discourage focusing on grammar in CLT

classrooms on the assumption that it is very likely to hinder learners’ oral skills, or even

worse, to lead to learners’ poor communicative competence.

Grammar Should Be Excluded in CLT Classrooms

CLT was proposed by the new science of sociolinguistics in the 1970s. When it was

first introduced, grammar instruction was usually included in the CLT curriculum.

Nonetheless, CLT faced formidable opposition for bringing grammar into the learning

syllabus (Thornbury, 1999). The most severe resistance came from Krashen and Terrel

(1983), who claimed that a focus on grammar would distort successful communication

and create learning difficulties. They argued that for more real-life activities to take place

in the classroom, grammar instruction ought to be rejected. Furthermore, to achieve

communicative competence, the CLT classrooms should emphasize the communication of

learners’ thoughts rather than the study of grammatical rules. To put it more precisely, the

role of grammar in CLT should be regarded as a part of listening, speaking, reading and

14

writing tasks, not as a disconnected skill (Ramirez, 1995).

The view of excluding grammar instruction in the classroom has gained some

empirical support from studies carried out in different countries. For instance, in a foreign

language classroom in China, learners attained a satisfactory performance by the teacher

highlighting communication-based teaching with oral practice (Wang, 1990). In another

study in some ESL (English as a second language) classrooms in New Zealand, teachers

employed CLT for the solitary purpose of communication but rejected grammar,

form-based activities and error correction in their programs. The result showed that the

programs focusing on communication provided learners with more excellent practice (Yu,

1990).

Grammar Should Be Included in CLT Classrooms

In contrast to Krashen and Terrel, some researchers argue that a poor and

ungrammatical form of language will result from a full communicative approach, which

will cause learners to make little progress in learning structures. Richards (1985) takes a

strong stand for this position, stating that there is no evidence to prove that language

learners in full communicative classrooms perform better than those in more traditional

teacher-dominated classrooms. To echo Richard’s viewpoint, Shortall (1996) adds that

CLT has the inclination to develop communicative skills at the expense of grammar

instruction in the classroom. This tendency of sticking to verbal fluency alone would most

likely lead learners to a restriction in their language development (Skehan, 1996) and

even result in learners’ early fossilization in language learning (Batstone, 1994).

15

After a brief review of the role of grammar in the CLT classroom, we expect the

heated debates to continue for some time. The issue of grammar instruction in EFL

classrooms requires further analysis and investigation, especially in Taiwan.

Major Arguments on Grammar Instruction

Earlier, I briefly discussed the role of grammar instruction in CLT classrooms and

found little agreement among researchers about whether grammar facilitates or obstructs

second language learning. To further understand the divergence of opinions, I conducted

a literature review to compare the major arguments for and against grammar instruction in

the classroom. Most of the ideas discussed below are theoretical in nature, consisting of

the advantages and disadvantages of teaching grammar and its effect on learners’

language performances. It is apparent that more empirical studies are needed to determine

the efficacy of grammar instruction in the classroom.

Theoretical Advantages of Grammar Instruction

Examining the major studies conducted in the area of grammar learning, I found

plenty of them gave strong support to grammar teaching and its usefulness in language

learning. For example, in Hannan’s (1989) study, grammar is viewed as a vital part of

studying language. Ample research has made clear that grammar instruction can bring

various benefits to ESL and EFL language teaching and learning (Terrell, 1991). The

main benefits are as follows:

Grammar can make language teaching in large-sized classes easier. Teaching large

classes with limited classroom contact is probably the most problematic experience for

16

the majority of language teachers. Therefore, systematic and integrated rules may offer

teachers a shortcut to meet learning requirements. Grammar teaching, as was mentioned

by Sledd (1996), can be beneficial to large mixed-ability classes and is a simple solution

for time-constraint problems.

Grammar can develop learner confidence. In foreign language learning, one of the

results of poor learning is a decrease in learners’ confidence. Gaining the knowledge of

linguistic rules enables students to acquire a sense of accomplishment and improvement

(Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Moreover, developing an understanding of grammar rules may

suit learners’ needs and result in their feeling of security. With the knowledge of grammar,

learners can build up their self-assurance and achieve better learning results.

Grammar can meet learners’ expectations. Some learners believe that producing

more sentences means mastering a language. Learners who have faith in generative

grammar believe that familiarity with linguistic rules will assist them in producing more

and newer sentences (Cargill, 1990). As a result, some learners expect to receive explicit

grammar instruction in class so that their learning of grammar rules will lead them to

acquire grammatical competence.

Grammar can prepare learners for a higher degree. With frequent grammar

exercises, learners will understand the rules and improve their language ability. Teaching

grammar consciously, according to Llewelyn (1989), can bring countless advantages to

learners. The most important advantage is that grammar practices can help learners who

intend to pass various kinds of tests or obtain a higher degree. Not surprisingly, the idea

of helping pass exams has long been supported by many parents in Taiwan. Although too

much grammar instruction contradicts with the learning principles suggested by the MOE

17

official guidelines, grammar proficiency is still considered the best guarantee in

promoting children to higher levels of schooling (Chen, 2003).

Grammar enables learners to construct better sentences. Grammar is a way to

visualize linguistic elements (Fromkin, 1990) as well as a means for learners to obtain

linguistic competence (Garner, 1989). Acknowledging the basic system of the rules can

help learners produce sentences extensively and intellectually (Thornbury, 1999).

Reflecting this view onto young learners, children, after absorbing grammar rules, can

create more accurate sentences and produce a greater range of expressions.

Grammar makes successful communication possible. Grammar is a bridge for

communication (Gribbin, 1996; Batstone, 1994). Batstone (1994) argues that learners in

the process of communication can not only pick up instant grammatical substances from

what they have known but also choose the proper phrases to express themselves

meaningfully. Without the knowledge of grammar, people may be misled in the sending

and receiving of messages, which can lead to poor communication. Only through

applying grammar rules in practice can successful communication be possible.

Grammar learning can prevent early fossilization of forms. In the second or foreign

language learning process, inaccurate linguistic features may happen to learners and make

learners’ ways of speaking and writing become fixed. Learners without the knowledge of

grammar run the risk of fossilizing more rapidly than those with knowledge of the rules of

grammar (Batstone, 1994). In order to avoid settling for a flawed and insufficient

interlanguage, more attention should be paid to the form of the target language

(Celce-Murcia, 1991).

18

Theoretical Disadvantages of Grammar Instruction

As analyzed above, advocates of grammar instruction assume that grammar not only

increases learners’ linguistic competence but also helps them get ahead in various kinds of

language tests that are required for advanced education. However, some researchers point

out that grammar has been converted into an unwelcoming name for the majority of

young learners who have trouble learning it (Allen, 1972; Haussamen, 1993; Murdick,

1996). Moreover, it is not just youngsters, but also quite a few teachers who question the

usefulness of grammar instruction in enhancing learners’ oral proficiency. The following

arguments represent the most frequently mentioned reasons for not including grammar

instruction in the foreign language classroom.

Grammar learning cannot help language acquisition. Based on the opinions of

Krashen and Terrell (1983), learners develop successful language abilities mainly through

the process of interaction with native speakers. Intrinsic learning abilities can only take

place when learners are involved in real communication activities without any pressure.

When we refer Krashen and Terrel’s viewpoints to child learning, it appears that young

learners are endowed with the ability to acquire knowledge of grammar by verbal practice

with others. Rules seem to play no role in child language learning.

Children have no need of learning grammar. Unlike adults, young learners tend to

make acquaintance with grammar rules in a more subconscious way (Scott & Ytreberg,

1990). As young children have a better ear for grammar than adults, children are capable

of learning grammar through listening and imitation. Formal grammar instruction is of no

real use to young learners. In other words, young children are capable of acquiring the

rules naturally. There is no discernable benefit in teaching them explicit grammar rules.

19

Grammar cannot help learners transfer the rules to meaningful use. Some

researchers point out that learners may identify the rules but fail to apply them to concrete

knowledge. Larsen-Freeman (2003) mentions that learners are not always able to carry

over or transfer grammar rules to meaningful use even if they practice a lot of grammar

exercises, let alone applying the rules in a non-instructional environment. According to

Johnston and Goettsch (2000), grammar exercises, for them, are merely things done in

grammar classes. When students leave the classrooms, what they have learned appears to

be irrelevant. Namely, the isolated study of grammar rules does not seem like significant

knowledge for learners to acquire in a perpetual learning plan.

Grammar cannot interest learners. Since grammar is commonly accepted as

studying rules, many teachers like to associate their grammar practices with diagramming

sentences and analyzing grammatical characteristics of every word. Learners are taught to

excel in placing their expressions and utterances into the “slot” (Thornbury, 1999, p. 2).

This type of grammar instruction-too much time spent on the sentence level and dealing

with errors-can lead to disinterest in learners. Larsen-Freeman (2003) maintains that “few

students sustain their enthusiasm for learning when the lesson focuses on the parts of

language” (p. 7). This rule-focused classroom practice makes grammar learning

“disconnected and disliked” (Maxwell & Meiser, 2001, p. 315). In a survey with 572

English learners in Japan, grammar instruction was deemed to be the least favorite part of

the language learning setting (Ryan, 1996). From these aspects, grammar instruction does

not lead to students having affection for the language.

Grammar is too difficult for young learners. Huang (1983) describes the substantial

grammar practice in Taiwan as follows: “Teachers spend class hour after class hour

20

having students underline subjects and circle words, comment on the grammatical

characteristics of every word, or draw sentences diagrams that look more like something

from a geometry book than an English text” (p. 157). Apparently, the author wants to

reveal that learning grammar involves countless practice on abstract rules and sentence

levels, which many learners find hard to understand. In another survey conducted with 20

Japanese students, the students were asked to come up with the first word they thought of

when grammar was mentioned. The largest percent of students chose ‘difficult’ as their

answer (Hadley, 2002). After looking into these two examples, we discover that most

people believe that learning grammar is not an easy task. If the study of grammar rules is

integrated into child learning, we can easily predict that children will also choose

‘difficult’ as their response.

Excessive grammar instruction can cause learners’ oral deficiency. In Taiwan,

many teachers acknowledge that grammar can help learners pass important tests, so they

drill students intensively on grammar rules and sentence patterns. The emphasis of

passing written exams to obtain higher educational degrees or further occupational

promotion can lead to a lack of oral proficiency (Huang, 1983). Sutherland (1981) further

argues that in early stages of learning, fluency and accuracy cannot actually be

accomplished at the same time. The likelihood of developing fluent oral skills through

intensive grammar practice is minimal. Instead of aiding fluency and accuracy in early

learning, Krashen and Terrel (1983) assert that grammar will interfere with learners’

communication from the very beginning of learning and it is “better not to even try” (p.

72). Obviously, Krashen and Terrel consider formal grammar instruction a major barrier

to the development of communicative ability among young learners.

21

After reviewing the two divergent arguments, we may conclude that the theoretical

advantages and disadvantages of providing grammar instruction in the classroom remain

an unsettled issue that requires further investigation. Though researchers are not yet

certain about the relationship between grammar learning and oral proficiency for young

learners, there are some factors that will have a significant influence on the success of

grammar learning in the classroom, such as learners’ cognitive abilities, teachers’

instructional methods and students’ learning styles. The following section turns to a brief

discussion of these factors and their impacts on grammar learning.

Factors Influencing Grammar Instruction and Learning

In light of the theoretical research related to child learning, Lenneberg (1967) in his

“Critical Period Hypothesis” suggests that there is a time limit in human development for

successful language acquisition. Therefore, the connection between learners’ ages and

their abilities to learn grammar successfully should be discussed. Furthermore, teaching

and learning style preferences can also be mitigating factors in effective teaching and

learning. For these reasons, literature relating age factors to teaching and learning styles

in grammar instruction will be reviewed as follows.

Learners’ Cognitive Abilities

As declared in Chapter 1 and above, some language teachers and researchers

question learners’ cognitive and linguistic abilities for learning grammar rules. In light of

this, I sought the answer from related studies. Among the theoretical assumptions,

Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory can serve as one of the most useful bases for

22

discussing learners’ cognitive abilities. He suggests that a child’s cognitive development

should proceed through several stages. Learners from the ages of 7 to 11, at the so-called

concrete operational stage, begin to develop the abilities of classification, class-inclusion

and understanding of some symbols. Learning through concrete settings can be arranged

and operated in the classroom (Huitt & Hummel, 2003). The most important implication

of his theory to children’s grammar learning is the idea that children in the development

of their mental concepts still consider it very hard to think abstractly. Teachers can plan

lessons with some concrete activities like learning objects and conversations. Abstract

activities such as analyzing sentence structures or memorizing grammar rules should be

avoided when teaching 7 to 11 year olds.

In Piaget’s Cognitive Developmental Theory, the final stage is called the formal

operational stage, involving children over the age of 11. Children at this stage can

increase their abilities in building logical thinking, hypothetic-deductive reasoning and

solving complex problems. The ability to apply abstract ideas to concrete experiences is

also possible for children at this stage (Huitt & Hummel, 2003). Seemingly, Piaget

believes that a child at this stage can be considered mentally mature enough to analyze

abstract concepts. Thus, children at this stage are capable of thinking abstractly,

recognizing grammar rules and transferring their knowledge of grammar to actual use.

Based on Piaget’s concrete operational and formal operational stages in child

cognitive development, teachers can understand a child’s current maturity stage and apply

the information to their lessons to coordinate with children’s innate learning abilities.

23

Learners’ Preferred Learning Styles

Recent research on learning styles reveals that learners often prefer their own modes

of learning. The styles of individual learning are very diverse, including visual, aural, or

kinaesthetic learning (Lightbown & Spada, 1999), analytical or holistic approaches

(Celce-Murcia & Hilles, 1988), and direct or indirect learning (Halliwell, 1992). Age also

comes into consideration as children seem to like different learning styles from their adult

counterparts. In Hartnett’s (1974) study, the researcher argues that children tend to favor a

holistic or deductive approach rather than an analytical or inductive one, but adults favor

an analytical or inductive approach rather than a holistic or a deductive one. Since

children are not nearly as cognitively developed as adults for learning grammar, they

prefer concrete learning approaches, such as understanding rules through examples in

comparison to abstract approaches, like inferring grammar rules through studying

examples.

In addition to the age factor, learners from different countries and cultures appear to

prefer one particular mode of learning to the other. For instance, in an observation by Sue

and Kirk (1972), they claim that Asian students tend towards obedience of rules presented

by teachers because most Asian learning environments are teacher-dominated, in which

teachers often generalize rules for learners to minimize ambiguity. Learners in this

environment become more dependent on the regulation of rules by teachers and lose

abilities for self-learning. More evidence comes from Oxford and Burry-Stock’s (1995)

statement in support of the cultural differences influencing teaching and learning. They

argue that Chinese and Japanese students favor learning that engages them in analyzing

details, contrasting information and looking for cause and effect relationships. Based on

24

their findings, it can be inferred that Chinese and Japanese learners tend to prefer rules

regulated by teachers and analytical learning styles.

In an investigation by Reid (1987), the researcher noticed that Korean, Chinese and

Japanese preferred learning by visual stimulation, but Koreans were the strongest visual

learners. Learning with oral drills, conversations or giving speeches could confuse them

and produce anxiety. To be more specific, most Asian students preferred visual learning,

like reading texts, to oral drills. This investigation can be confirmed by Sato’s (1982)

research, in which she compared oral participation and interaction in the classroom

among Asian and non-Asian students. The results showed that Asian students spoke much

less than non-Asian students. Remarkably, Reid’s and Sato’s studies both reveal that

Asian learners prefer visually-stimulated activities in learning.

To recapitulate, both age and cultural factors greatly influence learners’ preference

of learning styles. It is important to inform teachers of how their students absorb and

process information in the classroom and thereby avoid a mismatch between instructional

approaches and learning styles.

Teachers’ Preferred Instruction Methods

Just as individuals prefer different learning styles, language teachers prefer specific

styles of teaching in the classroom as well. The literature suggests a rich array of

instructional methods commonly used by teachers, including learner-centered and

teacher-centered (Paul, 2003), covert and overt (Celce-Murcia & Hills, 1988), deductive

and inductive (Yawalak, 1997), fluency-focused and accuracy-focused (Thornbury, 1999),

direct and indirect (Yorio, 1980), and form-based or meaning-based (Ur, 1988). In a

25

cursory review of literature on teaching styles, we find that teachers from different

cultures are likely to select different instructional methods. In support, Liu and Littlewood

(1997) declare that most East Asian language teachers prefer to use grammar-translation

as well as teacher-dominated approaches. Apparently, Asian teachers seem to highly value

grammar instruction and consider overt teaching of rules as beneficial to the students. Ur

(1996) suggests that overt teaching, like the use of terminology, is more helpful for older

and more analytically-minded learners.

Besides grammar-based instructional methods, other approaches that integrate

grammar into communication-based courses yield positive results for meaningful

grammar learning. One example supporting the combination of forms and meanings

comes from research of primary ESL programs in Quebec by Lightbown and Spada

(1994). They declared that their research “has also shown that an exclusive focus on

meaning-based activities, to the exclusion of form-focused activities, may set a limit on

the success of the programs, which could be passed if there were a better balance of

attention to form and meaning” (p. 576). This notion seems to fit into a concept proposed

by Celce-Murcia (1992) that a combination of both discourse-based and context-based

grammar instruction can be considered a part of effective language teaching. Hartnett

(1974) also states that the best grammar course is to integrate both inductive and

deductive approaches in EFL classrooms.

As indicated above, the selection of teaching methods is either form-based or

meaning-based and most likely influences learning outcome. Yorio (1986) states that if

the instructional approach is not in harmony with learners’ beliefs, poor learning results

26

can be expected. In view of these ideas, we conclude that instructors’ preferences are also

essential factors in effective instruction.

In this chapter, I discussed the definition of grammar from a pedagogical perspective,

and presented the major arguments shown in the literature with regard to grammar

instruction and its impacts on language learning. Finally, I examined the factors of

learners’ cognitive abilities, learning styles and instructional methods that cast a

significant influence on the learning and teaching of grammar in the classroom. The next

chapter will discuss the methodology that I used to collect and compare the opinions of

teachers and students toward the role of grammar instruction in classroom language

learning.

27

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

As discussed in the first chapter, elementary school teachers and students hold fairly

different views toward the advantages and disadvantages of implementing grammar

instruction in the classroom. To understand how their perceptions of grammar might

influence classroom teaching and learning, I adopted a survey study to collect and

compare their opinions toward the role of grammar in classroom language learning. In

this chapter, I will briefly introduce the research questions, research methods, subjects

recruited, design of questionnaires, pilot study and the procedures used for formal data

collection.

Research Questions

To achieve the research purpose mentioned above, relevant facts and opinions will

be collected from both teachers and students in connection to the following issues: (1)

teachers’ viewpoints on grammar instruction, (2) teachers’ current instruction methods

with regard to grammar, (3) learners’ perception of the usefulness of classroom grammar

instruction.

The following questions corresponding to the three issues are raised:

1. Do language teachers consider grammar instruction an essential part of English

learning for 5th and 6th graders?

2. Should grammar be taught to 5th and 6th graders from the perspective of

28

language teachers?

3. Do language teachers include grammar teaching in their current classrooms?

4. What are the most commonly used methods and techniques for grammar

instruction in the classroom?

5. Do 5th and 6th graders consider grammar instruction necessary or unnecessary in

the classroom?

6. What are 5th and 6th graders’ learning preferences for grammar instruction in the

classroom?

Research Method

As stated in the previous section, the research questions that I have raised mainly

concern the perceptions and attitudes of teachers and students toward grammar instruction

in the classroom. To gather valid information from a large number of teachers and

students, I chose a survey study as the basis of my research design. According to Brown

and Rogers (2002), surveys, in either the form of interviews or questionnaires, have been

widely applied to gathering and describing educational information for years (p. 142).

Moreover, from the experiences of many educational researchers, surveys not only are

effective but also give revealing answers to important educational questions. However,

questionnaire surveys might also have several weaknesses; to name a few, respondents

often have to choose from predetermined alternatives; and the interpretations of the

designed questions from respondents to researchers might differ.

In light of the inadequacies mentioned above, the research will adopt certain

remedial measures in order to minimize these possible shortcomings. For example,

29

several versions of the questionnaire have been produced and compared to determine their

effectiveness in eliciting valid information from the participants. In addition, I conducted

a pilot study with a small group of participants that reflected the actual subjects in the

formal study. The main purpose of the pilot study was to minimize various technical

problems that might have arisen in the process of designing and administering the

questionnaire. To illustrate, I modified the instructions several times to avoid possible

confusion from the participants when filling out the questionnaires (See Instructions

below for more details). Additionally, for most question items, I included “others” in the

options to look for possible responses that might be otherwise overlooked. Still, as most

of my subjects were elementary school students aged between 11 and 12, I tried to use

language expressions that could be clearly understood by this group of students. Finally,

to obtain participants’ intrinsic opinions, I assured all participants that they could answer

the questions in anonymity and all information gathered through the survey would be kept

strictly confidential.

Participants

The participants for this survey included 159 elementary school teachers and 731

elementary school students. All subjects were recruited from Taipei, covering its 12

divisions of municipal areas, as indicated in Chart 1 below. For the convenience of

sampling, we divided the 12 districts into three main areas--Northern (Beitou and Shihlin

Districts), Central (Neihu, Songshan, Jhongshan, Datong Districts), and Southern

(Nangang, Sinyi, Dan-an, Jhongjheng, Wanhua, Wunshan Districts). Within the three

areas, there were 152 elementary schools altogether in total. To meet the purpose of the

30

current study, only 5th and 6th grade students and their English teachers were sampled. To

secure a sample size that was geographically representative, I chose 6 elementary schools

from the 3 main areas mentioned above, spreading over the entirety of Taipei.

Accordingly, two schools were sampled from the Northern Area, two from the Central

Area and two from the Southern Area. Though the sample used for the current study is

considered to be geographically descriptive, the size of the sample is relatively small,

only 6 out of 152 schools in Taipei, if one evaluates in terms of percentage. To increase

the number of student and teacher participants, I selected the two largest elementary

schools in each area. Further, for each school, I took 4 separate English classes, that is,

two fifth-grade and two six-grade classes respectively. As a result, 24 classes of students

were chosen from 6 schools, with a total of 731 student participants. 159 local 5th and 6th

grade English teachers, sourced from all 152 elementary schools, were recruited as

teacher participants.

Chart 1: 12 Districts of Taipei City

Source: Chunghwa Post Co., Ltd.

31

Instruments

As indicated, the main purpose of my study was to collect and compare the opinions

and attitudes of teachers and students toward the role of grammar instruction in the

classroom. To do so, I designed two separate questionnaires--one for local elementary

school teachers and the other for elementary school students. The questionnaires were

originally written in Chinese (See Appendixes C & E) and then translated into English

(Appendixes D & F). The complete teacher and student questionnaires consist of three

sections respectively, including instructions, a personal data form, and the main body of

the survey. In the following sections, I will briefly discuss how I designed the questions in

order to extract useful information for my study.

Instructions

The first part of the questionnaires for both teachers and students contained a brief

section on the instructions for answering the designed questions. To obtain reliable

information, I prepared the instructions in Chinese so that the participants would know

clearly how to mark answers on the spaces provided. To increase the validity of the

answers, the respondents were requested not to leave blanks on any items. The number of

items, and the estimated time to complete the survey was also introduced. In addition to

guidance on how to reply to the questions, I addressed several basic issues that were

pertinent to the rights of the participants regarding my research. First, I described the

purpose of my research and why they were recruited as the subjects for the study. Most

important of all, the participants were assured the confidentiality of the information they

provided. I promised that their responses would be used strictly for academic analyses

32

and not for other purposes (See Appendixes C, D, E & F for a complete version of the

instructions in both English and Chinese).

Respondents’ Personal Data

The second part of the questionnaires was devised to collect background information

from teachers and students. For the teacher questionnaire, 6 items were designed, gender

(item 1), age (item 2), educational background (item 3), years of teaching experience

(item 4), class grade (item 5), class size (item 6). For the student questionnaire, 5 items

were asked, gender (item 1), school (item 2), grade (item 3), years of previous English

study (item 4), extra English lessons outside class (item 5). Item 2 ‘school’ was an

open-response question while all other questions were made up of selected-response

items. Please see Appendixes C, D, E and F for the complete version of the respondents’

background information.

The Questionnaire for Teachers

As described in the previous section, the first two parts of the questionnaires

contained instructions and personal data questions that were almost identical for both

teachers and students. The third part or main body of the questionnaires; however,

consisted of two different lists of questions and response options to investigate the

opinions of teachers and students toward grammar instruction. To illustrate, I will first

discuss how I designed questions for the teacher questionnaire and then discuss the

questions for the student questionnaire in the next section.

33

To begin with, the intention of Items 7, 8 and 9 is to solicit teachers’ opinions about

grammar instruction and the reasons for either supporting or opposing grammar

instruction in the classroom. Items 8 and 9 are presented in the format of

selected-response items with 9 options respectively. It is worth mentioning that the

multiple options designed here are based on the reviews of related literature as well as my

informal interviews with elementary school teachers and students detailed in Chapter 1.

To make statistical analyses informative and revealing in the future, I asked teachers to

rank the top 3 reasons why they viewed grammar instruction as important or unimportant

for Items 8 and 9. Table 1 presents the questions for Items 7, 8 and 9 and the options for

Items 8 and 9. Please see Appendixes C and D for the complete version of the third

section of the questionnaire.

34

Table 1 Teachers’ Views and Reasons for and against Grammar Instruction

7. How do I view grammar instruction to Grade 5 and 6 level learners?

8. Rank three reasons why I view grammar instruction definitely important or important to Grade 5 and 6 elementary level learners.

Grammar can help elementary students construct more accurate sentences (Thornbury, 1999).

Grammar can help elementary students use various structures to express thoughts (Batstone,

1994).

Grammar can help elementary students speak better (Celce-Murcia, 1991).

Learning grammar late will cause learners’ deficiency in speaking, reading…(Batstone, 1994).

Grammar enables students to acquire a sense of accomplishments (Larsen-Freeman, 2003).

Grammar can help students pass various kinds of tests (Chen, 2003).

Grammar instruction is a solution for time-constraint problems (Sledd, 1996).

5th and 6th graders are cognitively ready for grammar instruction (Huitt & Hummel, 2003).

Grammar instruction can fulfill the expectations from parents and schools (Cargill, 1990).

9. Rank three reasons why I view grammar instruction unimportant or definitely

unimportant to Grade 5 and 6 elementary level learners. Successful English learning does not depend on grammar learning (Krashen, 1983).

Grammar cannot help learners transfer its rules to meaningful use (Larsen-Freeman, 2003).

Grammar will hinder elementary learners’ communication abilities (Krashen & Terrel, 1983).

Learning grammar too early will cause learners’ deficiency in speaking, reading…(Huang, 1983)

Grammar can frustrate elementary level learners (Allen, 1972; Haussamen, 1993; Murdick, 1996).

Elementary level learners do not like grammar instruction (Thornbury, 1999).

Elementary level learners cannot learn grammar well in so few class hours (Johnston & Goettsch,

2000).

5th and 6th graders are not cognitively ready for grammar instruction (Sutherland, 1981).

Grammar instruction cannot fulfill the expectations from parents and schools (Chen, 2003).

35

Secondly, the intention of Items 10, 11, 12 and 15 is to examine teachers’

perceptions on the aptness of implementing grammar lessons to 5th and 6th graders and the

reasons for either including or excluding grammar instruction in their current classrooms.

As mentioned above, the 9 multiple options for Item 12 are designed according to

literature relating to grammar instruction and my own observations. The options for Item

15 are almost identical to those for Item 12. To further clarify the dominant factors

forming their choices and deepen our understanding of teachers’ classroom practice, I

requested teachers to rank the top 3 reasons why they included or excluded grammar

lessons for Items 12 and 15. Table 2 shows the questions for Items 10, 11, 12 and 15 and

options for Items 12 and 15. Please see Appendixes C and D for the complete version of

the third section of the questionnaire.

36

Table 2

Teachers’ Views and Reasons for Including and Excluding Grammar Instruction to Grade 5 and 6 Level Learners

10. How do I think English teachers teach 5th and 6th graders grammar in classrooms? 11. Do I include grammar teaching in my current classrooms? 12. Rank three reasons why I include grammar instruction in my current classrooms. Grammar instruction is easier to prepare (Thornbury, 1999).

Grammar instruction can reach better learning results (Thornbury, 1999).

Grade 5 and 6 level learners are cognitively ready for grammar instruction (Huitt & Hummel,

2003).

Grammar instruction can suit the class levels (Thornbury, 1999).

Grammar instruction can suit the class size (Thornbury, 1999).

Grammar instruction can meet the interests and needs of 5th and 6th graders (Yorio, 1986).

Grammar instruction can help coordinate with Grade 1-9 Curricula (Appendix A).

Grammar instruction works with the available materials and sources (Thornbury, 1999).

Grammar instruction fits the teaching guidelines by the MOE (Appendix A).

15. Rank three reasons why I do not include grammar instruction in my current classrooms. Grammar instruction takes too much time to prepare.

Grammar instruction cannot reach better learning results.

Grade 5 and 6 level learners are not cognitively ready for grammar instruction.

Grammar instruction cannot suit students’ English levels.

Grammar instruction cannot suit the number of the students.

Grammar instruction cannot meet the interests and needs of 5th and 6th graders.

Grammar instruction cannot help coordinate with Grade 1-9 Curricula.

Grammar instruction cannot work with available materials and sources.

Grammar instruction does not fit the current trend of teaching.

37

Thirdly, the main purpose of Items 13 and 14 is to survey teachers’ preferred

methods of grammar instruction and their current grammar practice. 15 options for Item

13 are presented in the format of selected-response items divided into six categories.

Teachers were requested to select one option from each subcategory. In addition, the

multiple options were all based on reviewed literature on the role of grammar instruction.

The gathered data can be analyzed and compared with students’ ideal instruction methods.

Table 3 displays the questions for Items 13 and 14 as well as options for Item 13. Please

see Appendixes C and D for the complete version of the third section of the questionnaire.

Table 3

Teachers’ Current Grammar Practice

13. What methods do I often use for grammar instruction in my current classrooms? direct teaching (Celce-Murcia & Hills, 1988) indirect teaching (Celce-Murcia & Hills, 1988) inductive teaching (Yawalak, 1997) deductive teaching (Yawalak, 1997) with the use of terminology (Ur, 1996) without the use of terminology (Ur, 1996) listening and speaking focused grammar practice (Garvie, 1991) reading and writing focused grammar practice (Garvie, 1991) rules-memorization focused grammar practice (Lightbown & Spada, 1994) meaning- based teaching (Lightbown & Spada, 1994) structure-based teaching (Lightbown &a

a study of english grammar instruction in elementary schools in...

Documents