CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter includes the survey of related literature and studies with regard to

the variables in the study namely teachers perceived grammatical competence and

attitudes about grammar teaching. The said literature and studies will help the

researcher to better understand the topic of the current study. Likewise, theoretical

framework, conceptual framework, hypotheses, and definition of terms are included in

this chapter.

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Grammar

There are many ways to define what grammar is. It may be defined as the

systematic features of a language or a study of those language features (Macfarlane,

2015). Another way to define it is looking at its types – traditional grammar, formal

grammar of functional grammar. From this, it can be construed that grammar cannot be

defined in a simple manner.

For Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), grammar serves two purposes.

One is that it is a structure and the other one is that is it used in communication. This

definition of theirs is based on three levels, all of which are consistent with the idea that

a sentence structure is the basic unit of meaning in English. The first level is known as

the subsentential or the morphological level; the second is the sentential or the syntactic

level; and the third one is the suprasentential level or the discourse level. Meanwhile, for

Thornbury (1999), grammar exists on four levels and these are the text, sentence, word,
and sound. He also claims that language serves two purposes which are known as the

representational function which is defined as representing the world as we experience it

and the interpersonal function which is defined as influencing how things happen in the

world. As can be observed from these conceptions, grammar is practically described

based on purposes and varied levels. For Halliday (1994), on the other hand, grammar

includes both syntax and vocabulary; thus, he uses the term lexicogrammar to refer to

grammar.

It is apparent that while these authors have almost similar definitions for

grammar, they practically do not operate from a common defined explanation.

Macfarlane (2015) claims that this can be explained by the fact that grammar refers

both to the language we use and the description of language as a system and that in

describing language, “attention is paid to both structure (syntax) and meaning

(semantics) at the level of the word, the sentence and the text” (p. 20).

In addition, Hornby (2000) has several definitions for grammar. One, he defines

grammar as the rules in language used to change the forms of words and combine

them ins sentences. Likewise, he defines it as the knowledge of person in using a

language as well as a book that contains a description of the rules of a language.

Finally, he defines it as a theory that sheds light to the rules of a language or language

in general. From this, we can say that grammar is generally understood either as rules

governing language or as linguistics, the scientific study of language, which encompass

theories giving explanation to those rules.

Another prevailing definition of grammar is the one which was given by Noam

Chomsky, who is known as the father of modern linguistics and who has begun his
contribution to the field since the 1950s (Macfarlane, 2015). He is particularly known for

his original theory of generative grammar which could be described as rules that show

the structure and interpretation of sentences which are accepted by native speakers of

a language as the features of that language. This theory was eventually revised by

Chomsky and he came up with the theory of universal grammar or the set of universally

shared language principles. He later investigated the syntactic structures which paved

the way for another theory known as the transformational grammar which basically

highlights the method of constructing language by making linguistic transformations

including transformations within phrase structures (Seaton, 1982, as cited in

Macfarlane, 2015). In a nutshell, he began with sentence structure as the basic unit of

grammar (generative grammar) but revised his thinking to the smaller unit of phrase

structure as the basic grammatical unit (transformational grammar). This later on

became what is known as the transformational-generative grammar which highlights the

learners’ capability to create an infinite number of syntactic combinations.

Aside from transformational – generative grammar, other theories in grammar

which have become prominent are descriptive and prescriptive grammars, mental,

pedagogical, reference, theoretical, and the systemic-functional grammar.

Descriptive grammar, an objective non-judgmental description of the grammatical

constructions of a language, is contrasted against prescriptive grammar, a view of

grammar that lays down the laws on how grammar should work (Huddleston & Pullum,

2002). Therefore, descriptive grammar tells us or describes to us how language works

without giving emphasis on correctness in the language, while prescriptive grammar

tells us how language should be used exactly based on rules and gives emphasis on

correctness.

Mental (or competence) grammar refers to the type of grammar possessed by

the native speaker in which they are able to point out correctness or incorrectness of

sentences without necessarily articulating the reasons behind it. It is believed to be as a

mental system embedded in the native speakers who do not need any specific

instruction since they have already acquired this mental grammar during infancy.

Chomsky supports this idea of mental grammar since he believes that human beings

are born with it and with linguistic experience, can access this language faculty

(Macfarlane, 2015). Culicover and Nowak (2003) developed this further by claiming that

if a grammar is formulated by a linguist, then it is an idealized description of such a

mental grammar.

Pedagogical grammar, meanwhile, refers to a language teaching methodology

for second language students which involves grammatical analysis of elements of the

target language. Reference grammar, on the other hand, is used to describe the

grammar of a language and to explain the principles behind the words, phrases,

clauses, and sentences construction respectively using a grammar reference texts. The

study of language components is known as theoretical grammar. It also deals with

explaining the forms of grammar and scientifically explains why a particular grammar is

preferred over the others (Macfarlane, 2015).

Aside from the above-mentioned theories of grammar, Halliday’s systemic

functional grammar is one of the most prominent in the contemporary times. Halliday

(1994), defines grammar as having three components which are functional in terms of
interpretation of texts, of the system, and of the elements of linguistic structures. Unlike

the other definitions and theories on grammar, this perspective on grammar addresses

the semantic and functional aspects of the language system, and emphasizes the close

connection between syntax, semantics and pragmatics. His work has significantly

impacted current pedagogy concerning English as a Second Language and English as

a Foreign Language.

In conclusion, there are many theories of grammar, some of which have been

listed and described above. Various ones have come to the fore at different periods in

the history of grammar teaching. The only certainty that can be concluded from this

situation is that there are various definitions and many theories of grammar. All are

valid, but none takes absolute precedence over the others.

Grammar Instruction

Today, applied linguists are in consensus that all efforts to language learning

shall center around meaning within the communicative framework (Canh & Barnard,

2009). But this is met with an opposition since it has been noted that communicative

English as a second language (ESL) fails to promote higher level of accuracy (Fotos,

1998 as cited in Canh & Barnard, 2009). This reality paved way to the re-focus on

grammar teaching over the past decade (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004). Currently, linguists are

torn between which between focus on forms (FonfS) and focus on form (FonF) achieves

greater success in grammar instruction (Sheen, 2003; Sheen & O’Neill, 2005).

In Focus on Forms, specific grammar points serve as basis for the series of

lessons planned by the teacher. This is done to ensure that explicit understanding of
grammar by a variety of means is achieved. Also, it aims that the target form is

practiced through the various written and oral exercises. Similarly, communicative use

of the target form is practiced through this (Canh & Barnard, 2009. The Presentation,

Practice, Production (PPP) model best exemplifies this, although grammar can also be

taught explicitly and inductively through activities such as ‘dictogloss’ (Wajnryb, 1990)

consciousness-raising activities based on input texts (Ellis, 2002).

On the other hand, Focus on Form is indirect, context-based focus on grammar

and is covert where teachers take the back seat. According to Ellis (2002), it has two

types namely the incidental FonF and planned FonF. Proponents of incidental FonF (for

example, Doughty & Williams, 1998) propose that classroom activities should involve

communicative tasks and the only time to pay attention to forms is when grammatical

difficulties arise and lead to imminent communicative breakdown. At this point, transitory

corrective feedback becomes successful as it impacts remedial treatment; however,

should there be a need for extended grammar treatment, grammar problem-solving

tasks should be provided instead of the forms-focused instruction. Planned FonF,

meanwhile, is proactive in such a way that pre-determined grammatical features are

already treated even before they become a threat to communication; however, this

should not be mistaken with FonFs since it is done while the learners are engaged in

processing meaning (Ellis, 2002). Therefore, it is more of an intervening point in a

continuum between the other two approaches.

Another concept in grammar instruction which is highly debatable is the explicit

versus implicit Instruction. While there is a general agreement that grammar should be
taught, what is of great debate is whether to teach is explicitly or implicitly. Explicit

teaching happens when metalinguistic explanations for grammatical rules are given to

learners while implicit teaching happens when specific grammatical features are only

made salient among learners but are not pointed out to them (Cowan, 2014). Explicit

grammar teaching comes in two forms - deductive and inductive. According to Cowan

(2014), teaching grammar deductively happens when rules are introduced first before

learners are exposed to the patterns while teaching grammar inductively happens when

learners are exposed to examples so they can figure out patterns. He added that

inductive teaching is best suited for intermediate and advanced learners. The author

concluded that it is generally accepted that either form of explicit grammar teaching is

better than not providing grammar instruction at all.

However, there are those who are still against explicit teaching. According to

Krashen (1993 as cited in Morina, 2016), explicit knowledge of language structures is

pointless as it will never turn into implicit knowledge. Truscott (1998 as cited in Morina,

2016) supports this idea and claims that its effects are short-lived and superficial and

that learners do not really gain genuine knowledge of language.

Meanwhile. a study by Norris and Ortega (2000 as cited in Cowan, 2014),

supports the idea that explicit teaching is better than implicit teaching as it produces

better and longer-lasting results. In addition, DeKeyser (1998) claims that explicit

knowledge of language structure may be turned into implicit knowledge if learners are

provided with communicative practice. Ellis (2006), meanwhile, opposed this idea and

claims that it is hard to prove given that there is no published study that investigated
how exactly is explicit knowledge turned into implicit knowledge. He furthered that it is

difficult to point out which of the explicit and implicit knowledge the leaner taps when

using the target language. However, a literature reviewed by Nassaji and Fotos (2004)

points out to the idea that regardless of how the leaners learned the structures either

explicitly or implicitly, learners should be given opportunities to encounter and produce

these structures.

As can be observed from the foregoing literature, attention has been on the

importance of grammar and whether to teach it explicitly or implicitly. Johnson (1994),

however, notes that it seems that the field of Second Language Teacher Education lags

behind mainstream educational research in understanding the cognitive dimensions of

second language teaching. Particularly, Farrel and Lim (2005 as cited in Dorji, 2018)

claim that while there seems to be an increased in the number of researches in the area

of language teachers’ beliefs, only few focused on the beliefs of experienced language

teachers. It was not until recently that understanding how the cognitive processes of

second language teachers impact their classroom instruction began to draw the

attention of researchers (Borg, 1998; Freeman, 1989; Richards & Nunan, 1990; Woods,

1996 as cited in Dorji, 2018). The majority of these studies were conducted in Europe,

Britain, or North America. As such, the need for research in a greater variety of contexts

was reiterated.

Grammatical Competence of Teachers

As what has been mentioned already, there is a growing number of researches

devoted to teachers’ beliefs as it has gained prominence in language learning and

teaching (Thu, 2009). Borg (2003), a well-known researcher in grammar instruction, has

grouped research on language teacher cognition into three: research on teacher’s

declarative knowledge about grammar, research on teachers’ stated beliefs about

teaching grammar, and research on teachers’ cognition as indicated in their grammar

teaching practices. Borg (2006) described each type of research in greater details.

Studies that examined teachers’ declarative knowledge about grammar, as Borg noted,

indicate that prospective language teachers’ knowledge of grammar and grammatical

terms and concepts is generally inadequate, so there may be a need to provide

teachers in teacher education programs with more training on declarative knowledge

about language. In addition, Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999 in Thu, 2009)

claim that teachers need to have a firm grounding in the grammar of the language they

teach so that they can meet their students’ learning needs better. In other words, for

them to be able to teach well, they should master the grammar of the language

themselves first and should acquire grammatical competence.

Grammatical competence cannot be explained without explaining communicative

competence as it is part and parcel of it. According to Torres (2009), communicative

competence was first coined by anthropologist and sociolinguist Dell Hymes in 1972 as

a reaction to Chomsky’s description of the ideal speaker. Communicative competence is

defined as a synthesis of an underlying system of knowledge and skill needed for

communication (Canale & Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983 in Bagarić & Djigunović, 2007). In

their concept of communicative competence, knowledge refers to the (conscious or

unconscious) knowledge of an individual about language and about other aspects of

language use. In addition, their concept of skill refers to how an individual can use the
knowledge in actual communication. Initially, this theoretical framework/model had three

components such as grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence; however,

in a later version of this model, discourse competence was added. Discourse

competence refers to one’s knowledge and ability to interpret the larger context and

how to construct longer stretches of language so that the parts make up a coherent

whole. Meanwhile, strategic competence refers to one’s knowledge and ability to

recognize and repair communication breakdowns, how to work around gaps in one’s

knowledge of the language, and how to learn more about the language and in the

context. On the other hand, sociolinguistic competence refers to one’s knowledge and

ability to use and respond to language appropriately, given the setting, the topic, and

the relationships among the people communicating (Hymes, 1972 in Torres, 2009).

What is interesting to note in this model which is basically consistent with the

communicative approach in language teaching is that it still highlights the importance of

grammatical competence; thereby, the importance of grammar instruction is

emphasized. According to Canale and Swain (1980 in Bagarić & Djigunović, 2007),

grammatical competence is concerned with mastering the linguistic code (verbal or non-

verbal) including vocabulary knowledge as well as knowledge of morphological,

syntactic, semantic, phonetic and orthographic rules. With this competence, speakers

are able to use knowledge and skills needed for understanding and expressing the

literal meaning of utterances.

In the Philippine Language Arts and Multiliteracies Curriculum, grammatical

competence is also highlighted and is suggested to be enhanced by having

contextualized grammar and vocabulary instruction which means integrating grammar

and vocabulary into authentic tasks and teaching of macroskills (Department of

Education, 2016). In the English curriculum, there are competencies indicated that aim

to enhance grammar awareness of learners. For Grade 7 learners, there are eleven

competencies indicated which include the following: observe correct subject-verb

agreement; use phrases, clauses, and sentences appropriately and meaningfully; link

sentences using logical connectors that signal chronological and logical sequence and

summation; use the passive and active voice meaningfully in varied contexts; use direct

and reported speech appropriately in varied context; use the past and past perfect

tenses correctly in varied contexts; use imperatives and prepositions when giving

instructions; use verbs when giving information and making explanations; formulate

meaningful expressions; formulate who, what, when, where, why, and how questions;

and formulate short replies.

For Grade 8 learners, the following are the competencies indicated: use parallel

structures; use appropriate cohesive devices in composing an informative speech; use

appropriate grammatical signals or expressions suitable to each pattern of idea

development: general to particular, claim and counterclaim, problem-solution, cause-

effect, and others; share ideas using opinion-marking signals; use modals appropriately;

use emphasis markers for persuasive purposes; use appropriate modifiers; use

appropriate logical connectors for emphasis; use active and passive constructions in

journalistic contexts; use past and past perfect tenses in journalistic writing; use direct

and reported speech in journalistic writing; and use appropriate logical connectors for

emphasis.
 Meanwhile, the following are the competencies that are aimed at improving the

grammar awareness of the Grade 9 learners: use normal and inverted word order in

creative writing; use appropriate punctuation marks and capitalization to convey

meaning; use interjections to convey meaning; use adverbs in narration; use

conditionals in expressing arguments; use past conditionals in expressing arguments;

use verbals; use active and passive constructions; express permission, obligation, and

prohibition; change direct to indirect speech and vice versa; observe tense consistency

in writing an evaluation; and use words to express evaluation.

Finally, the following are the grammatical competencies for Grade 10 learners:

use reflexive and intensive pronouns; use words and expressions that emphasize a

point; use modals; observe correct grammar in making definitions; use words and

expressions that affirm or negate; use pronouns effectively; use structures of

modification; and observe the language of research, campaigns, and advocacies.

According to Myhill, Watson, and Jones (2013), in the context of the language

classroom, teachers’ metalinguistic knowledge is significant in shaping their

professional capacity to plan for and respond to learners’ language needs. Taking

Shulman’s taxonomy, this metalinguistic knowledge can be considered in terms of

teachers’ metalinguistic content knowledge (the academic domain of knowledge about

language, which includes explicit grammatical knowledge) and metalinguistic

pedagogical content knowledge (their knowledge of how to teach and develop students’

metalinguistic understanding). In other words, they claim that teachers need to have
strong grammatical competence so that they become effective language classroom

teachers.

Some scholars are in agreement that grammatical competence among teachers

should be ensured as without it they will have a problem in executing a language

curriculum which is aimed at enhancing grammatical competence of the learners. For

instance, Gordon (2005), in New Zealand, claims that teachers’ lack of knowledge about

grammar has been seen as a hindrance for them to implement a strong grammar focus

innovative syllabus. In addition, in Australia, a national curriculum which aims to foster

‘a coherent, dynamic, and evolving body of knowledge about the English language and

how it works includes a strand on Knowledge about Language. As Derewianka and

Jones (2010) note, teachers may have a hard time coping with this curriculum since it

was found out that these teachers had no formal study of language and rely on folklore

about language and grammar instead.

There are also studies which have been conducted that established the

relevance of teachers’ grammatical competence in actual teaching of the language.

Both Perera (1987) and Leech (1994) as cited in Myhill et. al. (2013) claim that teachers

need to have a grammatical knowledge that is richer and more substantive than the

grammar they need to teach their students and that they need to possess higher degree

of grammar consciousness than their student would need or would want. Similarly,

Andrews (2005) argues that teachers’ ability to assist budding writers is greatly

influenced by their rich knowledge of grammatical constructions. Conversely, Gordon

(2005) found out that with the teachers’ poor grammatical knowledge, they could not

see language development both in writing and speaking among their own students.

From this foregoing literature review, we can conclude that grammatical content

knowledge of the teachers is a determinant of their ability to address the language

needs of their learners in the classroom (Myhill et. al., 2013). When teachers lack

confidence with their grammatical content knowledge, their learners might be led to

developing misconceptions about the language as seen in the study by Paraskevas

(2004) wherein he found out that students had a wrong meaning-based description of

verbs as doing words as it does not correspond with the linguistic definitions. However,

if the teachers are confident with their grammatical content knowledge, learners are

benefitted since they can increase their language repertoires which expands their

meaning making resources (Coffin, 2010).

Attitudes about Grammar Teaching

As mentioned already, studies on language teacher cognition can be grouped

into three. In the above-mentioned literature review, we have already highlighted the

first group which focused on teachers’ declarative knowledge on grammar. In this part of

the literature review, we shall focus on the second group which is about research on

teachers’ stated beliefs or attitudes about teaching grammar.

According to Bernat and Gvozdenko (2005), beliefs or attitudes influence human

behaviors and represent a central construct in all of the disciplines that deal with human

behavior and learning. It is said that beliefs are difficult to define, but there is a general
agreement that is formed early in life and that it is resistant to change (Williams &

Burden, 1997 as cited in Morina, 2016). In the field of education, beliefs or attitudes are

believed to predict teacher’s behaviors and reflect what they will provide in the

classroom (Thu, 2009). Hence, given its powerful influence, studies on teachers’ beliefs

or attitudes about grammar teaching proliferate to shed lights on the role these beliefs

or attitudes play in grammar instruction.

For instance, Andrews (2005), in his study title surveyed and tested one hundred

seventy secondary school teachers of English in Hong Kong and interviewed seventeen

of them. The results of his study showed that those teachers who favor inductively

teaching grammar possessed relatively high level of explicit knowledge of grammar,

while those who staunch for teaching grammar deductively had a relatively low level of

explicit grammar knowledge. In addition, of the seventeen teachers interviewed, thirteen

reported that there is a strong negative reaction to grammar among their students; nine

reported their being unenthusiastic about teaching grammar; and a quarter of them

admitted their lack of confidence in handling grammar classes. Based on the results of

the study, Andrews (2005) concluded that there appears to be a disagreement about

the usefulness of explicit grammar knowledge for second language learners among the

teachers.

Meanwhile, Berry (1997) investigated teachers’ awareness of learners’

knowledge of metalinguistic terminology. The study involved 372 undergraduate

students and ten English teachers in Hongkong and both groups were invited to

complete a fifty-item grammar terminology questionnaire. In addition, the teachers were

asked whether they thought their students knew the terms and if they use those terms in

class. Based on the results, Berry found that discrepancies were evident between

learners’ knowledge of metalinguistic terminology and their teachers’ estimation.

Similarly, discrepancies exist between the teachers’ estimation and their willingness to

use these terminologies in class.

Another study was conducted by Burgess and Etherington (2002), the purpose of

which was to explore the widely held beliefs about grammar and grammar teaching

among the 48 EAP teachers in British universities. Results showed that most teachers

were appreciative of the value of grammar for their students and were keen in terms of

possessing sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues involved.

Meanwhile, Eisenstein-Ebsworth and Schweers (1997) compared what

researchers say and how teacher- practitioners perceive conscious grammar instruction

in the ESL classroom. Results showed consistency between the perspectives of the

teacher-practitioners surveyed and what researchers say about conscious grammar

instruction. It appears that teacher-practitioners reflect the ideas and findings found in

the literature and supported by methodologists and curriculum developers.

Schulz (1996), meanwhile, conducted an explanatory study to compare student

and teacher attitudes toward the role of explicit grammar study and error correction in

foreign language learning. Questionnaires were administered to 824 foreign language

students and 92 instructors at the University of Arizona. The students were found to

have more favorable attitudes toward formal study of grammar than the teachers. More

students than teachers agreed that students can improve their communicative ability
more quickly if they study and practice grammar. Schulz also found that the majority of

students and teachers think that studying grammar helps in language learning. Most

teachers believed that it is broadly more important to practice a foreign language in

situations simulating real-life than to analyze and practice grammatical patterns. On the

whole, Schulz concluded that there were large differences between students and

teachers in terms of perceptions of the role of grammar and error correction in foreign

language learning.

In another study, Schulz (2001) surveyed 607 Colombian foreign language

students and 122 teachers to elicit their perceptions or attitudes towards the role of

grammar and error correction in foreign language learning. The data collected were

then compared with those of Schulz (1996). Schulz was able to find that there was

relatively high agreement between students as a group and teachers as a group across

cultures on the majority of the questions. The results also indicated that there were

evident discrepancies between student and teacher beliefs within each culture and

across cultures. Schulz went on to suggest that teachers should explore their students’

perceptions so that the potential conflicts between student beliefs and instructional

practices could be alleviated. Using a questionnaire to investigate 176 English

language teachers from 18 countries,

In another study, Borg and Burns (2008) found that teachers showed strong

beliefs or attitudes in the need to avoid teaching grammar in isolation. The teachers also

reported high levels of integrating grammar in their practices. To examine teachers’ use

of grammatical terminology in the Maltese English as a foreign language classroom,

they interviewed four teachers before the class, observed their grammar classes, and

interviewed them again after the classes. They found that teachers’ decisions about the

use of grammatical terminology in their work are influenced by an interacting range of

experiential, cognitive, and contextual factors.

As indicated in the literature review above, extensive research has been done to

examine teacher beliefs or attitudes, and particularly teacher beliefs or attitudes in

teaching grammar. Discrepancies in beliefs or attitudes about grammar teaching have

been found between students and teachers, and even between teachers and teachers

within and across cultures. The central idea that emerges from all the above-mentioned

studies is that teachers hold very strong beliefs or attitudes about various aspects of

teaching, including the place of grammar in language teaching, and that these beliefs or

attitudes impact what they do in their classrooms. Canh and Barnard (2009) mention

that their belief systems are affected by other factors, some of which relate to their

background experience. These beliefs are said to form a structured set of principles and

are derived from a teacher’s prior experiences, school practices, and a teacher's

individual personality (Borg, 2006). The beliefs of several teachers, for instance, may be

influenced by the imposition of the principal and department heads. In addition, their

perceptions may be shaped by the influence of colleagues, social acquaintances and

their personal lives, and their understanding that “the needs, interests and abilities of

their students, will color their judgements and possibly lead to long-term changes in

their belief system” (Canh & Barnard, 2009, p. 254). Language teaching, therefore, can

be seen as a process which is defined by dynamic interactions among cognition,

context, and experience (Borg, 2006, p. 275). Yet, to further develop their knowledge
and pedagogy, language teachers may consider insights drawn from theoretical insights

and empirical research studies. Tensions between what teachers say and do reflect

their belief sub-system, and of the different forces which influence their thinking and

behavior. Studying the underlying reasons behind such tensions can enable both

researchers and teacher educators to better understand the process of teaching, in this

context, of the grammar instruction.

Synthesis

The surveyed literature and studies discuss the concept of grammar, its centrality

to language learning, concepts in grammar instruction, centrality of teachers’ cognition

specifically the teacher’s declarative knowledge about grammar, teachers’ stated beliefs

about teaching grammar, and teachers’ cognition as indicated in their grammar teaching

practices. As the literature point out, grammar is hard to define as various authors in the

field of language teaching have varying conception of what grammar is. While this is the

case, what remains true based on the literature surveyed is that grammar should not be

neglected in language teaching as it contributes to learners’ language learning as what

different studies point out. Therefore, grammar instruction, whether done explicitly or

implicitly should be effectively done and its quality should be upheld.

Literature also point out to the need to conduct studies on teachers’ cognition of

grammar in terms of their declarative knowledge of grammar and their stated beliefs or

attitudes about grammar teaching, and their cognition as it affects their grammar
teaching practices since teachers play a central role in grammar instruction and since

studies in this area of research are limited. Studies also show that teachers’ need to

have strong grammatical competence as it impacts not only the delivery and execution

of language curriculum which highlights grammar but also the facilitation of learners’

language learning. Moreover, teachers’ beliefs or attitudes about grammar teaching is

also gaining currency in the literature of language learning as it is also believed to have

an impact to learners’ language learning which puts high regards to grammatical

competence.

For instance, several studies point out that teachers’ grammatical competence is

related to their favorable attitudes towards grammar teaching (Andrews, 2005; Berry,

1997; Burges and Etherington, 002; and Eisenstein-Ebsworth and Schweers, 1997).

However, there are also contradictory studies such as that of Schulz (1996) and Borg

and Burns (2008) which suggest that these two variables are not related. Moreover,

Canh and Barnard (2009) mention that their belief systems are affected by other factors,

some of which relate to their background experience. These beliefs are said to form a

structured set of principles and are derived from a teacher’s prior experiences, school

practices, and a teacher's individual personality (Borg, 2006).

Given the literature and studies surveyed, the relevance of the current study has

been established. Indeed, there is a need to investigate the teachers’ grammatical

competence and beliefs or attitudes about grammar teaching as they have impact to

grammar instruction which is important to learners’ language learning.

Theoretical Framework
 This study is anchored on the ideas of Borg (2003), a well-known researcher in

grammar instruction who has grouped research on language teacher cognition into

three: research on teacher’s declarative knowledge about grammar and research on

teachers’ stated beliefs or attitudes about teaching grammar.

Canale and Swain (1980) concept of grammatical competence is also used in

this study specifically as a guiding principle to understand the grammatical competence

of the teachers. The teachers’ perceived competence in the competencies highlighted in

the Philippines’ Language Arts and Multiliteracies Curriculum that are aimed to develop

grammar awareness of the learners will be investigated in this study. In the LAMC, 42

grammar awareness competencies are indicated. This study is likewise anchored on the

teachers’ beliefs or attitudes about grammar teaching as proposed by Barnard and

Scampton (2008). Specifically, they investigated the teachers’ beliefs or attitudes about

the role of grammar, explicit grammar teachings, instruction versus exposure,

declarative versus procedural knowledge, comparison and contrast of structures, use of

grammatical terminology, problem solving, error correction, presentation in authentic,

complete texts, and role of practice.

Conceptual Framework

Input Process Output

JHS teachers’ 1. gather data Proposed training
perceived program to improve
grammatical 2. apply statistics grammar instruction
competence
JHS teachers’ 3. analysis and
beliefs or attitudes interpretation of data
about grammar
teaching

Fig. 1. Conceptual Paradigm of the Study

Input is something from the external environment that is fed into the system. In

an information system, the inputs may be raw data captured in some way or preexisting

data which has been provided by an external system. In this study, the input includes

the variables of the study such as the JHS teachers’ perceived grammatical

competence and beliefs or attitudes about grammar teaching.

The process accepts the inputs into the system and performs some type of

operation on it which transforms it into some other state. In the simplest terms, the

process is at the heart of any system. The process in this study includes the survey

questionnaires which aim to elicit the teachers’ perceived grammatical competence,

beliefs or attitudes about grammar teaching. The process also includes the data

analysis and data interpretation.

 Output from the system is the result of processing the input. Without the output, a

system has no link back to its external environment. Output of an information system

may be reports generated from an information system. In this study, the would-be

training program which intends to improve the teachers’ perceived grammatical

competence and beliefs or attitudes about grammar teaching.