Perception Differences of EFL Teachers and …...communicative skills by raising learners’ consciousness. Once taught a set of grammar rules, learners were believed to practice them

英語教學 E nglish Teaching & L earning

33. 1 (Spring 2009): 101-146

Perception Differences of EFL Teachers and Students

in Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

Ming-chu Liao

National Changhua

University of Education

[email protected]

Hung-chun Wang

Hsin Sheng College of

Medical Care and Management

[email protected]

Abstract

This comprehensive study investigates differences in EFL teacher

and student perceptions regarding the role of grammar instruction

and error correction in improving English language competency.

The participants were 41 high school teachers and 371 high

school students, recruited from five schools in Taiwan. Data were

collected from questionnaires and telephone interviews. Based on

Schulz (2001) and Borg (1998) and modified by the researchers,

the questionnaires for students and teachers consisted of seven

focal categories, including error analysis, reference to students’

L1, grammatical terminology, grammar and communicative

ability, grammar rules, grammar practice, and error correction.

Results indicated that the perspectives high school students and

teachers had towards various aspects of grammar instruction and

error correction diverged on several points, most markedly in

instructional language, grammar practice activities, and the

necessity of error correction. Subsequent telephone interviews

with 15 teachers and 32 students were conducted to elicit further

information resulting in the perceptual differences. Based on the

findings, pedagogical implications are provided to bridge the gaps

between EFL students and teachers in grammar instruction and

error correction. Finally, the idea of a focus-on-form approach in

EFL classrooms is suggested.

Key Words: perception difference, grammar instruction, error

correction


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

102

INTRODUCTION

Foreign and second language pedagogy has witnessed a debate

over the past 30 years regarding the effectiveness of explicit grammar

teaching and corrective feedback in language classrooms. In line with

the changing pedagogical shifts from grammar translation and

audiolingualism to communicative language teaching, discussion of

these issues has led to presentation of research both supporting and

undermining the importance of grammar instruction and error

correction. Questions like Can or should grammar be taught? and Is

error correction really helpful? compel researchers to rate the value

of grammar teaching and error correction (see, for example, Krashen,

1985; Leki, 1990; Lyster, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; Truscott, 1996,

1999; VanPatten, 1986a, 1986b).

With increased concern for learners’ communicative ability, the

role of grammar teaching has declined. As a focus on linguistic form,

grammar teaching is often identified as being the opposite of the

meaning-based approach. Since “attention to form in the input

competes with attention to meaning” (VanPatten, 1990, p. 296),

grammar instruction is often regarded as a block hampering learners’

communicative ability, while meaning-based instruction develops

communicative skills. In Krashen’s (1981, 1994) Input Hypothesis, he

argued that it is comprehensible input and the affective filter that

determine the outcome of second language acquisition. He contended

having an appropriate learning environment that contains sufficient

comprehensible input and results in low learning anxiety facilitates

language acquisition more effectively than formal instruction. In

Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

103

addition, other criticisms of formal grammar teaching point to it being

“unhelpful” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 2) and “limited” (Krashen, 1982, p. 112).

Objections to direct grammar correction have been debated in

the past, particularly in relation to its ineffectiveness and possible

harmful side effects. Strong opponents of the effectiveness of error

correction include Truscott (1996, 1999) and Krashen (1985).

Truscott (1999, p. 437) contended that “oral [grammar] correction

does not improve learners’ ability to speak grammatically.” His belief

in the problems associated with oral grammar correction and its

harmful effects on teaching and learning led Truscott to suggest the

abandonment of oral grammar correction altogether. Also, based upon

his adherence to the Input Hypothesis, Krashen (1985) concerned

himself with the affective problems caused by corrective feedback.

He claimed that the correction process increased the risk of

heightened learner anxiety and hindered learner performance. Teacher

feedback on errors may also result in “embarrassment, anger,

inhibition, feelings of inferiority, and a generally negative attitude

toward the class” (Truscott, 1999, p. 441). The failure of grammar

correction as evidenced by a large body of research (see Truscott,

1996 for a review) has minimized its role in language classrooms.

Although previous research has shown grammar teaching and

error correction to be ineffective or even harmful, a handful of studies

(e.g., Brandl, 1995; Doughty, 1991; Fotos, 1994; Lyster et al., 1999;

Omaggio, 1993) have stressed the importance and efficacy of

grammar teaching and feedback on errors. Sharwood-Smith (1981)

argued that grammar teaching facilitated the development of

communicative skills by raising learners’ consciousness. Once taught

a set of grammar rules, learners were believed to practice them and


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

104

use rules subconsciously in real-life communication. As for teacher

feedback on errors, Omaggio (1993) argued that it allows a learner to

modify his/her inter-language grammar. In a response to Truscott’s

(1999) work, Lyster et al. (1999) also highlighted the feasibility and

effectiveness of corrective feedback. Citing empirical studies, they

argued not only that “learners benefit only from developmentally

matched instruction and feedback,” (p. 459; also see Lightbown, 1998)

but that feedback on errors is “pragmatically feasible, potentially

effective, and, in some cases, necessary” (p. 457).

As the debate over explicit grammar teaching and error

correction goes on, the practice of grammar instruction and feedback

on errors continues to receive wider recognition in ESL/EFL

pedagogy. Increasing evidence (e.g., Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986;

Schulz, 1996, 2001) has shown that explicit grammar instruction and

error correction are often considered by students to be largely helpful

in language learning. Schulz (1996) examined North American

students’ and teachers’ views regarding grammar instruction and error

correction. Results of the study demonstrated that a focus on form is

largely favored by students. His follow-up study (2001) dealt with

socio-cultural influences on student and teacher perceptions of

grammar instruction and corrective feedback. The primary focus was

whether students and teachers held different beliefs towards the role

of grammar across North American and Colombian cultures. Data

were collected from 122 EFL teachers and 607 EFL learners in

Colombia using a questionnaire, and these data were then compared

with Schulz’s earlier study in 1996. Schulz discovered that, for both

ethnic groups, both teachers and students preferred and had faith in


105

formal grammar instruction and error correction. Based upon these

two exploratory studies by Schulz (1996, 2001), grammar instruction

and error correction are now considered common practice in

second/foreign language pedagogy.

More recently, SLA researchers have called for the need to

rethink how grammatical knowledge could be taught in a

communicative classroom (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis,

Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001). Substantial attention has been paid to

conflating a former dichotomy (form-teaching vs. meaning-focused

instruction) into one complementary model that allows grammar to be

taught in a meaningful, communicative way. One of the pioneering

contributors is Long (1991), who recognized the necessity of teaching

form in the language classroom and suggested that it be incorporated

into meaning-based activities. He termed this pedagogical approach

focus-on-form instruction. Following Long, Ellis et al. (2001) used

different labels to draw a distinction between the traditional

focus-on-forms approach and the novel focus-on-form instruction,

arguing for the need to teach grammar in a communicative way. The

focus-on-forms approach teaches pre-selected specific grammatical

rules, while focus-on-form instruction addresses grammatical forms in

a meaning-based communicative task. In addition, the purpose of

focus-on-form instruction is to help learners shape communication,

“achieved through attention to form when learners are performing a

communicative task.” (Ellis et al., 2001, p. 411)

Following the recent trend of focus-on-form instruction in

communicative language teaching (CLT), Brown (2001) also

proposed essential guidelines for grammar instruction, which placed

great emphasis on communicative contexts, communicative purposes,


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

106

and learners’ intrinsic motivation. Another vital notion, as Brown

made clear, is that grammar instruction in CLT should “promote

accuracy within fluent, communicative language.” (p. 363) Grammar

instruction, combined with meaningful, communicative activities,

seems to promise a resolution to the perennial dispute over whether to

teach grammar.

Rationale for the Current Study

The effect of grammar instruction and error correction, still

remains inconclusive; we hypothesized that grammar teaching and

error correction facilitated foreign/second language learning, as

evidenced by a large body of research (e.g., Carroll & Swain, 1993;

Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Sharwood- Smith, 1981; also see

Lyster et al., 1999 for a review of effects of oral grammar correction).

Our belief in the indispensable nature of grammar teaching and error

correction laid the groundwork for the current study. As reflected by

Schulz (1996, 2001), a majority of ESL/EFL students and teachers

consider grammar instruction and error correction to be extremely

valuable. It is therefore important not only to recognize appropriate

grammar teaching techniques that stand on the compromise of

form-focused instruction and the meaning-based approach, but also to

explore how teachers and students perceive grammar teaching and

correction. In Taiwan, little is known about student and teacher views

on grammar instruction and error correction. For this reason, we

borrowed the research frame of Schulz’s two exploratory studies, to

scrutinize how local students and teachers perceived roles of grammar

teaching and correction, in hope of providing pedagogical


107

implications for teaching grammar in EFL contexts.

Research on teacher cognition and student perception has

received increasing attention from SLA researchers in recent years.

Teacher cognition can be defined as a teacher’s understanding of how

a language is learned and should be taught, which has a significant

impact on the teacher’s actual instructional practices (Borg, 1999;

Fang, 1996; Kagan, 1990). Burns (1996) and Johnson (1994) also

recognized the importance of studying teacher beliefs, attitudes, and

theoretical knowledge and assumptions in educational research. In

common with teacher perception, student perception has received a

growing interest in SLA research. A handful of exploratory studies

have tied student perception to learner motivation and learning

strategies (e.g., Fox, 1993; Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995). That is, there

is a close bond between students’ beliefs and how students learn and

how well they learn. In this study, the desire to understand teacher and

student perception motivated the researchers to investigate how

differently teacher and students perceived the role of grammar

instruction and error correction.

Discussion of teacher and student perceptions towards grammar

instruction and error correction is not a new idea, yet little attention

has been paid to this issue, particularly in EFL settings. In Taiwan,

some local studies have concluded that grammar teaching is

unavoidable (Lai, 2004; Tse, 2004), but very few researchers (e.g.,

Lee, 2004) have investigated and compared student and teacher views

on these two issues. Most studies have so far focused primarily on

either the teacher or student side. However, any mismatches between

student and teacher perceptions about learning may negatively

influence instructional performance and learning outcomes. The


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

108

raising of bilateral awareness of each other’s perceptions is necessary

in order to achieve a balance that can establish teaching-learning

correspondence. This study, with a direct focus on both teacher and

student views, aimed to uncover any perceptual differences regarding

the role of grammar instruction and error correction.

METHOD

Participants

In order to obtain a more complete picture of EFL senior high

school teachers’ and students’ perceptions of grammar instruction and

error correction, the researchers aimed to include student participants

of high-, mid-, and low-proficiency levels, instead of narrowly

focusing on one specific proficiency level. Following this prerequisite,

we selected five senior high schools based on their students’

performance in the Basic Competence Test (BCT), as well as on

nationwide school rankings. These two factors may be considered as

effective predictors of participants’ proficiency levels. These schools,

of which three are public schools and two are private schools, are

located in the northern, central, southern, eastern, and off-shore

regions of Taiwan. The language proficiency of the students covered

the high-, mid- and low-level range.

With two whole classes selected from each school, a total of 41

English teachers and 371 students were recruited (Table 1). Of the

371 students, 247 participants (66.58%) were in their third-year, 79

(21.29%) were in their first-year, and 45 (12.13%) were in their

second-year. Less than half (44%) held a GEPT certificate at the


109

elementary level, whereas 21% of them had earned a GEPT certificate

at the intermediate level, and 35% of them had no certification. Of the

41 teachers, 8 were selected from northern regions and 12 from

central regions, with 7 teachers drawn from each of the southern,

eastern and off-shore regions. Aged between 27 and 48 years, the

English teachers were non-native speakers of English, with an

average of over 5 years of teaching experience in senior high schools.

With respect to their educational background, they were all English

majors. Nearly one third of them (33 %) had obtained a master’s

degree, 30% of them had completed a 40-credit certificate program,

28% had completed a summer TESOL Certificate program, and only

9% held just a bachelor’s degree.

Table 1

Demographic Data of the Respondents

North Central South East Off-Shore Total

Student 87 65 72 72 75 371

Teacher 8 12 7 7 7 41

Instruments

Student and teacher questionnaires. Two survey questionnaires

were designed for students and teachers respectively to elicit their

perceptions of grammar instruction and error correction in the EFL

context. The student questionnaire was written from learner’s perspective,

whereas the teacher questionnaire was phrased from instructor’s

viewpoint. Both questionnaires were initially constructed based upon

Schulz (2001). Schulz investigated cultural influences on teacher and


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

110

student perceptions of grammar instruction and error correction. In his

study, perceptual differences were measured by rating 13 statements

adapted for the student and teacher versions. In addition to the 13

statements taken directly from Schulz’s study (2001), we further

added 17 statements, totaling 30 statements in our questionnaires. The

items on the two questionnaire forms addressed identical concepts,

with the only difference being in the actual wording. Questions on the

student questionnaire (S) were rewritten to reflect a teacher’s

perspective on the teacher questionnaire (T).

Our designs were grounded in Borg’s (1998) study, which

characterized six teacher behaviors concerning grammar teaching:

Error analysis, reference to students’ L1, grammatical terminology,

grammar rules, practicing grammar, and grammar and communicative

ability. One additional dimension, general perceptions towards grammar

teaching and error correction, was also central to this study. Therefore,

all 30 statements investigated these seven constructs. The questionnaires

were constructed on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly

disagree (1), to disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree (4).

Telephone interviews. For data triangulation, post-data collection

telephone interviews were conducted with 15 teachers and 32 students.

Those teacher and student interviewees participated in the interviews

voluntarily, and they were informed that telephone interviews would

be recorded for research purposes. Each interview followed the

format of a semi-structured interview, with questions posed to identify

reasons that determined student and teacher views. The nature of a

semi-structured interview allowed our interviewees to clarify their

views in detail, which may have been ignored in the questionnaire.


111

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected in spring 2008. Aiming at a comprehensive

investigation, the researchers contacted English teachers in five

regions of Taiwan. After giving their consent to participating in the

study, the teachers helped distribute the teacher questionnaires to their

colleagues in their five respective senior high schools. They then

helped distribute the student questionnaires to their students. To

increase the validity of the responses, all the students completed the

questionnaires in class, under the supervision of their English

teachers. The response rate was high for both teacher and student

questionnaires. A total of 50 teacher questionnaires were distributed,

with 41 returned (82%), and 380 student questionnaires were

distributed, with 371 returned (97%). The researchers then began the

task of analyzing the responses. To further investigate the reasons

behind respondents’ differences, one researcher conducted individual

telephone interviews with 15 teachers and 32 students on a voluntary

basis. In analyzing the produced data, the researchers focused not

only on the differences in the students’ and teachers’ views, but also

on the causes behind their perceptual differences.

To evaluate differences between student and teacher perceptions,

the results of both questionnaires were analyzed by running an

Independent Samples t-test. This analysis would highlight any

differences in statements on both questionnaires. Recorded telephone

interviews were transcribed verbatim. Following transcription,

through careful reading of the transcribed data researchers identified

features that could represent teacher and student beliefs towards

grammar instruction and error correction.


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

112

RESULTS

The questionnaire statements which indicated statistically

significant differences between teacher and student perceptions are

discussed in this section. The interview data was cross-checked to

identify factors that influenced their perception differences based upon

seven dimensions that underpinned our questionnaire design: general

perceptions towards grammar teaching and error correction, error

analysis, reference to students’ L1, grammatical terminology, grammar

rules, practicing grammar, and grammar and communicative ability.

Questionnaire Data

Perceptions of grammar instruction. As Table 2 depicts, on the

whole both teachers and students regard the teaching of grammar as

problematic to say the least. Only 38.3% of the students expressed

great interest in learning grammar, and even fewer teachers (17.1%)

believed that students enjoy learning grammar. There is significant

divergence in the perceptions of the students and teachers, with

students being more interested in learning grammar than was assumed

to be the case by their teachers.

In Table 3, less than half of the students and teachers agreed that

more time should be allocated to teaching grammar rules. A mere

43.7% of students and 29.3% of teachers supported spending lots of

class time on the explanation of such rules. Once again, significant

divergence in perception between students and teachers indicated that

students were more supportive of increasing time spent on this area of

study than their teachers.


113

Table 2

Interest in Grammar Instruction

#5: (S) I enjoy learning about grammar.

(T) I think students usually enjoy learning about grammar.

Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value

Student 38.3 2.28 .786 5.07**

Teacher 17.1 1.78 .571

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Table 3

Allocation of Time for Teaching Grammar Rules

#6: (S) (T) English classes should allocate plenty of time to teach grammar

rules.


Student 43.7 2.40 .723 3.94**

Teacher 29.3 2.02 .570

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

As shown in Table 4, students and teachers hold comprehension

of grammar terms in high esteem. Nearly two-thirds of teachers

(65.9%) and the majority of students (80.9%) believed terminology to

be an important aspect of grammar learning. A significant level of

statistical dissimilitude indicates that once again students were more

in agreement with the statement that it is important to understand

grammar terminology than their teachers were.


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

114

Table 4

Importance of Terminology in Grammar Instruction

#8: (S) (T) Understanding grammar terminology is very important to the

study of grammar.


Student 80.9 2.95 .713 2.77**

Teacher 65.9 2.63 .581

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

As for the role of grammar in teaching reading skills, Table 5

outlines the rates of perception difference between students and

teachers. In response to lectures on reading texts given by teachers, a

higher percentage of students (74.1%) and comparatively fewer

teachers (51.2%) perceived the study of grammar structures in the text

as being of most benefit to them. Significant disparity in results also

suggests that it was students rather teachers who considered study of

grammar structures in reading texts to be a much more helpful form

of instruction.

As can be seen in Table 6, the students and teachers

demonstrated a similar trend of perspectives toward the need for

group grammar practice. A large proportion of students (72.5%) and

an even higher percentage of teachers (95.6%) agreed teachers should

design activities to have students practice in groups after the lecture

on grammar rules. A statistically-significant difference in results

between students and teachers illustrates that students favored group

grammar practice after grammar instruction more than teachers.


115

Table 5

Role of Grammar in Reading Instruction

#11: (S) (T) When the teacher lectures on a reading text, the study of

grammar structures in the text is most helpful to me/students.


Student 74.1 2.84 .692 3.62**

Teacher 51.2 2.44 .550

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Table 6

Need for Group Grammar Practice

#18: (S) (T) Teachers should design activities which enable students to

practice in groups after the lecture on grammar rules.


Student 72.5 2.89 .715 -2.91**

Teacher 95.6 3.22 .475

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

With respect to the need for individual grammar practice, the

salient rating of perception difference between students and teachers

is specified in Table 7. Despite over half of the students (60.7%)

believing teachers should design activities to have students practice

alone after the lecture on grammar rules, the overwhelming majority

of teachers (90.3%) thought they should have students practice

individually. Looking at such a significant statistical difference, it is

clear that compared to their students, the teachers placed greater value

on individual grammar practice after explanation of grammar rules.


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

116

Together, Tables 6 and 7 seem to reveal a tendency of group grammar

practice being favored by both students and teachers over individual

grammar practice.

Table 7

Need for Individual Grammar Practice

#19: (S) (T) Teachers should design activities which allow students time

for solo practice after the lecture on grammar rules.


Student 60.7 2.70 .754 -3.60**

Teacher 90.3 3.02 .524

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

In Table 8, the apparent differences between students and

teachers regarding how use of a first language can assist grammar

instruction are presented. Slightly over half of the students (55.8%)

considered the use of Chinese instead of English to teach grammar as

being more beneficial to students. However, an overwhelmingly

greater number of teachers (95.1%) believed that using Chinese was

Table 8

The Role of First Language in Assisting Grammar Instruction

#22: (S) (T) It is more useful to teach grammar in Chinese than English.


Student 55.8 2.59 .795 -5.41**

Teacher 95.1 3.10 .539

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01


117

more helpful to the study of grammar than not doing so. Significant

dissimilarity in their perceptions evidences that teachers valued the

use of their native language in assisting grammar instruction more

than their students did.

Perceptions of error correction. As Table 9 shows, students

and teachers hold clearly different attitudes towards teacher

correction. More than half of the teachers (68.3%) felt that most

students do not like to be corrected by teachers in class, yet only a

small number of students (22.4%) thought this way. Significant

differences suggest that students, as opposed to teachers, greatly

agreed that they preferred to be corrected by teachers in class.

Table 9

Attitudes Towards Teacher Correction

#23: (S) I don’t like to be corrected by teacher in class.

(T) I think most students prefer not to be corrected by teachers in class.


Student 22.4 2.05 .761 -5.90**

Teacher 68.3 2.78 .652

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

As can be seen in Table 10, students and teachers differently

perceived the necessity of oral grammar correction on a large scale. Only

a fifth of students (21.0%) agreed that teachers should not correct

students if those errors do not hinder communication. However, based on

the same statement, the majority of teachers (80.5%) chose not to correct

grammar errors made by their students. Significant divergence in results


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

118

evidences that, compared with students, teachers felt that grammar errors

should not be corrected if communication is not obstructed.

Table 10

Need for Grammar Correction in Speaking

#24: (S) (T) When students make grammatical errors in spoken English, as

long as those errors do not hinder communication, teachers should

not correct students.


Student 21.0 1.99 .787 -9.43**

Teacher 80.5 2.85 .527

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

On the other hand, Table 11 demonstrates the similarity in

perspectives held by students and teachers in terms of the necessity of

grammar correction in writing. Around two thirds of students (68.5%)

felt cheated when their writing errors were not corrected by teachers,

whereas slightly fewer teachers (56.1%) thought students would react

negatively if they avoided correcting grammar errors in writing.

Table 11

Need for Grammar Correction in Writing

#25: (S) I feel cheated when teachers do not correct grammatical errors in

my written work.

(T) I think most students feel cheated if teachers do not correct

grammatical errors in their written work.


Student 68.5 2.85 .788 3.23**

Teacher 56.1 2.44 .594

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01


119

As shown in Table 12, there is a great division between students

and teachers in their attitudes toward grammar correction in speaking.

The vast majority of students (90.8%) want teachers to correct their

grammatical errors in speech, whereas only a minority of teachers

(39.0%) supported this approach. This complete lack of correlation

suggests that many more students than teachers assume such

corrections are appropriate.

Table 12

Attitudes for Grammar Correction in Speaking

#26: (S) When I make grammatical errors in spoken English, I wish for

teachers to correct them.

(T) When students make grammatical errors in spoken English, their

errors should be corrected.


Student 90.8 3.22 .648 9.61**

Teacher 39.0 2.20 .641

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

However, the similarly positive perspectives of students and

teachers towards grammar correction in writing can be seen in Table

13. An overwhelming majority of students (95.7%) and marginally

fewer teachers (90.3%) indicates that both groups believed teachers

should correct students’ grammatical errors in writing. Despite this

similarity, a significant statistical difference between the students and

teachers shows that students held stronger attitudes towards grammar

correction in writing than their teachers.


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

120

Table 13

Attitudes for Grammar Correction in Writing

#27: (S) When I make grammatical errors in written English, I hope that

teachers will correct them.

(T) When students make grammatical errors in written English, their

errors should be corrected.


Student 95.7 3.34 .596 4.32**

Teacher 90.3 2.95 .545

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

With respect to the preference for peer correction versus teacher

correction, Table 14 presents the response difference between students

and teachers. A majority of students (60.7%) and relatively more

teachers (78.0%) responded in the same way. Significant divergence

in the results demonstrates that, a greater degree, teachers agreed that

students preferred peer correction to teacher correction.

Table 14

Preference for Peer Correction vs. Teacher Correction

#28: (S) I like to be corrected by peers in groups more than being corrected

by the teacher in front of the class.

(T) I think students like to be corrected by peers in groups more than

being corrected by the teacher in front of the class.


Student 60.7 2.71 .783 -3.26**

Teacher 78.0 2.93 .346

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01


121

In Table 15, the statement pertains to the influence of grammar

correction on self-learning. Both students and teachers tended to

believe that grammar correction benefited the student being corrected.

A majority of students (96.5%) and slightly more teachers (97.6%)

felt correction was of benefit to the student being corrected.

Significant statistical disparity once again indicates that students

placed more importance on the impact of self-correction in assisting

self-learning than teachers did.

Table 15

Impact of Self-Correction on Assisting Self-Learning

#29: (S) When teachers correct my grammatical errors, it is beneficial to

my learning.

(T) When teachers correct a student’s grammatical errors, it is

beneficial to his/her learning.


Student 96.5 3.31 .554 6.56**

Teacher 97.6 2.98 .273

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Similarly, as illustrated in Table 16, both the students and the

teachers thought that when teachers correct a student’s grammatical

errors, it is helpful to other students’ learning. A large proportion of

students (94.3%) and slightly fewer teachers (90.2%) felt it helpful to

classmates’ learning to have teachers correct their errors. The difference

between student and teacher ratings reached a significant level,

suggesting that the assistance students gained from error correction of

peers’ work is more highly valued on the part of students than teachers.


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

122

Table 16

Impact of Self-Correction on Assisting Others’ Learning

#30: (S) When teachers correct my grammatical errors, it is helpful to

other classmates’ learning.

(T) When teachers correct a student’s grammatical errors, it is

helpful to other students’ learning.


Student 94.3 3.25 .576 4.39**

Teacher 90.2 2.95 .384

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Interview Data

Interest, time allocation, terminology in grammar instruction.

The followings are representative entries of students’ and teachers’

replies, recorded during interviews in Chinese and translated into

English by the researchers. Most students regarded grammar as an

important component of foreign language learning. For instance,

Student 1 (S1) is a more exam-oriented grammar learner, who saw

the need to learn English to succeed in regular monthly exams. He

said, “I like to study grammar …grammar is useful…Most of the

monthly exams focused on grammar or were based on

grammar…Learning grammar helps improve my English much

faster…The outcome is more instant than memorizing vocabulary.”

Similarly, our interview data showed that a large number of high

school students regarded the need to learn grammar for the purpose of

getting a good grade in exams. A second factor that could account

for learners’ emphasis on grammar instruction is associated with the

difficulty of learning grammar rules. For instance, S19, saying


123

“Grammar rules are very complicated and difficult to

understand…teachers should spend at least over half of class time to

explain the grammar rules…explanation of the grammar rules are

more necessary than vocabulary,” expressed that grammar rules are

difficult to learn, so a strong focus on grammar instruction in regular

class meetings is necessary. Lastly, as for the learning of grammar

terminology, several student respondents linked the importance of

grammar terminology to the ability to classify different grammar

patterns. For example, S24 reported “I think grammar terminology is

important…terminology used by teachers makes the grammar rules

look systematical…Without the terminology, the grammar rules are

more confusing…can not tell the differences.” The use of grammar

terminology in grammar instruction could help them systematize the

grammar rules they learn.

The teachers had different perceptions. Influenced deeply by

the notion of teaching based upon learners’ communicative needs, far

fewer teachers thought that grammar instruction should dominate

teaching. They tended to designate less class time to explain grammar

rules, attempting to use less grammar terminology which they

considered might easily disinterest students during instruction. Also,

one of the explanations given for not using grammar terminology is

that it could avoid causing any bad feeling among students about

learning grammar rules.

Grammar is of little importance…the prevalence of the

Communicative Approach focuses on communication purpose

of language learning…I feel it opposes the spirits of

Communicative Approach if I spend too much time on grammar

rules…usually less than ten minutes is sufficient. (T4)


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

124

Another respondent, T9, also pointed out that “Grammar is

boring to students…They hate to memorize the terminology…I try

not to emphasize these terminology when explaining the grammar

rules in class…Their hatred for grammar can be minimized this way.”

Preference for group grammar practice over individual

grammar practice. Students preferred group grammar practice owing

to the potential peer assistance available during group interaction.

They were of the opinion that a more knowledgeable peer would help

them when faced with difficulties in learning. Individual grammar

practice confines students to working alone, which could create

increased insecurity about their performance. Lack of peer assistance

could arouse their learning anxiety to a greater extent. Take S12 and

S20 for instance, they respectively responded that “Practicing

grammar in groups is better…I can ask group members about the

newly-taught grammar to clarify my problems” and “If the teacher

asked us to do the grammar practice alone, I can only depend on

myself…I feel insecure…I don’t know whether what I perceive is

correct or not.”

Teachers agreed that group grammar practice has a stronger

impact on enhancing students’ interest in learning and reinforcing

learned rules than individual practice. But from a teacher’s

perspective, individual practice is indispensable because it allows

teachers to understand each student’s progress in learning. T5, saying

that “After teaching grammar rules, practicing in group activities can

activate their interest…through group interaction, the grammar

patterns can be reinforced and made more of an impression,” and T12,

saying that “Students like group activities, but practicing alone is also


125

necessary…teachers can have a better understanding of the whole

class…to know which students in the class didn’t get the grammar

point,” both fully agreed on the importance of group and individual

practices.

Language preference for teaching grammar. A large number

of students expected teachers to use more English in grammar

instruction. They thought grammar rules taught in English could be

more easily memorized and would help them learn to think in English.

In addition, the students believed that since English tests are usually

written in English, teachers should teach grammar by using English,

as it would help them to prepare for English exams. S3 responded that

“I want my English teachers to use English when teaching

grammar…since we are encouraged to think in English, why not learn

the grammar rules taught in English?” S7 similarly reported that

“Grammar rules will make more of an impression if taught in

English…not all the test items are designed in Chinese…students

need to have more exposure to English.”

However, most teachers held the opposite view, believing

Chinese to be more helpful to their students. From their perspective,

using Chinese lowered learner anxiety. In addition, competence in

teaching grammar in English was considered a great challenge to

several teachers. They admitted that they were not able to teach

grammar in English. For instance, T6 pointed out that “Grammar

rules are numerous and difficult…Using Chinese is easier for students

to understand...I don’t have the confidence to teach grammar in

English…I am afraid using English to teach grammar will make me

fall behind the schedule.” T11 also expressed that “English grammar

can be challenging for many students…Using Chinese makes them


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

126

feel relaxed…students feel better if they do not have to deal with the

language and the content simultaneously.”

Preference for peer correction vs. teacher correction. From the

student perspective, teacher correction was more strongly favored.

Students tended to consider teacher correction more professional,

reliable, and trustworthy, with peer corrections often seen as haphazard

and unreliable. However, our teacher respondents preferred peer

correction to teacher correction mainly for affective consideration. S5

said, “I prefer to be corrected by teachers…Teachers are more

professional in grammar…Their corrections are much more

trustworthy.” S30 reported that “Peer correction is usually indirect

and unclear…I feel less secure for peer corrections…they could have

corrected the grammar errors wrongly…kind of wastes time.” T2 also

indicated that “Students dislike being corrected by their English

teachers…teachers tend to eagerly correct the ungrammatical English

of their students…they imperceptibly impose too much pressure on

the students being corrected…ruins the atmosphere in the English

classroom.”

Peer corrections are definitely more welcome by senior high school

students…students during this stage do not like to have their errors

pointed out directly…they feel hurt or face-threatened …peer

correction works much better…High school students are seeking

peer acceptance. (T15)

Needs and attitudes towards error correction in speaking and

writing. A great number of students wished that their errors could be

corrected by teachers, regardless of whether these occurred in English

speaking or writing. They would feel cheated if their errors in


127

speaking or writing were not corrected. However, teachers thought

most students would prefer not to be corrected in spoken

communication, so they would avoid correcting students’ speaking

errors. In contrast, teachers agreed that errors in writing should be

corrected. Corresponding replies includes “Even if the grammar

errors do not obstruct communication, I still want to be corrected by

teachers…I hope I can speak correct English…Teacher corrections

make me improve in speaking grammatically.” (S12) and “Based on

the Communicative Approach, grammar errors in speaking should be

treated naturally if they do not hinder communication…I will avoid

correcting the speaking errors lest to cause negative feelings to

students.” (T5) The following are two longer entries of student and

teacher respondents.

I feel cheated if the teachers leave my errors there without

correcting them…I feel they do not look at my writing

seriously…A responsible English teacher should correct my

writing, instead of asking group discussion or my own reflection

to correct the errors. (S20)

Students should be corrected for their grammar errors…they can

score better in future English writing on the JCEE English

test…Peer correction through discussions can be an interesting

way to correct these errors in writing…The errors corrected this

way save more time…good classroom atmosphere. (T12)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Differences in Perceptions of Grammar Instruction

This study investigated the perceptual differences between


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

128

students and teachers regarding the role of grammar instruction and

error correction in high school classrooms. Results showed most

students held a positive view towards these two issues, a greater

interest in learning grammar, and a belief in the need to allocate more

classroom time for grammar instruction and learning essential

grammar terminology. These results echo the observations in several

previous studies (e.g., Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Chenoweth, Day,

Chun, & Luppescu, 1983), that students held generally favorable

attitudes toward a focus on form in foreign language learning. As for

the teachers, they reacted more negatively to grammar instruction

than the students.

Two possible factors, revealed in the interview data, may

account for the discrepancy between students’ and teachers’ views

regarding grammar instruction. Firstly, teachers were deeply

influenced by the emphasis on communicative ability, and they

seemed to conclude that grammar teaching should be minimized to fit

in a more pragmatic pedagogical approach. Secondly, a factor favoring

group practice is that group interaction usually resulted in a more

harmonious atmosphere, and learners would feel less anxious during

interaction. Teachers valued both group and individual grammar

practice, but they showed a stronger belief in group grammar practice

than the students. They believed group practice not only aroused the

students’ interest for learning grammar, but also enhanced the

effectiveness of the overall learning. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions

also differed in terms of the preferred instructional language for

grammar instruction. The students’ key priority was receiving more

English input, even when teachers were explaining grammar rules,


129

thinking that more exposure to English would help them not only

think in English, but also prepare them for the listening sections of

English exams. However, for teachers, the concern is helping students

to understand the teaching point, and they therefore preferred to teach

grammar using Chinese, believing that grammar rules are difficult to

teach, and therefore to learn, in English. The students’ and teachers’

preferences thus differ in this respect: students believed that teaching

grammar in English is better for their holistic learning, while teachers

believed that teaching grammar in English is not preferable when it

comes to learning complicated grammatical rules.

Differences in Perceptions Towards Error Correction

When it comes to perceptual differences regarding error

correction, teacher correction was more favored by students, who saw

the teacher as the only authority or knowledgeable person in class and

thus expected teacher corrections to be more reliable and worthy than

peer correction. Still, our teacher respondents felt that teacher correction

could easily hurt students’ feelings and arouse students’ anxiety.

The discrepancy between student and teacher attitudes towards

oral and written grammar correction is another focus of our discussion

on error correction. Students expressed strong positive attitudes that

they want teachers to correct oral grammatical errors, whether it affects

communication or not. They also look for teacher corrections for their

writing errors. They had negative perceptions of teachers who do not

correct the errors in their writing. In contrast, teachers had more

conservative attitudes toward correcting speaking errors that do not

hinder communication. To the teachers, grammar teaching seems to

run counter to teaching via communicative activities; therefore, they


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

130

avoid a direct focus on grammar, which they believe would otherwise

hinder the role of communicative abilities in classrooms. Teachers

tend to think highly of peer correction as it saves time and helps to

maintain a positive atmosphere in class; they thus avoid correcting

errors themselves.

Bridging the Gaps

Based upon the above findings, we have identified four

pedagogical implications that could help bridge the gulf between

student and teacher views on how grammar teaching and error

correction should be integrated into EFL language classrooms.

Embedding grammar instruction in meaningful, communicative

activities. As Long (1991) and Ellis et al. (2001) highlighted, form-

focused instruction should be incorporated in meaningful, communicative

activities. They argued that teaching form in a meaning-based approach

for communicative needs helps to develop learners’ grammar knowledge

and communicative skills. This approach “overtly draws students’

attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons

whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication.” (Long,

1991, pp. 45-46) This study also recognizes the value of embedding

grammar teaching into communicative activities. As cited above, our

students considered the study of grammar to be an essential foundation

to the acquisition of English. They even demonstrated a remarkably

higher interest in communicative activities. We thus suggest that a

focus-on-form approach deserves EFL teachers’ pedagogical

consideration: meaning takes priority, while form is discussed for

maintaining smooth flow of communication. This approach may provide


131

a means of developing learners’ grammar knowledge and

communicative skills. Further research must explore implementation

of the focus-on-form approach in not only our local context but also

other EFL countries. More pedagogical attention should be paid to the

questions of what techniques can be used to incorporate grammar

teaching into communicative skills or vice versa, and most

importantly, how EFL teachers can incorporate the focus-on-form

approach in the face of the perennial pedagogical constraints: large

class size, tight teaching schedule, and the backwash effects of exams.

Using appropriate language choice during grammar

teaching/learning. As reflected in the interview data, our students

expressed a stronger need for English input in classrooms. More

specifically, in terms of grammar teaching, they demanded more

English input from their teachers. Their expectation that grammar

teaching be conducted in English instead of Chinese could result from

the misconception that more input enhances results. However, Brown

(2001) advised teachers to use students’ L1 to explain rules or patterns

if students cannot follow explanations in English. Taiwan provides

countless examples of grammar rules being explained in Chinese, yet

students find these rules confusing and difficult to learn. It is perhaps

unnecessary to discuss the difficulties students would further encounter

if grammar instruction were conducted in English.

Learners’ desire for more English input during grammar

instruction may be derived from their expectations of how an English

class should be. In our study, interviews with the students suggest that

most of them expect to obtain more English input in class. However,

the reality is that English input is often limited; therefore they argued

for English input for all the instructional activities. The insufficient


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

132

amount of English input they avail may thus have created a

misconception that all classroom activities should be conducted in

English. Based on these findings, we propose that English teachers

introduce grammar patterns and rules in students’ L1, i.e., Chinese,

to ensure that students attain a high level of comprehensibility.

Follow-up grammar practice must provide sufficient English input to

students, such as reiterating the focal grammar points briefly in

English or conducting grammar activities in English. Subsequent

English of this kind can reinforce students’ grammatical knowledge.

In this vein, this moderate use of both Chinese and English during

grammar instruction will not only make grammar rules more

comprehensible to students, but also ensure the sufficient target

language input they desire.

Appropriate use of grammar terminology in the classroom.

A large number of students tend to favor teachers using more

terminology in explaining grammar, and they believe their grammar

ability will improve if they familiarize themselves with such

terminology. This misconception results from the notion that all

textbooks and lectures are based on special jargon. Also, as reported

in the interview data, some students believed that maintaining that

terminology is the optimal route to a better command of grammar.

Most teachers held an opposing view, showing fewer attempts to use

grammar terminology during grammar instruction. Influenced by the

communicative approach to language teaching and their concern with

the possible intimidating effect of grammar terminology, they believe

grammar should facilitate communication, and that grammar

terminology is little more than a new word for most students. Taking


133

these views together, we believe that grammar terminology should be

referred to in grammar instruction; most students observed that

knowing grammar terminology helps them to systematize rules as

they learn, but we feel the use of grammar terminology should be

limited.

Knowing what errors to correct and when to correct them.

Students in this research reflected a stronger need for both oral and

written grammar correction than teachers did. To most students, any

grammar error they make should be “debugged” by their teacher,

whether it occurs in speech or writing. However, most teachers

contend that writing errors need correction, while most speech can be

ignored if it does not obstruct communication flow. A gap between

students and teachers may be the direct result of the fact that teachers

in Taiwan are often regarded as the sole authority dominating

classroom learning. Students are largely dependent on the teacher for

useful linguistic feedback, maintaining a strong belief that error

correction by the teacher is absolutely essential and significant in

language learning.

Our study addressed perceptual differences between students

and teachers in the need for grammar correction. Though students

demonstrated a strong need for both oral and written correction, we

contend that it should be offered cautiously in grammar instruction. It

is hardly surprising to note that most teachers often find themselves in

a pedagogical dilemma as to whether to correct a noticed error or to

let it go uncorrected, for fear of over- and under-correction. On the

one hand, if correction is overdone, the majority of learners may lose

confidence in learning and grow hesitant in attempting their output.

Excessive correction tends to hinder oral and written communication


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

134

flow. On the other hand, teachers’ excessive tolerance for errors may

as well result in the learners’ improper internalization of errors. While

this issue is still an intricate one for SLA teachers and researchers, we

urge that teachers be prudent enough to strike a balance between

letting crucial errors go uncorrected and providing appropriate

corrections to avoid fossilization. In addition, through their

experience in teaching and interacting with students, they will gradually

develop an intuitive sense that helps them determine when errors

should be corrected, to maximize the benefit of grammar correction.

This study revealed grammar instruction as being highly valued

by EFL students and teachers in Taiwan; error correction, by

comparison, was only favored by students. It should be noted that we

made no attempt to jump into a debate for or against grammar

instruction or error correction. Instead, by probing student and

teacher views on these two issues, we have proposed several

pedagogical recommendations that can help English teachers balance

roles of form and meaning in language classrooms. However, this

study does have its limitations. The limited number of participants in

such a wide-ranging study could make it difficult to accurately

generalize the results. For future research, each of the five regions

should incorporate a high-, intermediate-, and a low-proficiency school

in order to further validate the results. Also, the fact that teacher and

student respondents were not randomly selected could have directly

influenced the results of this study. Learner characteristics, such as

their academic performance, their major (be it in social science or

natural science groups), and English proficiency level, may have been

factors in determining how they perceive grammar instruction and


135

error correction.

Moreover, this study explored students’ and teachers’ views

regarding grammar instruction from a holistic perspective, instead of

touching upon how both groups might evaluate the study of each

individual grammatical rule. Since some particular grammar patterns

require more attention from both students and teachers alike, it is

recommended that future research focus on grammar patterns that

often cause greater difficulties, such as relative clauses and the past

perfect progressive tense. Future research might also explore the

proficiency level of students as a factor affecting their perception of

grammar instruction and error correction. That is, the perception of

students across different proficiency levels could be compared so

that differences can be identified. On the other hand, with the

accumulation of greater learning experience, students’ perception may

accordingly vary or change. Despite these limitations, this study

hopes to shed some light on revealing students’ needs regarding

grammar instruction and error correction, as well as to provide

evidence favoring a focus-on-form approach in foreign language

teaching pedagogy.

REFERENCES

Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching:

A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 9-38.

Borg, S. (1999). Studying teacher cognition in second language

grammar teaching. System, 27, 19-31.

Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

136

feedback options and responses. Modern Language Journal, 79,

194-211.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach

to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, New York: Addison

Wesley Longman, Inc.

Burns, H. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to

teaching beginners. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher

learning in language teaching (pp. 154-177). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative

feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic

generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15,

357-386.

Cathcart, R. L., & Olsen, J. E. W. B. (1976). Teachers’ and students’

preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In J.

F. Fanselo & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 1976 (pp. 41-53).

Washington, DC: TESOL.

Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1983).

Attitudes and preferences of ESL students to error correction.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 79-87.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a

difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom

second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on

form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-431.


137

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices.

Educational Research, 38, 47-65.

Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative

language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks.

TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.

Fox, C. A. (1993). Communicative competence and beliefs about

language among graduate teaching assistants in French. Modern

Language Journal, 77, 313-324.

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning

university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal,

72, 283-294.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language

classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.

Johnson, K. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices

of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 10, 439-452.

Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences

concerning the Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational

Research, 60, 419-460.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language

learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 71-92.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language

learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language

acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications.

London: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. C. Ellis


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

138

(Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45-77).

London: Academic Press.

Lai, S.-J. (2004). High school English teachers’ beliefs on grammar

instruction in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National

Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.

Lee, P.-Y. (2004). A study of English grammar instruction in elementary

schools in Taipei. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung

First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response.

In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for

the classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form.

In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom

second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit

negative evidence in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and

Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.

Long. M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language

teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C.

Kramsche (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural

perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lyster, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s

‘What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.’ The Canadian

Modern Language Review, 55, 457-467.

Omaggio, H. A. (1993). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Boston:

Heinle.


139

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom:

Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of

grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343-364.

Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher

perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and

corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal,

85, 244-258.

Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second

language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-169.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing

classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The

Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437-456.

Tse, K. P. (2004). Pedagogical grammar for EFL teachers. Taipei:

Crane Publishing Company.

VanPatten, B. (1986a). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Implications

for grammatical accuracy in the classroom? Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 8, 56-67.

VanPatten, B. (1986b). Second language acquisition research and the

learning/teaching of Spanish: Some research findings and

implications. Hispania, 69, 202-216.

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An

experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 12, 287-301.


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

140

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Ming-chu Liao teaches English at Taichung Home Economics

and Commercial High School. She was a recipient of an Excellent

Teaching Award and authored a series of English textbook. She holds

an MA in TEFL from National Taiwan Normal University. Currently,

she is also a doctoral student on Linguistics and TEFL program and a

part-time English lecturer at National Changhua University of

Education. Her research interests include language testing, writing

instruction, and second language acquisition.

Hung-chun Wang teaches in the Department of Applied

Foreign Languages at Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and

Management. He holds an MA in TEFL from National Kaohsiung

Normal University. Currently, he is also a doctoral student on TEFL

program at National Taiwan Normal University. His research interests

include second language acquisition and discourse analysis.


141

APPENDIX

Transcript of Telephone Interviews

Chinese English

Interest, time allocation, terminology in grammar instruction

我喜歡讀文法…文法很有用…大部

分的月考其實還是著重文法或根據

文法出題啊…學習文法都嘛會讓我

的英文進步比較快…嗯，成果比記憶

單字更看得出來。(S1)

I like to study grammar…grammar is

useful…Most of the monthly exams

focused on grammar or based on

grammar…Learning grammar helps

improve my English much faster…The

outcome is more instant than memorizing

vocabulary. (S1)

文法規則很複雜又超難懂…老師應

該至少要花超過一半的上課時間來

解釋那些規則啊…講解文法規則比

解說單字更需要吧！(S19)

Grammar rules are very complicated and

difficult to understand…teachers should

spend at least over half of class time to

explain the grammar rules…Explanation

of the grammar rules is more necessary

than vocabulary. (S19)

我認為文法的專門用語很重要…老

師用專門用語教會讓文法比較有系

統的感覺…沒有專門用語的話，文法

規則會更容易搞不清楚…沒辦法分

辨差異在哪裡。(S24)

I think grammar terminologies are

important…terminologies used by

teachers make the grammar rules look

systematical…Without the terminologies,

the grammar rules are more

confusing…can not tell the differences.

(S24)


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

142

文法不重要啦…溝通式教學法的風

行就是著重在語言學習的溝通目的

啊…我覺得花太多時間講解文法規

則就違反了溝通式教學法的精神

了…通常一節課不超過十分鐘就很

夠了。(T4)

Grammar is of little importance…the

prevalence of Communicative Approach

focuses on communication purpose of

language learning…I feel it opposed the

spirits of Communicative Approach if I

spend too much time on grammar

rules…usually less than ten minutes is

sufficient. (T4)

文法對學生來說應該很無聊…他們

討厭記那些文法專門用語…我在課

堂上解釋文法規則時都盡量不去強

調那些專門用語…這樣應該他們對

文法的感冒就會減輕了。(T9)

Grammar is boring to students…They

hate to memorize the terminologies…I

try not to emphasize these terminologies

when explaining the grammar rules in

class…Their hatred for grammar can be

minimized this way. (T9)

Preference for group grammar practice to individual grammar practice

分組練習文法比較好啊…這樣剛新

教的文法有問題的地方就可以問同

組的同學了。(S12)

Practicing grammar in groups is better…I

can ask group members about the

newly-taught grammar to clarify my

problems. (S12)

如果老師要求我們個別做文法的練

習，我只能靠自己了…我覺得沒安全

感…我不知道自己理解對了沒。(S20)

If the teacher asked us to do the grammar

practice alone, I can only depend on

myself…I feel insecure… I don’t know

what I perceive is correct or not. (S20)

教完文法規則後，讓學生分組練習可

以激發他們的興趣…透過小組的互

動，文法規則會被強化，印象深刻。

(T5)

After teaching grammar rules, practicing

in group activities can activate their

interest…Through group interaction, the

grammar patterns can be reinforced and

made impressive. (T5)


143

學生都是喜歡分組活動，但是個別練

習也有其必要性…老師能更了解整

個班…知道班上哪些學生沒弄懂這

個文法重點。(T12)

Students like group activities, but practicing

alone is also necessary…Teachers can have

a better understanding of the whole

class… to know which students in the

class didn’t get the grammar point. (T12)

Language preference for teaching grammar

教英文時，我想要我的英文老師多用

英文…既然老師都鼓勵我們多用英

文思考，為什麼學文法時不能就用英

文教呢？ (S3)

I want my English teachers to use

English when teaching grammar…Since

we are encouraged to think in English,

why not learn the grammar rules taught

in English? (S3)

如果用英文教，文法規則會印象更深

刻…考試題目都嘛不是用中文出

的…學生需要沉浸在更多的英文裏

面。(S7)

Grammar rules will be more impressive

if taught in English…All the test items

are not designed in Chinese…Students

need to have more exposure to English.

(S7)

文法規則又多又困難…用中文來教

學生應該比較容易懂…我其實也沒

自信用英文教文法…怕用英文教文

法教學進度會落後。(T6)

Grammar rules are numerous and

difficult…Using Chinese is easier for

students to understand...I don’t have the

confidence to teach grammar in

English…I am afraid using English to

teach grammar will make me behind the

schedule. (T6)

英文文法對很多學生來說都很有挑

戰性…用中文他們會比較輕鬆…學

生如果不必同時處理文法和內容會

覺得比較好吧。(T11)

English grammar can be challenging for

many students…Using Chinese makes

them feel relaxed…Students feel better if

they do not have to deal with the grammar

and the content simultaneously. (T11)


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

144

Preference for peer correction or teacher correction

我比較喜歡被老師指正…老師的文

法比同學專精多了…他們的指正更

值得信任。(S5)

I prefer to be corrected by teachers…Teachers

are more professional in grammar…Their

corrections are much more trust-worthy.

(S5)

同學的指正通常不是直接的，不太清

楚…我對同學的指正沒有安全感…

他們很可能會亂指正成錯的…恩…

有點浪費時間吧。(S30)

Peer correction is usually indirect and

unclear…I feel less secure for peer

corrections…They could have corrected

the grammar errors wrongly…kind of

waste time. (S30)

同學不喜歡被他們的英文老師指

正…老師多半很急著糾正學生不合

文法的英文…他們不自覺地對被糾

正的學生加諸太多壓力…會破壞英

文課的上課氣氛。(T2)

Students dislike being corrected by their

English teachers…Teachers tend to

eagerly correct the ungrammatical English

of their students…They imperceptibly

impose too much pressure on the students

being corrected…ruined the atmosphere

in the English classroom. (T2)

高中學生當然是喜歡被同儕糾正的

啦…這個階段的學生不喜歡被直接

指出他們的錯誤啊…他們會覺得受

傷或沒面子…同儕指正效果好多

了…高中學生都會尋求被同儕接

納。(T15)

Peer corrections are definitely more welcome

by senior high school students …Students

during this stage do not like to be pointed out

their errors directly…They feel hurt or

face-threatening …Peer correction works

much better…High school students are

seeking peer acceptance. (T15)


145

Needs and attitudes towards error correction in speaking and writing

即使文法的錯誤沒有阻礙溝通，我仍

然想要被老師指正…我希望能說正

確的英文…老師的指正能讓我進

步，說英文都合文法。(S12)

Even the grammar errors do not obstruct

communication, I still want to be corrected

by teachers…I hope I can speak correct

English…Teacher corrections make me

improve in speaking grammatically. (S12)

如果老師不管我的錯誤沒指正我，我

會覺得有被老師欺騙的感覺…我會

覺得他們根本沒認真看我寫的…負

責任的英文老師應該要直接指正我

的錯誤，而不是用分組討論或叫我自

己反省來找出有錯的地方。(S20)

I feel cheated if the teachers leave my

errors there without correcting them…I

feel they do not look at my writing

seriously…A responsible English teacher

should correct my writing, instead of

asking group discussion or my own

reflection to correct the errors. (S20)

根據溝通式教學法，如果不妨礙溝

通，學生講英文的時候要是有文法錯

誤應該要用很自然的態度面對…學

生講英文我會避免指正他的文法錯

誤，以免給學生負面觀感。(T5)

Based on the Communicative Approach,

grammar errors in speaking should be

treated naturally if they do not hinder

communication…I will avoid correcting

the speaking errors lest to cause negative

feelings to students. (T5)

學生的文法錯誤應該要糾正…以後

統一入學測驗的英文才會考得讚一

點…透過討論，用同儕來指正寫作的

錯誤比較能引起學生的興趣…這樣

指正錯誤會比較節省時間…課堂氣

氛也比較好啦。(T12)

Students should be corrected for their

grammar errors…they can score better in

future English writing of JCEE English

test…Peer correction through discussions

can be interesting to correct these errors

in writing…The errors corrected this way

save more time…good classroom

atmosphere. (T12)


33. 1 (Spring 2009)

146

高中教師與學生高中教師與學生高中教師與學生高中教師與學生

對於文法教學及錯誤修正對於文法教學及錯誤修正對於文法教學及錯誤修正對於文法教學及錯誤修正之認知差異之認知差異之認知差異之認知差異

摘要摘要摘要摘要

本文探討高中英語教師與學生對文法教學及錯誤修

正上認知的差異，研究對象為 41 位高中教師及 371

位高中生，分別來自臺灣北、中、南、東部及外島各

一所高中，採用問卷及電話訪問收集資料。本研究者

以 Schulz (2001) 的研究為藍本，並參照 Borg (1998)

提出六大教師文法教學行為設計問卷，將教師問卷及

學生問卷擴充至七大項：錯誤分析、母語的使用、文

法術語的使用、文法與溝通能力、文法規則、文法練

習、錯誤修正。研究結果顯示高中教師及學生對於文

法教學及錯誤修正的認知有所不同，尤其是在教學語

言的使用、文法練習活動及錯誤修正的需要。研究者

隨後與 15 位教師及 32 位學生進行電話訪談，以深入

了解雙方造成認知上差異的因素。根據研究結果，本

研究提出關於課堂上文法教學及錯誤修正的教學意

見，期望能幫助教師與學生達成更高的教學效益。本

文最後亦提出對文法教學採用「語言形式教學」

(focus-on-form approach) 的建議。

關鍵詞：認知差異文法教學錯誤修正

Documents

Perception Differences of EFL Teachers and …...communicative skills by raising learners’ consciousness. Once taught a set of grammar rules, learners were believed to practice them