Edited Engl206 Compendium

Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Pioneer Avenue, General Santos City, Philippines
Email: rmmcgensan@yahoo.com
Website: www rmmcmain.edu.ph
Telephone Number: (083) 301-1927 Telefax: (083) 552-3624
Compendium of the Requirements

in English Grammar Approaches for English Language Learners
Engl206
Submitted to
FRANCISCO Z. LORENZO JR., PHD

Professor
Submitted by:
AGREGADO, CREZEL JOY C.

ALIPIO, FARINA ALYSA B.
BALATAYO, JELAINE C.
BALDESCO, JIMBOY H.
BEÑAS, HERNAN JR. L.
JARANTILLA, JEFFREY B.
SANZ, DIVINE F.
SUAN, VERGINIA G.
PAROJINOG, NELIZA G.
VICENTE, CHERRY MAE

Contents
I. Reflection Paper
II. Research Analysis
III. Students’ Profile
IV. Professors’ Profile
V. Scoring Rubric
REFLECTION PAPER
English Grammar Approaches for English Language Learners
Engl206
GRADUATE SCHOOL
DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR
APPROACH:
A REFLECTION PAPER
Subject
ENGLISH GRAMMAR APPROACHES FOR ENGLISH
LEARNERS(ENGL206)
Professor
FRANCISCO Z. LORENZO, JR., PHD
Student
CREZEL JOY C. AGREGADO, LPT

Communication is the foundation for sharing information between people
to ensure that everything is understood and can be acted upon. Without good
communication, missions fail and others cannot help to fulfill the mission. Another
reason communication is important is because you leave others out of the loop
and they cannot inform higher the proper status of what is going on.
O’Halloran (2005) stated that grammar contributes to the meaningful
linkage between words and phrases, making sense of a language semantically in
a socially agreed framework. To achieve this, rules and principles are laid down
to produce a uniform structure of a language usage. Concerning about social
acceptability, different theories have been employed to result in different types of
grammatical description.
All languages adhere to syntactical rules of one sort or another, but the
rigidity of these rules is greater in some languages. It is very important to
distinguish between the syntactical rules that govern a language and the rules
that a culture imposes on its language. This is the distinction between descriptive
and prescriptive grammar. Descriptive grammars are essentially scientific
theories that attempt to explain how language works.
Descriptive grammar is different from prescriptive grammar in that
descriptive rules are never taught to native speakers of a language and often do
not correspond to the prescriptive rules taught at schools. Hence, there may be
differences from style to style and dialect to dialect. Descriptive rules allow for
different varieties of a language; and accept the patterns a speaker actually uses
and tries to account for them as long as consistency is maintained and accepted
by his community. As such, in descriptive grammar, the rules are less organized
and informal. As such, a native speaker can just speak his mind without worrying
about whether the language used is bad or good, so long as the message
intended for the receiver is achieved.

Prescriptive grammar on the other hand deals with what the grammarian
believes to be right and wrong; good or bad language use. Prescriptive rules of
grammar prescribe a standard of usage and this standard English, a sociolinguist
would term as high language. Prescriptive grammar has specific rules which
serve to mound spoken and written English to some standard form. Thus,
prescriptive rules are taught in schools by teachers to students in the standard
form of English. This form is also known as formal English which is used in
academic writing, and when a speaker gives a speech to an audience, or a
lecturer lectures his class. When a speaker of the English language wants to
speak politely or very carefully to another, he also needs to use this standard
form. Prescriptive grammar has rules that strict grammarians have laid out for
English speakers to follow and without a doubt, there are many. Prescriptive
rules emphasize correctness in sentence structures, past and present tenses etc.
We can see that prescriptive grammars can assert things that simply
aren’t true and that school grammars oversimplify. Does this mean schools
shouldn’t teach students any prescriptive rules? Probably not. There are still
many people who believe fervently that the degree to which a writer plays by the
prescriptive rules (especially in technical or formal writing) is a direct reflection of
the writer’s intelligence or education. Students will, in all probability, have to deal
with such people. If schools do nothing else, they should teach students
strategies to avoid producing sentences which obey prescriptive rules while
violating descriptive ones. Moreover, certain rules must be inherently prescriptive
– the rules that are specific to writing. Since nobody is a native speaker of
writing, those aspects of writing which are not present in speech (in particular
punctuation and spelling) have no independent authority other than the
prescriptive conventions we as a society have developed. In other words, nobody
can call upon his or her native intuitions about spelling or punctuation and
nobody’s intuitions about them reflect the social groups to which they belong.
Spelling and punctuation are consciously constructed conventions that run off the
structure of the language, but are not part of the that structure. What it means is
that schools should teach the facts about English fairly carefully. It means
teaching should distinguish carefully among features of all dialects of English and
features of only certain dialects and the social rules of prescriptive grammar and
the rules specific to writing.
So, to summarize, a prescriptive grammar serves to impose its own vision
of ‘correct’ language use, and a descriptive grammar observes how language is
used and passes this information on to readers. To me as a speaker of the
English language, both descriptive and prescriptive grammars are useful.
REFERENCES:
O'Halloran, K.A and Coffin, C. (2006) Applied English Grammar: Functional and
Corpus Approaches.
GRADUATE SCHOOL
CONTENT-BASED APPROACH:
A REFLECTION PAPER
Subject

LEARNERS(ENGL206)
Professor
Student

Davis (2003) stated that content-based Instruction is a teaching approach
that emphasizes learning about something rather than learning about language.
Content-Based Instruction is a grammar approach for which are language and
content integrated instruction, content-enhanced teaching, foreign language
medium instruction, foreign languages across the curriculum, or learning with
languages–is a significant approach in second language acquisition(SLA),
designed to provide second-language (L2) learners with concurrent instruction in
content and language. Lasagabaster (2008) described CBI as based on three
main theories of language: ―language is text–and discourse-based, and
therefore the focus of language acquisition is on meaning rather than
form;―language use draws on integrated skills; and―language is purposeful.
CBI is now widely used in a variety of educational contexts all over the
world (Crandall, 1994). The goal of CB courses is to provide a meaningful
context for language teaching to occur in. The objectives are drawn from the
language, content, and study skills needed in a particular academic context.
Paltridge (2004) stated that the curriculum is content driven and delivery is
largely based on written texts. Comprehensive input provided through content
materials leads to language acquisition.
The content can be chosen from one subject area or from various topics of
a general nature. Readings from textbooks, followed by vocabulary and
comprehension exercises, and authentic materials from subject-specific source
books, from the internet and media can be used. The goal is to assist learners in
developing general academic language skills and skills needed to operate in a
content-specific community through interesting and relevant content. (Stoller,
2002)
Several challenges, generic to CBI, arise in our particular context too. One
of the main challenges however is how to focus on language form in an effective
way given the need to focus also on content and on study skills within a limited
time. Compliance with SLA research means drawing learners ‘attention to
linguistic form without isolating it from its meaningful context (Basturkmen,
Loewen & Ellis, 2004; Ellis, 2009). Therefore, close-ended information
exchanges within collaborative activities aimed at fulfilling a meaningful task can
serve this purpose. In fulfilling such tasks, learners have to pull together their
resources to reconstruct a text or to resolve a problem. Segments of learner
interaction in which they negotiate the use of a linguistic form needed to carry out
a given task are called Language-Related Episodes (LREs) (Leeser, 2004).
Content-based Instruction also have a good Impact on the students and
the programme. The delivery of the CB courses, much emphasis is placed on
students‘ collaboration in the process of co-constructing knowledge. Thus, Senior
(1997) calls students‘ collaborations in CBI ―bonded logroups, and Miller (2002)
―communities of learners (p.149). Adamson stresses that collaborative learning
is a new study skill for CB classes as the expected mode of learning content is
via lectures; so this shift from traditional lecturing to students‘ active participation
encourages cognitive flexibility (Mohammed, 1997) – another offering of CBI,
beneficial for students. One more factor that adds to the overall motivational
power of CBI for students is the challenge they face when working with authentic
content and materials, which make learning more meaningful, purposeful, and
situated (Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989).
Clegg (1996) stated that as an educator, CBI plays an important role and
is integrated throughout the program and instruction guide for the teachers. This
approach also requires better language teachers. Language teachers must be
knowledgeable in content areas and be able to elicit knowledge from students. In
addition, language teachers have such responsibility as to keep context and
comprehensibility foremost in their instruction, to select and adapt authentic
materials for use in class, to provide scaffolding for students’ linguistic content
learning, and to create learner-centered classroom. The growing importance of
English as an international language, the diversification of demographics in
academic institutions, and increased emphasis on performance-based
accountability and ongoing program improvement have expanded the impact and
visibility of language educators and have greatly enhanced their professional role
within the school and the community. Beatty et.al (2003) stated that technological
advances have led to the proliferation of new technologies for educational
contexts and have opened new possibilities for classroom learning and
professional development. Computer, video, and wireless technologies have
expanded the notion of community of learners beyond local communities into
global electronic learning communities. New technologies have greatly enhanced
student achievement and teacher learning.
REFERENCES:
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and
language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal
Rodgers, T. (2006). Developing content and form: Encouraging evidence from
Italian content-based instruction. The Modern Language Journal
Snow, M., & Brinton, D. (Eds.). (1997). The content-based classroom:
Perspectives on integrating language and content. New York: Longman.
Stoller, F. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum
planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
Davies, S. (2003). Content based instruction in EFL contexts. The Internet
TESOL Journal 9(2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Davies-
CBI.html.
Crandall, J. (1994). Content-centered language learning. Retrieved from
htpp://www.cal.org/resources/digest/cranda01.html.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Academic writing. Language Teaching
Stoller, F. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum
planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers‘ stated beliefs about
incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative
dialogue. Language Teaching Research
Senior, R. (1997). Transforming language classes into bonded groups. ELT
Journal
Miller, L. (2002). Towards a model for lecturing in a second language. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes
Mohammed, O. (1997). Counselling for excellence. In D. Mc Namara & R. Harris
(Eds.), Overseas students in higher education. London: Routledge.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second
language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
Clegg, A (1996)., From EFL to content-based instruction: What English teachers
take with them into the sociolinguistics lecture. Asian EFL Journal.
Beatty 2003; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000;
Perkins,Schwartz,West,&Wiske,1995;Warschauer,Shetzer,&Meloni,2000).
, The impact of content-based instructional programs on the academic
progress of ESL students. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 309-320.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR
REFLECTION PAPER
Professor
Student
FARINA ALYSA B. ALIPIO, LPT

Hinkel (2004) stated that prescriptive grammars can be largely seen as
guiding principles of language style and standard usage socially accepted as
norms of effective communication. Generally, prescriptive grammars dominate
in schooling, teaching, testing and assessment, publishing, and editing. The
uses of prescriptive grammars are closely interrelated with social and value
judgments that can reflect a speaker's or a writer's social status, education
levels, professional aspirations, and possibilities for social and economic
mobility.
Hinkel (2003) also stated that prescriptive grammars have the function of
social class and status markers, as well as gate-keepers when it comes to
standardized and language tests. As Richard Hudson once mentioned in one of
his lectures, non-standard forms are hardly ever heard in university lectures or
found in conference papers. That is, a very strong correlation exists between
standard prescriptive grammar uses and higher education. A lack of adherence
to a prescriptive grammar can – and often does – have social repercussions that
are typically socially or opinion-based, much like the uses of good manners or
rules of etiquette.
Using a prescriptive grammar that can provide learners the essential tools
to analyze how language can be used for communication is a range of settings.
For example, formal academic writing, reading, and taking tests requires the
usage of prescribed and formal English grammar rules.
In teaching English as a Foreign Language and outside English-speaking
contexts, the knowledge of grammar prescriptions is one of the top requirements
in the grammar-translation method of instruction. While many teachers who are
trained in the communicative teaching method have all but unrestricted grammar
instruction, teaching English as a Foreign Language has continued to dominate
in a great number of locations around the world. In such contexts, prescriptive
grammars have continued and are likely to continue to dominate.

In addition to productive uses of language, grammar rules are also important
in developing learners' receptive skills. Because practically all academic reading
relies on prescriptive grammars and formal language, for many learners, for
instance, it may be difficult to become proficient and fluent readers without a
detailed familiarity with standard grammar rules. Learning to comprehend and
analyze formal texts that pivot on prescriptive grammar rules is essential for
developing effective reading skills in any type of schooling and education, from
reading stories, novels, and poetry to biology and economics textbooks.
Using a prescriptive grammar that can provide learners the essential tools to
analyze how language can be used for communication is a range of settings. For
example, formal academic writing, reading, and taking tests requires the usage of
prescribed and formal English grammar rules.
Being familiar with and using prescriptive grammar rules enable language
learners to function and succeed in a greatest range of settings and produce
constructions that are accepted by most speakers of the language as the
standard. For learners of English, for example, using standard and prescriptive
grammar – rather than non-standard and conversational grammars – can open
many educational, professional, and social doors. Non-standard and
conversational grammar uses are often looked at judgmentally and prejudicially,
linguistic reasons for such judgments notwithstanding. The rules of prescriptive
grammar can certainly be optional if and when language users know what they
are and when to deploy them.
Greenbaum & Quirk (1990) stated while prescriptive grammar rules and
standards have always resided in language teaching, language testing and
assessment, grammar textbooks, and writing guidebooks, more recent and
contemporary analyses of language corpora do away with prescriptions and
collect and analyze grammar uses and data as they appear in real-life and in the
language of its users. Although some of the materials in various language

corpora are derived from published texts – and hence are based on prescriptive
grammar rules, by and large, for those who are interested in descriptive
grammars, at present, opportunities for becoming familiar with real-life
descriptive grammars are practically limitless.
References:
Greenbaum, S. (1996) The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. (1990). A student's grammar of the
English language. London: Longman.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L2 and
L1 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 275-301.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in
vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION
REFLECTION PAPER
Professor
Student
FARINA ALYSA B. ALIPIO, LPT

Content Based Instruction (CBI) is an integrated approach to language
teaching in which language is the vehicle for instruction, not the immediate
goal. In a Content Based lesson, language is acquired within the context of
the content.
In other words, our students are simply learning about something by
reading about it, listening to the teacher or someone else present it, or
investigating it through discussion and research. All of the INPUT happens in
the target language, so students are interpreting target language discourse in
order to learn more about the topic. As our students are exposed to linguistic
input, their brains process it and intake what they can make sense of; in a
nutshell, what they understand. That processed input is applied to students’
mental representation of language, and poof! The seemingly magic work of
language acquisition happens subconsciously as students’ conscious focus is
on the content.
The CBI approach is comparable to English for Specific Purposes (ESP),
which usually is for vocational or occupational needs, or to English for Academic
Purposes (EAP). The goal of CBI is to prepare students to acquire the language
while using the context of any subject matter so that students learn the language
by using it within that specific context. Rather than learning a language out of
context, it is learned within the context of a specific academic subject.
As educators realized that in order to successfully complete an academic
task, second language (L2) learners have to master both English as a language
form (grammar, vocabulary etc.) and how English is used in core
content classes, they started to implement various approaches such as Sheltered
instruction and learning to learn in CBI classes. Sheltered instruction is more of a
teacher-driven approach that puts the responsibility on the teachers' shoulders.
This is the case by stressing several pedagogical needs to help learners achieve
their goals, such as teachers having knowledge of the subject matter, knowledge
of instructional strategies to comprehensible and accessible content, knowledge
of L2 learning processes and the ability to assess cognitive, linguistic and social
strategies that students use to assure content comprehension while promoting
English academic development. Learning to learn is more of a student-centered
approach that stresses the importance of having the learners share this
responsibility with their teachers. Learning to learn emphasizes the significant
role that learning strategies play in the process of learning.
According to Grabe & Stoller (1997) keeping students motivated and
interested are two important factors underlying content-based
instruction. Motivation and interest are crucial in supporting student success with
challenging, informative activities that support success and which help the
student learn complex skills. Alexander et.al (1992) stated that when students
are motivated and interested in the material they are learning, they make greater
connections between topics, elaborations with learning material and
can recall information better. In short, when a student is intrinsically
motivated the student achieves more. This in turn leads to a perception of
success, of gaining positive attributes which will continue a circular learning
pattern of success and interest. Krapp et. al. (1992) stated that, situational
interest, triggered by environmental factors, may evoke or contribute to the
development of long-lasting individual interests. Because CBI is student
centered, one of its goals is to keep students interested and motivation high by
generating stimulating content instruction and materials.
While CBI can be both challenging and demanding for the teacher and the
students, it can also be very stimulating and rewarding. The degree to which you
adopt this approach may well depend on the willingness of your students, the
institution in which you work and the availability of resources within your
environment. It could be something that your school wants to consider
introducing across the curriculum or something that you experiment with just for
one or two lessons. Whichever you choose to do I would advise that you try to
involve other teachers within your school, particularly teachers from other
subjects. This could help you both in terms of finding sources of information and
in having the support of others in helping you to evaluate your work.
Lastly, try to involve your students. Get them to help you decide what topics
and subjects the lessons are based around and find out how they feel this kind of
lessons compares to your usual lessons. In the end they will be the measure of
your success.
References
Brinton, D. (2003). Content-based instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English
Language Teaching (pp. 199–224). New York: McGraw Hill.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations.
In M. A. Snow, & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom:
Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5–21). NY: Longman.
Nik Peachey, teacher, trainer and materials writer, The British Council
Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. M. (Eds.). (2017). The content-based classroom: New
perspectives on integrating language and content (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Telephone Number: (083) 301-1927
Telefax: (083) 552-3624
COVERT AND OVERT APPROACHES:

A REFLECTION PAPER
Subject

LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student
JELAINE C. BALATAYO, LPT
Beare (2013) stated that it should be teaching style, procedure or way
which brings out the best practice and results in language teaching. If a teacher
applies this known approach it will definitely be effective in his teaching
compared to different and outdated ways which do not show results. Beare also
pointed out that the best approaches or methods will lead to quality of language
teaching.
There are two basic approaches which acts as an umbrella to the other
approaches or methods. These are the covert and overt approaches which are
also known as the structural and communicative methods.
The first approach is overt approach or also known as structural approach,
the teacher explicitly explains the rules when presenting the new language, in
other words, the grammar rules are provided and explained. It is a way to teach
English by using only the traditional method like grammar translation or direct
method. Students are also taught to master sentence patterns and sentence
structures. However, it is only best suited at early stage of learning and not
suitable for higher classes as they don’t like repetition of the structure.
The second approach is covert approach or also known as communicative
approach. The teacher gets the pupil involved in using the structure without
drawing their attention to grammatical rules. In other words, grammatical facts
hidden from the pupils. This approach emphasizes the language in use rather
than language as a structure. Student’s attention will be focused on the activity
and not on the grammar rules but they have ample opportunity to learn grammar
rules through the activity. The teacher maintains a warm and supportive
atmosphere so that students are not afraid to take risk to test their linguistic
competence.
The two approaches have their own strengths and weaknesses. These
two approaches should not be seen as separate entities, but rather as
complementary to each other. A grammar rule presented covertly via a text or
communicative activity can be supported by an explicit explanation to enable
students to understand the rule.

Chitravelu et.al. (2005) stated that a grammar rule presented overtly or
explicitly should be supported by activities which encourage students to use the
structures for communicative purposes. The main aim of teaching grammar is to
help our students use English correctly in all forms of communication. Thus, both
approaches can complement each other to bring out the best in our students.
References:
Beare,K .(2013). Teaching Grammar in an ESL / EFL Setting, English as Second
Language. About.com Guide. Retrieved from
http://esl.about.com/cs/teachingtechnique/a/a_teachgrammar.htm [21 April
2013]
Chitravelu, N et.al. (2005).ELT Methodology: Principles and Practice. 2nd Ed.
Shah Alam: Oxford University Press.
Gardner,S .(2008).Changing approaches to teaching grammar.ELTED.11, 39-44
https://workpurpose.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/covert-vs-overt-3-2/
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Telefax: (083) 552-3624
Text-based (Content Focus): Final Reflection Paper
Subject

LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student
JELAINE C. BALATAYO, LPT

Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is a method of teaching second
languages in which instruction is organized around the content or information that
students will learn rather than a linguistic or another type of syllabus. Attempts to
prioritize meaning in language instruction are not new.
CBI's goal is to prepare students to learn a language while using the
context of any subject matter so that students learn the language while using it in
that specific context. Students learn a language within the context of a specific
academic subject, rather than outside of it.
It can make language learning more interesting and motivating. Students
can use the language to accomplish a real purpose, increasing their
independence and confidence. However, CBI implicit language instruction can be
confusing and give learners the feeling that they are not learning a language. In
some parts of the lesson, overuse of the native language can be a problem. It
can be difficult to find information sources and texts that are understandable to
people at lower levels.
CBI can be both challenging and demanding for both teachers and
students, but it can also be extremely stimulating and rewarding. The extent to
which you use this approach will likely be determined by the willingness of your
students, the institution in which you work, and the availability of resources in
your environment.
Reference:
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/content-based-instruction
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Telefax: (083) 552-3624
REFLECTION PAPER
GRAMMAR IN ISOLATION VS. GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT
Professor
FRANCIS Z. LORENZO JR., PHD
Student
JIMBOY H. BALDESCO, LPT
It cannot be denied the fact that learning English is a must in today’s world
because it is lingua franca and people use English in order to communicate all
around the world. This situation brings us to the conclusion that language
learning process should be dealt with a great care by instructors of English. The
key point is how language should be learnt. It can be said that the focus of
language teaching process is especially on grammar.
Therefore, lots of theories are stated about how grammar can be taught. It
would not be too wrong to say that every instructor of English in EFL context has
doubts in his mind which method to use in the classroom while teaching grammar
or any skill. The instructors of university try to find their ways by deciding on the
approach, to use a context or not and to teach deductively or inductively.
Several studies clearly state the importance of using context in language
teaching process. For example, Mart (2013) stated that grammar instruction
through context positively affects learners’ competence to use grammatical
structures accurately in language skills. It is always useful for learners to see
how language works in sentences or paragraphs; therefore, teaching grammar in
context will give learners opportunities to see how grammatical structures
function in sentences”. Additionally, Nunan (1998) states unless they provide
opportunities for learners to explore grammatical structures in context, they make
the task of developing procedural skill—being able to use the language for
communication—more difficult than it needs to be, because learners are denied
the opportunity of seeing the systematic relationships that exist between form,
meaning and use”.
The purpose and advantages of using grammar in isolation are the
following: First is to identify student`s own performance, it helps the teacher to
set the level and make improvements on the next lesson, to make pupils
recognize the rules and regulation of grammar (Ex. tenses and irregular verbs),
the teacher can selectively choose which grammar items to cover in this
grammar course, so that the instruction can effectively focused on items that are
more important, give teachers as well as students plenty of time to understand
the grammatical forms and produce them in communication task. The
advantages of teaching grammar in context on the other hand is it is applicable
while teaching other skills (Eg: listening, writing reading, speaking, and language
arts) and teaching grammar in context provides a meaningful framework that
connects to reality in the targeted language. Anderson (2005) stated that it is also
an approach through which learner learn how to form structures correctly, and
also how to use them to communicate meaning. Nunan (1999) also stated that
learners will use grammatical conventions more effectively in communication if
they learn them in context.
There is little room for doubt that teaching grammar in context always has
a room in the language learning. According to Stephen Krashen (1981) language
acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and
does not require tedious drill. In my opinion, grammar in context acts as a
pathway to provide meaningful interaction in the target language through
activities that open the windows for exploration in grammatical structure in
context. Through this, learners would be able to use grammar to get things done
and allows them to realize how and why alternative forms exist to express the
different communicative meanings. I opposed to the statement of Stephen
Krashen because for me, learning the basics of grammar is very important
because it will become our foundation in learning the language. Imagine what will
happen if we leave out important blocks on the wall? Those spaces on the walls
will become a weakness and soon the structure will collapse. Same with our
learners, they will struggle soon in their profession if they don`t have a good
foundation in grammar especially if they will speak and write in English.

Based from our discussion after my report, both grammar in isolation and
grammar in context are vital for students in learning language. Grammar in
isolation is helpful to improve the student`s knowledge about a specific topic or
skill, while grammar in context means that the teaching of grammar is embedded
and integrated into other aspects of the curriculum, such as creative writing and
analytical reading, rather than a stand-alone activity. I know in myself as an
English teacher that there`s a lot of topics or rules that I need to isolate, because
while I am speaking, I am not aware that there were grammatical errors in my
statements, I commit mistakes especially in the use of tenses and prepositions
and every time I construct my sentences, I am sometimes confuse of what is the
proper word to use like the tenses or the different prepositions. Through grammar
in isolation you will be able to identify the weaknesses of students in a speaking
and help them overcome it.
Grammar instruction is a difficult issue in language teaching. Teaching
grammar through context will help learners perceive the structures of the
language effectively. If learners are given grammatical structures in context, they
will be able master the language better. Teaching grammar in context will help
learners to acquire new grammar structures and forms. Learners will use
grammatical conventions more effectively in communication if they learn them in
context.
References:
Mart, C.T (2013). Teaching Grammar in Context: Why and How?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276020676_Teaching_Grammar
_in_Context_Why_and_How.
Karaulutaş, T. (2016): Teaching Grammar In Context Or In Isolation For Marked
And Unmarked Structures. Izmir Institute of Technology
Leto, A. (nd) :Grammar in Context vs Grammar in Isolation (English and
Literature)
https://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Grammar-In-Context-Vs-
Grammar-In/275582

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Telefax: (083) 552-3624
REFLECTION PAPER ON AWARENESS-RAISING

APPROACH
(INDUCTIVE FOCUS)
Professor
Student
Grammar is an important aspect of communication because it deals
with how people can express their ideas or thoughts. It is important to
construct words and sentences properly to convey the points effectively.
Also, grammatical errors were the major problems in the students’ writing.
In addition, Baleghizadeh & Gordani (2001) revealed that the application
of accurate grammar is an important aspect of any good piece of writing.
Without correct grammar, clear communication is nearly impossible.
Proper grammar prevents people from being misunderstood while
expressing the thoughts and ideas. In recent years, awareness-raising
approach has been suggested as an innovation on language teaching. In
addition, many researchers have reported positive effects of grammar
teaching through the awareness-raising approach. Illis et al. (1993) stated
that awareness-raising grammar teaching, therefore, may open up a new
way for teachers in China to make grammar teaching and learning more
cognitive and interactive.
Hawkins (1987) stated that language awareness has been
considered as a stopgap for more successful language learning. Recent
researchers in Second Language Acquisition by Illis and Fotos, (1993)
also have shown the advantages of teaching grammar through
consciousness awareness-raising. The awareness-raising approach in
grammar teaching is likely to inject new ideas and open up a new way for
grammar teaching. Consciousness-raising approach involves an attempt
to equip the learner with an understanding of a specific grammatical
feature – to develop declarative rather than procedural knowledge of it.

Van Lier (1995) described as language awareness aims to develop
person`s sensitivity and awareness of language to understand how
language relates to the most central activities in our life from learning to
thinking to social relationship and to build up the ability to view a language
objectively as a phenomenon. Poldauf (1995) stated that language
awareness can be defined as an understanding of the human faculty of
language and its role in thinking, learning and social life. Borg (1994) also
points out that Language Awareness in particular has been thought to
mean a revision to the past unsuccessful and inappropriate practices in
language teaching, and a response to the notoriously dismal
achievements in language learning. Language learning may act as a
bridge to better language learning and as a prerequisite for efficient
language study. In other words, Language awareness is able to serve as a
principled process or mechanism that will allow students to capitalize on
their knowledge of English for communicating and learning purposes.
Carter (1993) said that the development of learners` language awareness
is a natural consequence of a proper exploration of students` ability and
their attention to the nature and functions of language.
Awareness raising (AR) and Consciousness-raising (CR) are
interchangeable terms. According to Rutherford and Sharwood-smith
(1985), AR teaching can vary depending on both the degree of
explicitness with which the rule is presented and the degree of elaboration
involved. Sharwood-smith (1981:161) states that the discovery of
regularities in the target language, whether blindly intuitive or conscious,
or coming in between these two extremes, will always be self-discovery.
The question is to what extent that discovery is guided by the teacher. The
guidance, where consciousness-raising is involved, can be more or less
direct and explicit. Rutherford (1987) suggests that grammatical rules

cannot be directly imparted to students because of the complexity of many
rules. Grammar is also less likely to be learned by accumulating
grammatical rules. Grammar teaching has to be inductive rather
deductive.
Awareness-raising approach tends to trigger grammar learning in
context, and to treat students as active thinkers and explorers. It
aims to make students more sensitive to grammar in use, more active in
grammar learning, more attentive to grammatical features in language
use. Ellis (1993) proposes two kinds of awareness-raising grammar
teaching. First is Awareness-raising for noticing: to focus learners`
attention on the meanings performed by specific grammatical properties
and to help learners to intake (a necessary step for internalization of the
feature as implicit knowledge). That is to induce learners to notice and
understand features of grammar in the input processing. Then the second
one is Awareness-raising for explicit knowledge: to help learners to learn
about a particular grammatical feature by developing an explicit
representation of how it works in the target language. That is, to supply
learners with the data and then they need to discover the rules for
themselves.
According to McCarthy and Carter (1995) advocate of awareness-
raising grammar teaching paradigm III (Illustration-Interaction-Induction).
Illustration is to provide language data to students: then the teaching is
operated through interaction (teachers-students, students-students); finally
students formulate grammatical rules themselves just like the video I
showed during our reporting last Friday. First in the Illustration stage,
language data is the basis which came from dictionaries, newspapers,
novels, short stories grammar books and etc. Then, at the interaction
stage, the teacher can operate grammar teaching by pairing or grouping
students through tasks of noticing, comparing, classifying, cross-language
exploration, brainstorming and so on. Then in the last stage which is the
induction stage, students write down, speak or organize grammar rules
drawn from the data. Awareness-raising approach in grammar teaching
can be realized in many different ways, and there is numerous teaching
technique. Teachers are encouraged to design teaching task/activities to
fit their students` level and needs.
Lastly, the Awareness-Raising Approach in grammar teaching
advocates inductive grammar instruction combined with interactive and
cognitive processes of learning not a return to the traditional grammar
teaching which has put a lot of emphasis on correctness of grammatical
structures and normally ends up with memorization and repetition and
drills. Consequently, students are made to rely on rote and mechanical
learning. The traditional grammar teaching is likely to help learners obtain
good grammar scores in a short time, yet it deprives the students of the
enjoyment from exploring the grammar of language in use while they are
learning. Grammar itself is not statically by actively used in English. In the
era of life-long education, it is far more important to lead students to be
more autonomous an active in learning. The awareness-raising approach
has opened a new perspective in teaching and learning. Teacher should
not merely teach their learners to be able to remember grammatical rules
of English, but more importantly they also must guide the learners to
understand those rules and make them able to use those rules
communicatively. Using inductive consciousness-raising tasks in teaching
grammar rules is one of the possible solutions to the problems discussed
above, because it does not only relieve teachers from burden of speaking,
create motivating learning environment, improve explicit knowledge
retention, but it is also expected to enhance language use by learners.
REFERENCES:
Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar teaching-practice or consciousness-raising? In
J. Richards& W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching:
An anthology of current practice (pp. 167-174). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Zhang, X. (2004) . The Awareness-Raising Approach: A New Perspective
on Grammar Teaching, Suqian University, School of Foreign
Studies
Roza, V. (2014). Using Inductive Consciousness Raising Tasks to Teach
Grammar at the College.
Baleghizadeh, S.&Gordani, Y. (2012).Academic writing and grammatical
accuracy: the role of corrective feedback. Gist Education
andLearning Research Journal.ISSN 1692-5777. No. 6,
November2012. Retrieved December 6, 2016, from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1062591.pdf
Carter, R. (1995). Keywords in Language and Literacy. London:
Routledge.
Ellis, N.C (ed). 1994. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Language. London:
Academic Press Ltd.
Fotos, C. 1993. Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on
form: grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied
Linguistics
Fotos, C. 1994. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative
language use through grammar consciousness-raising task.
TESOL Quarterly

GRADUATE SCHOOL
PRACTICE-BASED APPROACH AND CONCIOUSNESS-

RAISING APPROACH IN TEACHING GRAMMAR: A
REFLECTION PAPER
Subject

LEARNERS(ENGL206)
Professor
Student
HERNAN L. BIÑAS JR., LPT
As a language teacher, I realized that teaching grammar is very important
for L2 learners. I believe that if my learners understand the rules that govern the
language as well as be able to apply these rules in their utterances,
communication
will be much more effective for them. Pachina (2019) states that learning proper
grammar is important because it is the language that makes it possible for us to
effectively talk about language. Knowing about grammar opens a window into the
human mind and into our amazingly complex mental capacity of knowing and
learning a specific language. We always associate grammar with errors and
correctness. But keep in mind, knowing about grammar also helps us understand
what makes sentences and paragraphs clear and interesting, pleasant and
precise.
My job as a language teacher plays a big role in the language
development of my L2 learners. I should help my L2 learners know about
grammar and help them realize its importance. Ellis (1990) emphasized the two
major questions that need to be considered with regard to grammar teaching in
second language (L2) pedagogy. He assumed that we should teach grammar

and he turned his attention to how we
should set about doing so. To answer these questions Rod Ellis considered the 2
approaches in teaching grammar, first is practice-based approach and the
second is consciousness-raising approach. Ur (1988) explained that the practice
stage consists of a series of exercises that aim to cause the learners to absorb
the structure thoroughly; or to put it another way, to transfer what they know from
short-term to long-term memory’. I have to admit that in my pedagogy, I
sometimes forget to engage my students in practicing the grammatical contents I
presented. There were instances that after presenting the grammatical content, I
immediately gave quizzes to know if they really understood the presented data.
The results showed that a lot of them did not. My discussion about practice
enlightened me so much on the positive effect of engaging my students to
multiple practices. Through consistent practice, L2 learners will be able to repeat
the targeted grammatical feature. The more they repeat a particular grammatical
feature the more they are mastering it. I also realized that learning something
new is hard for L2 learners, especially at the beginning when they are likely to
struggle and make mistakes. But through consistent practice they will be able to
commit fewer mistakes or possibly master the given grammatical content.
I have observed that the traditional way of teaching grammar never gets
old
for teachers even up to this day. There are still teachers who still spoon-feed
everything that is printed in different grammar textbooks. What I have realized is
heavy reliance on these textbooks do not engage L2 learners in rethinking and
knowing about grammar independently. Many researchers (van Lier, 2001;
Johnson, 1996) and teachers argue that awareness of, attention to and noticing
particular features of language aid in learning that language. Developing learners'
awareness of target language features by drawing their attention to the
language's patterns might help them to notice how the language works. To help
students know about grammar, a lot of researchers suggested the use of
consciousness-raising approach in teaching grammar. Grammar Consciousness-
Raising (GCR) is an approach to teaching of grammar which learners instead of
being taught the given rules, experience language data. The data challenge them
to rethink, restructure their existing mental grammar and construct an explicit rule
to describe the grammatical feature which the data illustrate (Ellis, 2002). In other
words, when we speak of Consciousness-raising approach in teaching grammar,
this is an approach to teaching of grammar which learners instead of being
taught the given rules, experience language data. What I like about
Consciousness-Raising Approach is, it engages students in using their
intellectual effort to notice by their own the function of the given grammatical
content in context or in communication. However, we can’t avoid that there are
students who needs further assistance in learning the second language. And so,
the teacher has to be patient in presenting as many data as possible and explain
this explicitly to the learners so that in time, learners will be able to notice
something about the language that before they failed to notice.
My discussion about Practice-Based Approach and Consciousness-
Raising
Approach changed my perception on how to teach grammar. The topics helped
me realize the advantage of engaging students in consciousness-raising
activities like discovery activities which I sometimes failed to incorporate in my
pedagogy. Ellis (1984) Consciousness-raising constitutes an approach to
grammar teaching which is compatible with current thinking about how learners
acquire L2 grammar. It also constitutes an approach that accords with
progressive views about education as a process of discovery through problem-
solving tasks. Richards & Schmidt (2002) stated that grammar consciousness-
raising activities is a technique that encourages students to pay attention and
makes them aware of language form that will contribute to language acquisition
indirectly. I also came up with the conclusion that if we partner consciousness-
raising approach with practice-based approach, L2 learners will be able to make
repeated production of the grammatical contents presented to them. This is very
essential in helping students achieve mastery and become more aware. Ellis
(1984), you can combine practice-based approach with consciousness-raising.
But, you can have consciousness-raising without practice.
I believe that there is no best single method and approach to effectively
teach grammar. There is a need to assess L2 learners’ needs and differences so
that our method and approach in teaching grammar will be much more
responsive. Upon knowing my student’s needs, I can see that consciousness-
raising approach and practice-based approach will help me as a language
teacher and my students a lot. Of course, I can’t see their effectiveness this time
since these approaches can only be justified if it can be shown that it contributes
to the learner’s ability to
communicate. Even though some studies concluded that these approaches may
be not that effective, I will still try to use these approaches in teaching grammar.
Ellis (1984), stated that there are problems with such studies as these, and it
would be unwise to claim that they conclusively demonstrate that the mentioned
approaches do not work. It may be that the approaches were of the wrong kind,
that it was poorly executed, or that there were not enough of those. It may be that
practice only works with some kinds of learners. Therefore, I have to make sure
that before using these approaches, I, as a language teacher must be prepared
enough in terms of the resources needed and mastery of using these
approaches. Furthermore, I have to assess my students learning needs so that I
have a clear and specific objective. These are all challenges in my part as a
language teacher but I am always up for challenges especially if it is for my
students’ development.
References:
Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar teaching-practice or consciousness
raising? In J. Richards& W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in
language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 167-174).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iskandar & Heriyawati (2015), Grammar Consciousness-Raising Activities and
Their Impact on Students’ Grammatical Competence.
Fatemipour & Hemmati (2015). Impact of Consciousness-Raising Activities on
Young English Language Learners’ Grammar Performance, Department
of English Language Teaching, Roudehen Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Roudehen, Iran.
Al-Jardani, K. (2014). ELT and Consciousness-Raising, i-manager’s
Journal on English Language Teaching, Vol. 2lNo. 3, A'Sharqiyah
University.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
REFLECTION ON PRACTICE AND CONSCIOUS-RAISING AWARENESS IN

TEACHING GRAMMAR
ENGLISH GRAMMAR APPROACHES FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS
Engl206
Professor
FRANCISCO LORENZO JR., PhD
Student
JEFFREY B. JARANTILLA, LPT
As an English teacher for 3 years, Practice and Conscious-raising
awareness as an approach to teaching grammar is actually new to me but
outsourcing various references to acquire explicit knowledge of this approach I
realize that this is essential to second language teaching though not always
observable and acknowledged in the classroom it is subconsciously applied
through instruction and activities.
To better elucidate my takeaway on this approach, let me explain the
terms. Practice as the term implies is about providing the students a series of
exercises be it writing or speaking in a context for them to absorb the language
structure through practice. Practice as a teaching approach allows the students
to learn by doing with the guidance of the teacher. On the other hand,
consciousness is about awareness and awareness is the ability to perceive or
feel something out of the things that exist in the mind. Meanwhile language
awareness is explicit knowledge about language, and conscious perception and
sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use. So
basically, consciousness-raising as an approach to language teaching attempts
to equip the learners with an understanding of a specific grammatical feature that
is to develop declarative rather than procedural knowledge of it.
For once I encountered this approach I wonder whether if practice and
conscious-raising can be applied separately in language teaching. I learned that
practice and conscious raising are not mutually exclusive as learning grammar
can be a combination of these two. Also, I found out that practice is primarily
behavioral while the conscious-raising is especially concept-forming in
orientation. However, practice work cannot take place without some degree of
consciousness-raising but consciousness-raising can occur without practice.
I remember when I taught the subject Basic Grammar and our topic was
specifically about the voices of the verb I instructed my students to write an
autobiography. Right after, in their autobiographies I instructed them to underline
the sentences that were written in active voice and encircle the sentences that
were written in passive voice. Some students followed the instruction but most of
them failed to do it. In my assessment, I discovered that few students had
grammatical knowledge and competence in the voices of the verb, some had
ideas but did’d know to identify whether the sentence is passive or active, and
most of them did’t know at all. But looking at bright side, their writing skills were
impressive. After the activity, I introduced them the voices of the verb. I also
taught them how to switch the voice from passive to active and vice versa.
In relation to practice and conscious-raising awareness, I realized that
language teachers actually use this language teaching approach. When I asked
my students to write an autobiography, I was impressed with their writing skills

and realized that they actually had an unconscious ability to write active and
passive sentences regardless of the fact that most of them didn’t know how to
identify those and now I conclude that it has something to do with practice since I
as the teacher used the autobiography writing as an eliciting activity to teach
them the voices of the verb as it was our target grammatical feature.
Subsequently, as the teacher I discussed to my students the voices of the verb
and I believe that it raised their consciousness about that particular grammatical
feature. This point of my lesson has something to do with conscious-raising
awareness since I educated them the voices of the verb.
In my final reading, consciousness-raising constitutes an approach to
grammar teaching which is compatible with current thinking about how learners
acquire second language grammar. It also constitutes an approach that accords
with progressive views about education as a process of discovery through
problem-solving tasks. There are, of course, limitations to consciousness-raising.
It may not be appropriate for young learners. Some learners. For example, those
who like to learn by doing rather than by relying on teacher’s input may dislike it.
It can only be used with beginners if the learners’ first language is used as the
medium for solving the tasks. However, the alternative in such situations is not
practice. Rather, it is to provide opportunities for meaning-focused language use,
for communicating in the second language, initially perhaps in the form of
listening tasks. All learners, even those who are suited to a consciousness-
raising approach, will need plenty of such opportunities. Consciousness-raising is
not an alternative to communication activities, but a supplement. On the other
hand, Practice” is essentially a pedagogical construct. It assumes that the
acquisition of grammatical structures involves a gradual automatization of
production, from controlled to automatic, and it ignores the very real constraints
that exist on the ability of the teacher to influence what goes on inside the
learner’s head. Practice may have limited psycholinguistic validity.

As we try to learn about this approach, it is important to be reminded that
the practice and conscious raising are not separated nor there shall be one of
these that must be used in teaching a language lesson. Though conscious-
raising may stand alone particularly to teaching primary learners and practice
may not without conscious raising, it is still much better to use them together
particularly to second language learners to provide our students a holistic
learning experience.
References:
Harmer (1999) Learning to Teach English in Secondary School Davison and
Dawson, 2009 https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijsell/v2-i3/1.pdf

GRADUATE SCHOOL
REFLECTION ON TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING

ENGLISH GRAMMAR APPROACHES FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNMERS
Engl206
Professor
FRANCISCO LORENZO JR., PHD
Student
The Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an approach to language
teaching that most of the teachers are practicing inside the classroom but
subconsciously know that it actually exists as an approach to language teaching.
A lot of teachers like me practice this approach to bring the real-world activities
inside the classroom to hone the communication skills of the students. According
to Rozate (2014), the task- based language teaching is derived from Dewey‟s
attitude about the crucial role of experience for an effective learning. Meaning to
say, it considers the functional role of language in real tasks as the major goal for
students to communicate at the class for an ideal learning and unlike any other
approaches, the TBLT involves the specification of a sequence of interactive

tasks to be performed in the target language rather than a sequence of language
items.
The most significant term for TBLT is the “task”. Prabhu (1987) defined
task as an activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given
information through some process of thought and which allowed teachers to
control and regulate that process was regarded as a task. But generally
speaking, the word “task “is meant the hundred in one things we people do in
everyday life be it at work or at home. For example, washing the dishes, making
a lesson plan, buying a grocery, hanging out with friends and the likes. So, task
is something that we people do consciously or subconsciously, we may do it all
by ourselves or it cause by an extrinsic reason. Thus Long (2015) defined task as
a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward.
It is clear enough that in TBLT, the task to be accomplished by the
students in the classroom is a reflection of the real-world activity. Nevertheless,
subconscious language teachers who wish to become totally conscious in
utilizing TBLT approach need to distinguish the tasks that occur inside the
classroom and the task that naturally occur outside the classroom. Hence,
Nunan’s (2005) notion of task is perhaps essential to fully grasp the concept of
TBLT. He made a distinguish of the “target task and the pedagogical task.
According him, the target task refers to language use in the world beyond the
classroom and the pedagogical task refers to language use that occurs in the
classroom. Elaborately, target task is something that the learners might
conceivably do outside the classroom such as washing the dishes, booking a
hotel reservation, or going to a birthday party. Basing from the target task, the
pedagogical task is created in order to push learners into communicating
interaction that fuels the acquisition of the target language that occur inside the
classroom. To make it short, the task (pedagogical) that takes inside the inside
the classroom is based from the task (targe) that takes place outside the
classroom.
In the utilization of TBLT approach, it is necessary for the teacher to
employ a “task-based needs analysis” to identify the target task for a particular
group of learners (Long 2015 pp, 6). It pertains to identifying what they need to
be able to do to achieve learning for the target language. The teacher must get to
decide a target task appropriate for a particular group of students. The target task
must be relevant to the activity that students usually do as part of the daily living.
It can be buying a book, attending a party and etc. When the teacher finally
decided a target task, he/she must design instructional materials and plan the
flow of the lesson to modify the target task in order for the students to reliably
achieve the pedagogical task. If this is an essential process of utilizing TBLT
approach, my take away on this is that teachers should know their students not
only as who they are inside the classroom but also as who they are outside
including what kind of community they belong to, what is their role in the family
and even their economic status in order to carefully decide a real-world activity to
bring inside the classroom that is just right for the students.
One of the evident reasons why we need know the background of the
students is that the TBLT is a learner-centered approach. Learner-centeredness
has long been extolled as a virtue in the LT literature. While serios work on
individual differences, including affective factors, has been published over the
years (Dornyie, 2005 as cited by Long, 2015). In learner-centeredness based
teaching, we mainly put our students as the main subject of the learning process
to the extent that we are typically encouraged to employ pedagogical procedure
that are likely to create a positive classroom environment in the manner of
praising our students’ achievement. Most commonly, a learner-centered teacher
responds to students’ error with sympathy rather than face-threatening negative
feedback, and include motivational games or activities that make them feel good
about themselves. If this is how we generally know about learner-centeredness,
obviously the focus is on the affective domain. Nonetheless, the real learner-
centeredness in TBLT is addressed first and foremost in the cognitive domain.
This claim adheres the notion of Long (2015). He said that “the relevance of
course content to students’ communicative needs and respect for individual
differences and underlying psycholinguistic process is more important for
language learning than everyone’s feeling good about themselves.” Hence,
students can still be treaded with much delicacy and charm as typically
overworked, underpaid teachers can muster, but superficial affective
considerations pales in importance for students self-respect that comes from
being treated as rational human beings, associating voluntarily and playingly an
active role in their own progress in a learner-centered, egalitarian classroom.
Nonetheless, everything has its perks and downside. There is no perfect
approach for language teaching. Thus, here are some of the advantages and
disadvantages that I realized in TBLT. To begin with, it is more student-centered,
just like some of the other approaches the students are the center of the learning
process though it targets more the cognitive aspects. Second, it allows more
meaningful communication because students are engaged in an interactive
activity where teamwork and collaborating are developed among them to
successfully achieve a task instructed by the teacher. Third, students will be
exposed to a whole range of lexical phrases, collocations and patterns as well as
language forms since the students can speak freely with their peers during the
completion of the task. Eventually, they can consciously and subconsciously
discover some linguistic entities that are essential to acquisition of the second
language or learning the target language. And forth, it encourages students to be
more ambitious in the language they use. The students can develop the sense of
confidence and courage to further explore some of the features of target

language as they are free to use it without judgement to solidify their proficiency
level in using the target language.
For the downside, there may be few potential problems that you may
encounter. Such as, students will stay within the narrow confines of familiar
words and forms, since they are freely work on the task, they might relay to what
they have already know. And since the students are grouped to do the task,
some can "hide" and rely on others to do the bulk of the work and learning. Also,
difficulty of implementing task-based teaching where classes are large and space
limited and/or inflexible.
Task-based instructions might be something we, as teachers have
consciously or unconsciously applied in our class. It is evident that if,
successfully implemented, we can be able to reap the rewards of applied
language learning. However, again, there is no perfect approach. It is therefore
important that we do not shun something new just because it is difficult, instead,
strive to broaden our minds and perspective in learning.
References
Long, M. (2015) Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language
Teaching, First Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rozeti, S.M. (2014) Language Teaching and Task-Based Approach, Amin Higher
Education Institution, Fouladshahr, Iran
Hismanoglu, (2011). Task-based language teaching: what every EFL teacher
should do? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 (2011) 46–52.
Hatip, F. (2005). Task-based language learning. Cited in Hismanoglu, M &, S.

Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nauna, D. (2005). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge language teaching
library.
Willis, J. (2004). Perspectives on task-based instruction: Understanding our
practices, acknowledging our different practitioners. In B. L. Leaver & J.
Willis (Eds.), Task based instruction in language education (pp.3-44).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Breen, M. P., (1987), Learner contributions to task design, In Language Learning
Tasks, Englewood Cliffs, eds., Candlin and Murphy D.F., NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
REFLECTION PAPER ON IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE
ENGLISH GRAMMAR APPROACHES FOR ENGLISH LEARNERS

(ENG206)
Subject
Professor
FRANCISCO Z. LORENZO, JR. PHD
Student
DIVINE F. SANZ, LPT
The lecture started with a definition: “It operates below the level of
conscious awareness” by Gredler 2009. This definition got me thinking of what
this implicit knowledge be all about. I have learned that this type of knowledge is
an opposed to formal, codified or explicit knowledge. Its term was coined by
Michael Polanyi. It is sometimes called knowledge of experience and comes from

practical experience. It also does not describe how something is done and it is
acquired without the help of others or direct instruction. Lastly, it is also known as
tacit knowledge. These are the information that I newly acquired and it supports
the given definition in the above statement.
After learning implicit knowledge, I gained a lot of insights and I was able
to reevaluate my preconceived about the idea which the topic provides. There
are specific moments where I was able to apply this knowledge but was unable
to classify that it is implicit. Just like for example doing things that based from my
guts, like painting a wall. I don’t need a degree to paint a wall basically. Also
hammering a nail or cooking rice or putting a zigzag puzzle. These are things we
do daily or randomly, but unaware that we are learning. And the next time we do
things, we have already the prior knowledge. In this type of knowledge, it is hard
or sometimes cannot be verbalized, but the presence of learning is here.
In connection to the language, implicit knowledge is done before explicit
knowledge. I viewed it that way because when we were kids no one taught us to
speak basic words such as mama or dada. Implicit knowledge gives us the idea
of the ability to speak a language. So are for the early childhood development.
The development relies on the first-hand experiences of an individual. These
first-hand experiences as an implicit knowledge becomes explicit when the
conscious individual will become aware that there are learnings that took place.
Moreover, I have also learned that implicit knowledge has an advantage such as
easy to implement in a classroom set up. It also increases quantity of knowledge
by sharing experiences among students in peer group discussions. I may
suggest that students may do brainstorming. It can also use in normal group
technique and in “five why” analysis. I can also ask learners to remember
sentences containing the target structures. There are classroom activities where
this type of learning is applied. There is also disadvantage of implicit knowledge.
For example, falsehood, self-claiming, individuals may not have the knowledge
they claim to have, blindly accept what we are told and it difficult to retain. To
sum up everything that has been stated so far, implicit knowledge operates
below the level of our awareness. Meaning, we remain unaware of the learning
that has taken place, although it is evident in the behavioral responses we make.
Thus, we cannot verbalize what we have learned.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Reflection Paper on Production-Based Instruction (PBI)

(ENG206)
Subject
Professor
Student
DIVINE F. SANZ, LPT
The reporting started off with a quote: “With languages, you are at home
anywhere” by Edmund De Waal. This quote had already got me thinking how
language becomes vital part of human connection. I was able to understand
deeply that language allows us to share our ideas, thoughts, and feelings with
others. It has a power to build societies, but also tear them down. In order to be
at home anywhere, able to speak and adapt language to a new culture and
method make you feel home. There is a greater impact in the mastery of
language. Thus, RBI is linked to the mastery of language in either oral or written
form.
Why I was linking RBI to the mastery of language? Let us take this
definition of RBI as defined by DeKeyser, R. M., and Sokalski, K. J. (1996), that
production-based instruction (PBI) was defined as comprising any activity that
required learners to produce the specific target feature(s) in either oral or written
form. What do learners produce in a specific target feature(s) in either oral or
written form? Of course, these things have to do with language. Additionally,
Natsuko et al. (2013) mentioned that production- based instruction focuses on
communication. So as a teacher, giving corrective feedback can give more
opportunities to learners to understand more on target features.
I also learned that production-based instruction (PBI) invariably involves
two-way interaction between teacher and students or between students working
in pairs or groups. Also, in PBI, production of the target features is elicited by
means of either text-manipulation or text-creation activities.
Fellowes and Oakley (2014) have adapted the following three types
(genres) that are age-appropriate for early childhood settings: (1) Personal
(expressive) texts, including letters, diaries, journals, and notes. (2) Imaginative
(narratives) texts, including stories, fairytales, poems, and play scripts. (3)
Informative (expository) texts, including reports, explanations, procedures, and
persuasive writing.
From this topic, I was able to know that there are various activities for PBI.
Here’s one examples in oral language practice activities for beginning-early and
intermediate activity with the title, “Follow the Pattern (Structured Talk)”, where
the learners do after oral practice, where they write the sentences they created
with help as needed. Another example is to ask students to write a paragraph
about the third question and then to share their paragraph with the other
members of their small group. In writing practice activities, where the focus is on
think —- write, we can use graphic organizers.
I can enumerate the advantages of PBI in the classroom. Here are the
reasons why it is advantageous: it enables collaborative work and teamwork to
share meanings. It provides basic skills for students. It creates opportunities for
learners to use whatever linguistic resources. It will provide superior to
comprehension-based instruction in developing both type of knowledge. I can
see that PBI provides opportunities to learners to work together collaboratively
and their skills and talents in relation to the language be enhanced.
Although, there were great advantages provided by PBI, there were also
some potential problems encountered such as its efficacy. It is not effective when
students are not prepared enough; they will not be able to maintain a pace if they
are still unclear about the concept. BPI benefits productive knowledge but not
receptive knowledge. Only learners with advanced knowledge will do the
instruction with less supervision. Unlike receptive learners that are passive. They
are like nails, that in order to move it needs to be hammered.
To sum up everything that has been stated so far, production-based
instruction (PBI) was defined as compromising any activity that required learners
to produce the specific target features in either oral or written form. PBI is used
specifically for language production in oral and in written form. It can be
instructed in a two-way interaction: teacher to students and students to students.
I believe that PBI will be beneficial to students who are molding their interest in
language especially in oral and in written form.
References:
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension
and production practice. Language Learning, 46(4), 613-642.

Fellowes, J., and Oakley, G. (2014). Language, literacy and early childhood
education, 2nd Edition. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Natsuko, Shintani, Shaofeng Li and Rod. 2013. PBI in the field of teaching l
anguage. Ellis University of Auckland https://www.k-
state.edu/psych/vcl/documents/Loschky _Bley _ Vroman_ 1993 Grammar
%20and%20task-based%20methodology.pdf

GRADUATE SCHOOL
APPROACHES IN TEACHING GRAMMAR: DEDUCTIVE
APPROACH
REFLECTION PAPER
Subject
(ENGL206)
Professor
Student
VERGINIA G. SUAN, LPT
Thornbury (2002) stated that in teaching grammar, there are different
teaching approaches and methods have been developed. There are two core
approaches in grammar presentation: deductive and inductive approach. There
are previous research that has been studied the effects of using inductive and
deductive approaches. In the deductive approach, the rule is given and then
applied to examples, suits students who prefer to be given grammar rules
directly, which helps to avoid misunderstanding and ambiguity. However, starting
lessons with grammar rules and presentation may not be an effective way of
engaging learners from the outset and can lead to the class being too teacher-
centered, increasing teacher talk time, and decreasing student talk time.
This approach has an advantages and disadvantages in teaching
grammar. Although the deductive method can be disadvantageous, it can be
useful for supplementing learning when the students’ intuition fails to recognize
some particular points of grammar, and are also useful when preparing students
for grammar-based examinations (Silvia, 2013). It develops noticing and
problem-solving abilities which if done collaboratively, provides extra
opportunities to practice language.
As what I have stated in my report, Thornbury (1999) highlights three main
approaches to teaching grammar: teaching grammar based on rules, examples
and through texts. Teaching grammar from rules involves the deductive or rule-
driven approach, which starts with the introduction of a rule followed by examples
in which the rule is applied. Teaching grammar from examples is related to the
inductive or rule-discovery approach that starts with some examples from which
a rule is inferred. In conclusion, deductive is a traditional approach in which
information about target language & rules are driven at the beginning of the class
& continued with examples.
Research does not prove either way which approach is most effective.
Some teachers are better at teaching one method than the other whilst at the
same time, students vary in their ability to perform under one approach or the
other (Weatherford, 1997). To decide upon the best approach, the teacher’s
ability, academic level of the students and their learning styles are all important
factors which need to be considered when deciding upon which classroom
methods to use. There are some studies that the majority of teachers prefer the
deductive method such as that of Zamani & Mohammadi (2014) who attempted
to find differences between inductive and deductive strategies in teaching
grammar have found no evidence of significant differences when using an
inductive or a deductive strategy for teaching grammar. The studies reveal that
there is not an agreement on which approach is more effective to teach grammar
in an EFL context. The debate is still open in this respect but, if the purpose is to
teach grammar using communicative methods, instructors would tend to teach
grammar inductively.
The results indicate significant differences in favor of the deductive group,
but no significant differences were found between the groups that received the
same type of approach (Mohammed & Jaber, 2008). In addition, Brown (2007)
posits that the deductive approach is more suitable for adult learners. Deductive
teaching meets these learners’ expectations because, for them, the presentation
of grammar rules at the beginning of the lesson is really useful when learning a
language. Conversely, young students are better at learning grammar structures
from examples rather than learning them deductively; they prefer to learn by
practicing because grammar rules are complicated for them to understand. Both
approaches are valuable in teaching, it can be used in many lessons and it
depends upon the learning outcomes and composition of the class.
REFERENCES:
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
Mohammed, A. A., & Jaber, H. A. (2008). The Effects of Deductive and Inductive
Approaches of Teaching on Jordanian University Students’ Use of the
Active and Passive Voice in English. College Student Journal, 42(2), 545-
553.
Silvia, A (2013) Deductive and Inductive Grammar Teaching Retrieved from:
http:// www.academia.edu /2344319/Deductive_ and_
Inductive_Grammar_Teaching
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Thornbury, S. (2002) How to Teach Grammar 5th Edition Essex: Pearson

Education.
Weatherford, H.J. (1997) Issues In The Teaching Of Grammar In A Foreign

Language. Georgia Southern University.
Zamani, A., & Mohammadi, F. A. (2014). A Comparison between Using an

Inductive Strategy and a Deductive one in Grammar Instruction for
Iranian EFL Learners. Enjoy Teaching Journal, 2(1), 90- 98.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
PRODUCTION-BASED (MEANINGFUL PRACTICE AND
RECYCLING) REFLECTION PAPER
Subject
(ENGL206)
Professor
Student
VERGINIA G. SUAN, LPT
My report is all about Production-Based Instruction, I understand what
really the PBI means after surfing in the internet. Since we divided the topics we
are going to report, I only searched my part. But when I started gathering the
data, I decided to study all the topics so that I can understand the whole content
of our report. First, I was confused with the topic because it is similar
Presentation Production Practice (PPP) model. It was hard to look for a video
because I cannot find the exact topic. Then we decided to show the PPP model
video which is similar to Production-based Instruction. After reading the
Production-based Instruction, I gained the knowledge of this kind of instruction
where the students or learners are given chances to develop their skills and their
creativity in the learning process. As what DeKeyser & Sokalski (1996) stated,
Production-based Instruction is a comprising any activity that required learners to
produce the specific target features in either oral or written form. So, the focus is
on the product or the output of the learner in either oral or written form.
I remember when I was a student, our teacher was using this instruction
where there are text-manipulation activities she was applying in our class. As an
educator today, I realized that this kind of instruction or learning model is
effective. It is a guide for me with the aim to guide the learners being active in the
learning process. In additional research, I totally agree what Sardiman (2007)
stated that Production-based Instruction is a process of interaction between
educators and students which can support them to study actively, participative,
interactively by using methods, approaches, and media, and a appropriate
learning environment. Sanjaya (2006) added it is learning as the basic of adding
information and new knowledge processes. So, there is a learning and
interaction, not only between educators and students but it can also between
students working in pairs or groups.
My co-reporter asked about the product or output of a child in TLE subject
if we can consider it as a product-based learning under our report. I agree of
what she said that we cannot consider it as a product in teaching language.
Because if we base it in the definition of Production-based instruction, the
learners required to produce the specific target features in either oral or written
form (DeKeyser, R.M., & Sokalski,K.J. 1996). But I think it depends upon the
teacher if she will instruct the student to show her product or output orally and tell
what are the procedures in producing that output. That is the time I clearly
understand what is the Production-based Instruction is all about. The example
activities also enlightened my mind what the topic looks like. It is what the
teachers usually applied in the class. It gives student the chances to develop
thinking, and skills and also cooperation. According to Ganefri (2013),
production-based learning model is defined as the procedures or steps that need
to perform by the educator to facilitate learners to actively learn. So, it includes
learning facilities analysis, student’s needs analysis and also the educator’s skill
is needed. As an educator, we need to apply some activities where the student’s
develop their skills and help them produce the target features. I learned a lot
about this topic and my co-reporters presented and explained it well. Although it
was hard to search our topic in the internet, the information we presented was
enough to understand what our topic is all about.
References:
DeKeyser, R.M., & Sokalski,K.J. (19960 The different role of comprehension and
production practice. Language Learning, 46(4),613-642
https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/54469/25383
6.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=2
Ganefri. (2013). The Development of Production-Based Learning Approach to
Entrepreneurial Spirit for Engineering Students.Journal Asian Social.
Science; Vol.9,No. 12; 2013. ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815047904
Sanjaya,W. (2006). Learning Strategies: Standard Process Oriented Education.
Publisher Kencana Prenada Media Grup.
https://members.aect.org/pdf/Proceedings/proceedings13/2013/13_26.pdf
Sardiman. (2007). Interaction and Learning Motivation. Publisher: PT.Raja
Grafindo Persada.Jakarta-Ind.
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/277811/1-s2.0-
S1877042815X00413/1-s2.0-S1877042815047904/main.pdf?
GRADUATE SCHOOL
EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE:
A REFLECTION PAPER
Subject

LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student
NELIZA G. PAROJINOG, LPT

According to Dornyei (2009), knowledge can be classified into two
types – implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge, this is according to
scholars in the field of knowledge management. Explicit learning typically
involves memorizing a series of successive facts and thus makes heavy
demands on working memory. As a result, it takes place consciously and
results in knowledge that is symbolic in nature. Learners are aware that
they have learned something and can verbalize what they have learned.
Ellis (2004) also explained that explicit learning refers to the learner’s
conscious and deliberate attempt to master some material or solve a
problem.
Documents, for example, can be used to save and preserve explicit
knowledge. This sort of information should be presented or passed to a
recipient in a timely and orderly manner. Documents such as records,
memos, methodologies, and so on are examples of explicit information.
Experience is saved in a manner that allows those who use it to get it right
away. It is important to note that this knowledge grouping cannot be
regarded as a rigid method of categorizing knowledge since they are
mutually complementary. Tacit knowledge is a prerequisite for the
evolvement of explicit knowledge.
DeKeyser (1995) explained that explicit instruction involves ‘some
sort of rule being thought about during the learning process.’ In other
words, learners are encouraged to develop metalinguistic awareness of
the rule. This can be achieved deductively or inductively such as assisting
learners to discover the rule for themselves from data provided. Explicit
instruction, therefore, necessarily constitutes direct intervention.
My report enabled me to gain a better understanding of the
importance and benefits of a successful transfer of an unaltered
information from one recipient to another. At the same time, I have also
realized the knowledge shared overtime is bound to change. This

realization helped me understand that explicit knowledge alone could not
suffice. This is where implicit knowledge takes place. As opposite as they
might seem, without the other, knowledge management will encounter a
dead end and thereby cease to grow. If someone does not have tacit
knowledge, it will be difficult for them to comprehend explicit knowledge.
Similarly, if tacit knowledge is not converted to explicit knowledge, it is
impossible to learn, share, or analyze it, implying that there is valuable
information somewhere that is useless.
I was also able to understand the dangers of not evaluating
knowledge transferred overtime to determine whether that knowledge is
negatively altered or enriched. Truly, how our minds learn is a wondrous
thing to understand. This report of mine gave me a greater appreciation of
those great minds who came before me that were able to document their
knowledge gained as a resource to generations to come.
References:
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge.
Language Learning
DeKeyser R. (1995) Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Volume 17,
Issue 3, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001425X
Dornyei (2009) Individual Differences: Interplay of Learner Characteristics

and Learning Environment https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9922.2009.00542.x
GRADUATE SCHOOL
APPLYING THE TASK-BASED APPROACH: Final Reflection

Paper
Subject

LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student

Rozati (2014) defined task- based language teaching as derived from
Dewey’s attitude about the crucial role of experience for an effective
learning. It considers the functional role of language in real tasks as the
major goal for students to communicate at the class for an ideal learning.
Unlike traditional form-based approaches, task-based involves the
specification of a sequence of interactive tasks to be performed in the
target language rather than a sequence of language items.
Simply put, task-based language learning is both novel and
familiar to us, language teachers. As we relentlessly teach the theories,
structure, and flow of the target language, we always hope for the best
case scenario to happen to our students in real life. That is, that they will
per chance or intentionally encounter a situation when those theories and
concept will be needed. With the use of TBLT we are given a chance to
see for ourselves how the theories and concepts are put into use as the
language learners grapple their way to accomplishing the target tasks that
we are featuring in our classes.
Long (2015) supplemented further explanation of task-based
language teaching by defining task is as a piece of work undertaken for
oneself or for others, freely or for some reward. Thus, examples of tasks
include painting a fence, dressing a child, filling out a form, buying a pair of
shoes. In other words, by 'task' is meant the hundred and one things
people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between.
Nunan (2004) also added the distinction between target tasks,
and pedagogical tasks. According to him, target tasks refer to language
use in the world beyond the classroom. Pedagogical tasks on the other
hand refer to language use that occurs in the classroom. The word, task,
has broader meaning. It sometimes refers to meta-communicative tasks, or

other exercises by focusing on language form, where learners use
language or make generalizations about it.
Willis (1996) outlined the 'task cycle' with more profound details
that is more practical with a real natural classroom. According to him, three
phases are concerned: a) Pre-task phase: Various activities were
suggested by Willis for teachers to undertake the 'presentation stage'. b)
The task cycle: He described task cycle as task, planning and report.
Students are expected to produce natural language, enhance fluency and
confidence. He also emphasized on grammatical accuracy during the time
tasks are being performed because during task performance the learners
consider meaning and neglect grammatical correctness. c) Language
focus: It insists on some specific language features. As focus on meaning
should be prominent, now it’s time for language focus activities.
With the framework of task-based language teaching
meticulously set and defined, the said approach is ready to be tested and
implemented. This is a critical part as teachers will mostly supervise the
class throughout the task, planning is imperative. In order to succeed, one
must look above and beyond and weigh the advantage and disadvantages
of this approach unbiasedly.
Hatip (2005) identified potential problems on task-based
language teaching as it involves a high level of creativity and dynamism on
the part of the teacher. If the teachers are restricted to more traditional
roles or do not possess time and resources to provide task-based teaching;
this type of teaching may be impracticable. Students will also demonstrate
the tendency to stay within the narrow confines of familiar words and forms.
Limiting themselves to the comfort of what they already know. Some on the
other hand, does not protest against it. Some might seem like they are
participating well, however, they might be hiding and rely on others to do

the bulk of the work and learning. Contrariwise, if the language is skilled
enough and is prepared enough to counter the above stated problems, a
higher language learning skill will be up for grabs and the rewards will be
great, experience wise and concept wise.
Overall, I find researching and preparing for this report to be very
informative and refreshing as a language teacher. I was able to discover
novel ways to teach the same rigorous lessons. Truly, when we begin with
the end in mind, our hope and chances for success escalates. This subject
as a whole have been a great journey for me personally and professionally.
It was a wild ride above and below mountains of books, researches, and
time, but I enjoyed every minute of it. Thank you very much Sir Francis for
being with us for the second time in our quest for higher learning.
REFERENCES:
Hatip, F. (2005) Task-based language learning. Cited in Hismanoglu, M &, S.
Hismanoglu, (2011). Task-based language teaching: what
every EFL teacher should do? Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 15 (2011)
Long, M. (2015) Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language
Teaching, First Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published
2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nunan, D. (1988) The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge University
Press: New York.
Rozati S. (2014) Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 4, June ©
2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland.
Willis, D. (1996) A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman

GRADUATE SCHOOL
PRODUCTION-BASED (MEANINGFUL AND RECYCLING): A

REFLECTION PAPER
Subject

LEARNERS(ENGL206)
Professor
Student
CHERRY MAE A. VICENTE

Production-based instruction concludes any activities where learners are
expected to produce an output for students to demonstrate what they have come
to know, understand, and be able to do after an extended period of learning.
This approach is under communicative approach. A number of scholars
have proposed this theory. For instance, Hymes (1972) cited in Bagaric,
(2007) introduced communicative competence which is the ability of using
grammatical features in a number of situations. Ellis (1997) explained implicit
grammar instruction as that in which learners learn grammar by practicing it in
meaning-oriented ways.
Littlewood (1998) stated that a teacher should prepare activities which
motivate learners to practice and monitor them to learn necessary grammar.
Production-based activities also provide learners with input but they also require
a response that involves production. Production-based instruction invariably
involves two-way interaction between teacher and students or between students
working in pairs or groups.
Long (1991) stated that this approach should be applied to various
situations in learners’ lives both inside and outside class. However, to avoid the
problem that some grammar might not be suitable for communicative tasks,
implicit instruction would be applied and corrective feedback given to ensure the
students’ understanding.
Shintani, Li and Ellis (2013) mentioned that production- based instruction
focuses on communication, so giving corrective feedback can give more
opportunities to learners to understand more on target features. The previous
research studies which successfully applied production-based instruction in
teaching and learning English prepositions such as games, role plays, and
simulation from Buyukkarci (2010) and English songs from Pongsai (2010).
In production-based instruction, production of the target features is elicited
by means of either text-manipulation or text-creation activities. It is of course

much easier to ensure that learners produce the target feature in text-
manipulation activities. As Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993) pointed out, it is
very difficult to design structure-based production tasks that make production of
the target feature ‘essential’.
Since learning is a process, assessment should also go within the process
of learning. Different learning style is present in a classroom as well as the
individual differences of each learner that’s why; teachers should base on the
outcome of the pupils when it comes to assessment. Teachers do not grade how
the learners process learning but instead they grade the learners based on what
they have learned. By this, assessing the product gives us more concrete
evaluation of each learner’s achievement and more reliable judgments of
learners learning.
References:
Bagaric, V. (2007). Defining communicative competence. Metodika, 8(1), 94-103.
Buyukkarci, K. (2010). Teaching phrasal verbs through communicative approach.
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu dergisi Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences,
5(11- 20).
Littlewood, W. (1998). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching
methodology. In K. Debot (Ed.), Foreign language research in cross-
cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdum: John Benjamins.
Pongsai, P. (2010). Teaching phrasal verbs by using english songs (MA Thesis).
Ubon Ratchathani Rajabhat University, Ubon Ratchathani.

Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension-Based Versus production-
based grammar instruction: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Language Learning
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language
acquisition: a role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal

GRADUATE SCHOOL
INDUCTIVE APPROACH: A REFLECTION PAPER
Subject

LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student

Inductive approach is the opposite of deductive approach; it begins with
specific details, concrete data and examples and ends with generalizations rule
or principle. It is less teacher- directed. The learners are more engaged in the
teaching and learning process and it helps develop the higher order thinking
skills of the learners, another is that in order for the learner to arrive at
generalization they need to use their analytical thinking. Inductive approach is a
sort of discovery learning that focuses on the students.
According to Stern (1992) in inductive (example-driven, bottom-up)
teaching the teacher gives students the data and lets students draw their own
conclusions from the data. The students notice how the concept is used and
figure out, and verbalize the rule”. On the other hand, Stern gave a figure which
showed about this method. The figure is: Example> Practice >General Rule. Not
only that, Mohamed (2001) also stated about inductive method. According to
Mohamed (2001) Inductive method has been said to be better suited for more
advanced learners.
Inductive approach, according to Goner et al. (1935), represents a
different style of teaching where the new grammatical structures or rules are
presented to the students in a real language context. The students learn the use
of the structure through practice of the language in context, and later realize the
rules from the practical examples.
Nunan (1999), identifies inductive approach as a process where learners
discover the grammar rules themselves by examining the examples. In an
inductive approach it is also possible to use a context for grammar rules. That is
to say, learners explore the grammar rules in a text or audio rather than isolated
sentences. Thornbury (1999), notes that in inductive approach learners are
provided with samples which include the target grammar that they will learn.
Then learners work on the examples and try to discover the rules themselves.
When students obtain the grammar rules and they practice the language by
creating their own examples.

For me, applying inductive approach in a classroom teaching grammar is
very useful, because learners are encouraged to discover the rules themselves
from the sample sentences. In this process students had opportunity to
participate in the lesson actively, their ability of problem solving could enhance
due to the responsibility of their own learning while finding the rule.
According to Nunan (1999) during the process if learners are given the
chance to engage with the grammar items themselves, they are able to
understand profoundly and memorize the grammar rules easily. Therefore, it is
possible to create a communicative class while teaching grammar in an inductive
way because all the learners are involved in solving a problem.
References:
Goner, Phililips, and Walters. Teaching Practice Handbook: Structures: Grammar
and Function. Heinemann, 1995. 129-138
Mohamed, N. (2001). Teaching grammar through consciousness raising tasks.
Nunan, D. (1999) Second Language Teaching&Learning. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers
Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Thornbury, S. (1999) How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman

RESEARCH ANALYSIS
English Grammar Approaches for English Language Learners
Engl206
GRADUATE SCHOOL
_
CONTENT- BASED INSTRUCTION: A STUDY OF METHODS OF

TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN
BUTULA DISTRICT:

LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the elements of Content-Based
Instruction and its process in the teaching and learning of English in primary
schools. This was accomplished through the following study objectives: to find
out how Content-Based Instruction approach is used in the teaching of English in
Primary Schools in Butula District; to examine the nature and relevance of
material used to facilitate Content-Based instruction approach in English
language teaching, to determine the perception of teachers of English to the use
of Content Based Instruction in the teaching and learning of English, to
determine the perception of learners to the use of Content Based Instruction in
the learning of English and to investigate the challenges the teachers of English
face in the attempt to use Content Based Instruction. The theoretical framework
was based on Krashn’s theory of input hypothesis which states that language
acquisition is based on input that is meaningful and understandable to the
learner; learners should be exposed to different learning situations in order to
comprehend what they are taught in the classroom. Lev Vygotsky’s social
development theory of learning was also used.
The study used descriptive survey design, which is suitable for the study
of behavior, attitudes, values and characteristics. The target population
constituted 74 primary schools in Butula District. Proportionate simple random
sampling was used to select 21 schools which is 30% of the target population. A
total of 21 standards 7 teachers of English and standard 7 pupils of the sample
schools were used as the sample population. Twenty-one lessons were
observed and 210 pupils‟ exercise books were analyzed. The primary
instruments of data collection were questionnaires, document analysis, interview
schedules and structured observation. The data collected was analyzed by use
of descriptive statistics and was presented in graphs, tables and various thematic
areas based on study objectives.

This study found out that teachers‟ ability to use CBI was low although the
attitude was high. The teachers found value in CBI. However, they lacked
proper understanding of the methods. It is hoped that this study will provide
insight for curriculum developers, policy makers, language educators and
teachers to understand and use Content Based Instruction.
ANALYSIS
RESEARCH TITLE
Content- Based Instruction: A Study of Methods of
Teaching and
Learning English in Primary Schools in Butula
District
AUTHOR/S Mulamba Patrick Omoto
Wesonga Justus Nyongesa

DATE OF May 2013
PUBLICATION
PROBLEM OF THE 1. How Content-Based Instruction is used in
STUDY the teaching of English in Primary Schools
in Butula District?
2. What is the nature and relevance of material
used to facilitate Content-Based Instruction
in English language teaching?
3. What is the perception of teachers of
English to the use of CBI in the teaching of
English?
4. What are the perceptions of learners to the
use of CBI in the learning of English?
5. What are the challenges that teachers of
English face in the attempt to use Content

Based Instruction?
SUMMARY OF THE The study results showed that the teachers
FINDINGS carried out CBI under the guidance of the course
books without real understanding of the concept
of integration. There was intensive use of
knowledge from other subjects. The teachers
appeared uncomfortable with the use of content
from other subjects as emphasis was put on
language practice and grammar.
It was found out that English language
teaching adopts theme-based approach. The
content is drawn from other subjects under themes
such as sea travel, air travel, banking, tourism,
agricultural show, deserts and disasters among
others. This enhances the learner’s confidence
with a feeling of using language to accomplish real
tasks. These themes provide activities that
interrupt the systematic study of grammar. They
make learning real, practical and learner friendly. It
was found out that the teachers‟ attitude towards
the use of CBI was positive. It made the learning
of English natural. The learners enjoyed the
lessons when content was integrated with
language.
It made them curious to talk about their
experiences and common knowledge. However,
the teachers lacked awareness of the method and
much concentration was on language practice.
The fourth problem was, to determine the

perception of learners to the use of CBI in the
learning of English. It was realized that the
learners‟ attitude towards the use of CBI was
positive. The learners‟ real life experience was
brought to the classroom. Learning English was
natural and meaningful. The intention of the
learners was to communicate and express ideas
about content under study but not laboring to
memorize current grammatical structures. CBI
made the classroom environment and language
learning process natural and friendly.
The researcher found out that teachers
face real challenges in attempt to use CBI. These
challenges range from lack of awareness, limited
time to appropriately explore content to facilitate
English language learning, lack of knowledge
about some form of content and fear of the need
for thorough lesson preparation. Teachers of other
subjects are incompetent in English language.
During lessons of other subjects, the subject
teachers code-switch and code-mix to make
learners understand. Their major concern is
internalization of content but not language
acquisition. Furthermore, CBI lesson requires a lot
of time to prepare. Due to congested curriculum
and overload of work, teachers rush through to
cover the syllabus other than taking a long time
preparing for English lessons.

CONCLUSIONS From the summary of findings, the following
conclusions were made:
 Teachers tend to separate language and
subject matter thus making the learning of
English difficult. Many teachers are not
familiar with the use of CBI.
 Content of other subjects offers
opportunities for teachers to match the
learners‟ interest and schemata with
meaningful content thus facilitating the
learning of language.
 Content of other subjects stimulates
learners to think and learn English
language.
 Teachers of English in primary schools in
Butula District have positive attitude towards
CBI but lack sufficient ability to use the
technique.
 The use of content from other subjects
makes English language sneak into the
learners’ cognition without pain.

RECOMMENDATIONS The findings of this study on the use of CBI
in primary schools in Butula District call for
attention in several areas. These include:
1. Teachers should be in-serviced on the technique
of integration to reinforce its appropriate use and
practice in primary schools.
2. The publishers should use material that cuts
across the curriculum and put into consideration

interests and background of all learners.
3. The trainers of teachers of English should put
emphasis on integration and train teachers on its
value and how to do it. It should be taught as a
topic in teacher training colleges. It is the quality
training and not the number that is wanted.
4. There should be workshops and feedback
programmes at Zonal education level for teachers
to express their challenges towards integration
periodically.
REFERENCES
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking
and Learning About Print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
-Adebisi, A., Iyabode, M, &Hilken, P. (2008).
Teaching Primary English. Longman
-Anderson, R.C & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A
schema- theoretical view of the basic
processes in reading comprehension. New
York: Longman.
-Barasa, L.P. (2005). English Teaching in Kenya:
Policy, Training and Practice. Eldoret: Moi
University Press.
-Bernhardt, E.B.(1991). Reading development in a
second language. Theoretical empirical &
classroom perspective. New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing.
-Bloom, B.S. Madaus, G.F. & Hastings, J,T.(1981).
Education to improve learning. New York:
MC Graw-Hill.
-Briton, D., Snow, M.A., Wesche, M.B (2003).
Content Language Instruction. University of
Michigan Press.
-Briton, D.M Snow, M.A &Wesche, M.B.(1989).
Content- based second language
instruction. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
-Celc- Murcia, M. &Mclntosh, L. (1979). Teaching
English as a second or foreign Language.
Cambridge: Newbury House Publishers.
-Chamot, A. U. &O‟Molley, I.M. (1987). The
cognitive academic language learning
approach bridge to the mainstream.
TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-249.
-Chamot, A.V. &O‟Malley, J.M.(1994). The
CALLA handbook: Implementing the
cognitive academic language learning
approach. Reading, M.A. Addison Wesley.
-Crandall, J. & Tucker, G. R.(1990), “Content-
Based Instruction in Second and Foreign
Languages”. In: Amado Padilla, Hatford
H. Fairchild and Conception Valadez (eds).
Foreign Language Education: Issues and
Strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
-Cozby, P.C. (2001). Methods of Behavioural
Research. California: Mayfield.

-Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language
development in promoting educational
success for language minoritystudents. In J.
Cummins (Ed), Schooling and language
minority students: a theoretical framework
(PP1-50) Los Angeles Evaluation
Dissemination and Assessment Centre.
-Ehri, L.C. & Roberts, K.T. (1979). Do beginners
learn printed word better in context or in
isolation? Child development, 50, 675-685.
-Friere, P.(1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New
York: Seabury
-Gathumbi, A. W. &Masembi, S.C. (2008).
Principles and Techniques in Language
Teaching: A Text for Teacher Educators,
Teachers, and Pre-service Teachers. The
Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.
-Genesse& Fred, (1994). Integrating Language
and Content: Lessons from Immersion.
Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for
Research on Cultural Diversity and Second
Language Learning. Retrieved from URL.
-Genesse & Fred, (1998). “Content-Based
Language Instruction”. In: Met (ed.) Critical
Issues in Early Second Language Learning.
Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman-Addison
Wessley.
-Goodman, K. (1986). What‟s whole in whole

language? Portsmouth, N.H: Heinemann.
-Grabe, W., &Stoller, F.L. (1997). Content-based
Instruction: Research Foundation.
-Groenewegen, T. (2008). (edt). Benchmarks for
English Language Educators. Phoenix
Publishers: Nairobi
-Hadley, A.O.(1993). Teaching language in
context. Boston:
-Heinle&HeinleHeugh, K. (2005). Language
Education Policies in Africa. Encyclopedia
of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Edition.
Vol 6:414-423. Elsever Science.
-Heugh, K. (2007). Language in Curriculum in
South Africa.
Mercer, N. Swan, J. & Mayor, B. (Eds). Learning
English, 181188. Abingdon, Ox and New
York: Routledge and the Open. -Heugh, K.
(2010). Engaging with Diversity While the Center
moves. In Liddicoat, A. and Scarino, A.
(Eds). Languages in Australian Education:
Problems, Prospects and Future Directions.
New Castle on Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
FUTURE RESEARCH Development of Interactive Strategic
TITLE BASED FROM Intervention Materials as an Instructional Tool
THE towards Improvement of least Learned Skills in
RECOMMENDATION English.
OF THE STUDY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
_
INVESTIGATING CONTENT-BASED READING INSTRUCTION IN

PROMOTING STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION: A CLASSROOM
ACTION RESEARCH
Subject
LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student
FARINA ALYSA ALIPIO, LPT
ABSTRACT
This study aimed at describing how content-based reading instruction
on students’ reading comprehension. The method used in this current
research was a classroom action research. The participants were taken
from an EFL classroom of a private madrasah in Narmada. Process of
collecting data was taken using test and observation. Teacher and students’
worksheets were the qualitative data collection instrument to assess the
reading instruction process. Meanwhile, the test used TOEFL to measure
students’ reading comprehension. The research findings show that reading

instruction achieved 71.42% in Cycle I and 94.46% in Cycle II. The students’
learning outcome shows 38.89% (Cycle I), and 83.34% (Cycle II). It means
that there is a significant improvement of the reading comprehension from
cycle I to cycle II. In addition, the students were active, enthusiastic, and
participated in reading instruction using CBI.
ANALYSIS
Research Title INVESTIGATING CONTENT-BASED READING
INSTRUCTION IN PROMOTING STUDENTS’ READING
COMPREHENSION: A CLASSROOM ACTION
RESEARCH
Author/s Nurul Lailatul Khusniyah
Ari Safar Wadi Affiliation
Date of May 2020
Publication
Problem of the This study compared the effect of both vocabularies
Study pre-teaching and pre-questioning towards the students’
reading comprehension. The result showed that
vocabulary pre-teaching one performance was better than
the pre-questioning group. Besides, one of the most
problems EFL students face was they have no knowledge
about the topic of the reading but they attempt to answer
questions Alyousef, (2005). This evidence happened
among the students at MA NW Narmada. Students'
reading skill is improved after the use of Content-Based
Summarizing (CBST) technique in teaching English
reading Aratusa, (2017). Most of the students agreed that
the Content-Based Instruction (CBI) method improved their
reading comprehension and it helped them to create

interesting ways in learning English Putra & Marzulina,
(2015). Another study indicates that the utilization of
content-based language instruction in the literature class
could enhance students’ reading comprehension as well
as critical thinking ability Tsai & Shang, (2010)
However, this study offered an effective method to
enhance students’ reading comprehension. CBI (Content-
Based Instruction) approach used to enhance students’
reading comprehension. Content-based instruction (CBI)
approach is a communicative approach to language
teaching. CBI approach is a subdivision of CLT
(Communicative Language Teaching) which focuses on
integrating language skill and subject matter (content).
Some define that CBI curriculum concerns with that CBI
approach based on the subject matter, CBI utilizes
authentic materials, CBI promotes the learning of new
information, and CBI is specific students’ needs. In CBLT
the focus is on the content and the students are only
concerned with mere information or the subject matter
which has been put on the paper Et al. Wongsothorn,
(2018).
Summary of the This study aimed at describing how content-based
Findings reading instruction on students’ reading comprehension.
The method used in this current research was a classroom
action research. The participants were taken from an EFL
classroom of a private madrasah in Narmada. Process of
collecting data was taken using test and observation.
Teacher and students’ worksheets were the qualitative
data collection instrument to assess the reading instruction

process. Meanwhile, the test used TOEFL to measure
students’ reading comprehension. The research findings
show that reading instruction achieved 71.42% in Cycle I
and 94.46% in Cycle II. The students’ learning outcome
shows 38.89% (Cycle I), and 83.34% (Cycle II). It means
that there is a significant improvement of the reading
comprehension from cycle I to cycle II. In addition, the
students were active, enthusiastic, and participated in
reading instruction using CBI.

Conclusions The result of observation performs that reading
instruction using CBI gained an improvement. Students
were active to participate in reading instruction using CBI.
Therefore, the researcher suggested that teacher should
be able to exercise students’ comprehension when they
conclude the content of reading. In other hands, the
teacher should provide reading with very interesting and
appropriate with students’ capabilities due to interest them
to eager to read and comprehend the text. As a result, the
class can be more alive, exciting, and effective.

Recommendation The teacher needs to examine the use of the
s approach among the students to know the more effective
approach of CBI which will be used. As a result, the
instruction is more effective and flexible.

References Aisiah, I. N., & Mahaputri, R. A. (2019). Comparing
Reading Comprehension Competence through
Reading Aloud and Silent Reading among
Indonesian EFL Learners in Senior High School.
Academic Journal Perspective: Education,
Language, and Literature, 7(1), 24-32
Akyol, H., Çakıroğlu, A., & Kuruyer, H. G. (2017). A study

on the development of reading skills of the students
having difficulty in reading: Enrichment reading
program. International Electronic Journal of
Elementary Education (Vol. 6). Retrieved from
https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/
41
Alyousef, H. S. (2005). TEACHING READING
COMPREHENSION TO ESL/EFL LEARNERS. The
Reading Matrix, 5(2).
Aratusa, Z. C. (2017). THE USE OF CONTENT- BASED

SUMMARIZING TECHNIQUE IN IMPROVING
STUDENTS’ READING SKILLS OF MADRASAH.
IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education),
4(2), 208–220. Retrieved from
http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee/article/view/6
153
Aulia, V. (2019). PROMOTING EXTENSIVE READING

ACTIVITY BY CONSTRUCTING READING LOG
PROJECT IN EFL CLASS. Research and
Innovation in Language Learning, 2(2), 101-119.
Israel, Susan E, E. a. (2005). Metacognition in Literacy

Learning Theory, Assessment, Instruction and
Professional Development. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kasper, L. F. (1995). Theory and practice in content-

based ESL reading instruction. English for Specific
Purposes, 14(3), 223–230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0889- 4906(95)00012-3
Khusniyah, N. L., Rasyid, Y., & Lustyantie, N. (2017).

Improving English Reading
Future Research Effectiveness of Content–based Instruction in
Title based from Teaching Reading
the
Recommendation
s of the Study
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Telefax: (083) 552-3624
GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT AND ISOLATED UNITS: THE

IMPACT OF DICHOTOMIZED TEACHING METHODS IN A
RURAL SOUTHERN HIGH SCHOOL
: ABSTRACT OF THE STUDY
Subject

LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student
JELAINE C. BLATAYO, LPT
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to use qualitative research methods to
identify which methods a group of language arts teachers from a suburban high
school use to teach grammar and why. Specific research questions included:
1. How do teachers who were educated with grammar as an isolated curricular
unit perceive the current debate on language instruction? How do their
perceptions impact their classroom instructional practice?
2. How do teachers who were educated with grammar as a whole language
curricular unit perceive the current debate on language instruction? How do their

This study examined two different theories of grammar instruction and method
within each of those theories. The more progressive methods included Daily Oral
Grammar,
Daily Grammar Practice and teaching grammar through literature and
writing. The more essential method that some teachers prefer is direct
instruction, or isolated units. The study was significant in light of research
detailing college professors’ and employers’ frustrations with students and
employees who do not use “Standard American English.” It was also significant
because of the researchers’ experiences with colleagues’ comfort level teaching
grammar and how state standards affected their teaching. This problem has wide
implications for students going into the job world.
Some of the internal factors that influence which method teachers choose
to teach grammar include comfort level with the topic and their own feelings
about what students need to know. Some of the external factors were national,
district, and school mandates, and resources available to the teachers, including
training.
I took a qualitative approach in this comparative case study with the
intention of using language arts teachers and what their opinions and daily
practices are when teaching grammar. I received information from fifteen
teachers and did specific case studies on six of them.
Methods included semi-structured interviews with the six teachers after all fifteen
took a survey.
I charted the survey data and chose to interview and observe teachers
who fit within the realm of my research questions. Through analysis, a number
common themes emerged such as lack of sufficient teacher training in grammar
instruction, lack of enforcement or accountability by school, district, or state, and
the time needed to do an adequate job of grammar instruction. These themes
may help to develop staff development sessions for teachers in our school, or
perhaps even our district.
ANALYSIS
Research Title Grammar In Context and Isolated Units: the Impact of
Dichotomized Teaching Methods In A Rural Southern
High School
Author/s Amy K. Smith
Date of Publications 1-1-2013
Problem of the Study This study was to use qualitative research methods
to identify which methods a group of language arts
teachers from a suburban high school use to teach
grammar and why. Specific research questions included:
1. How do teachers who were educated with
grammar as an isolated curricular unit perceive the
current debate on language instruction? How do their

2. How do teachers who were educated with
grammar as a whole language curricular unit perceive the
current debate on language instruction? How do their

Summary of Findings Through the interviews and observations done by
the researcher, a couple of factors emerged that address
the research questions mentioned previously.
First of all, when the researcher broached the
subject of the ongoing, nationwide debate between
different methods, only three of the fifteen participants
were really aware of the two different sides. None of them
were surprised to learn of it; in fact, it comforted most of
them to learn that they were not alone in this struggle.
The common denominator among all of the participants is
the search for the “best” method. The term “best”
encompasses much: effectiveness in students’ writing,
effectiveness in students’ general communication, time
consumption, resources available, teacher accountability,
and previous grammar knowledge on the teachers’ parts.
All of these problems arose during the interviews.
One of the main factors this study considered was
the amount and method of preparation the teachers had
in order to teach grammar. Both the methods and the
amounts spanned the spectrum from none to confidence
inspiring courses in both high school and college. Sadly,
the majority were closer to the “none” end of the
spectrum. Of the fifteen teachers surveyed, only three
rated themselves as totally comfortable teaching
grammar. Even some teachers who have been teaching

for more than five years, do not have the confidence to
teach grammar effectively. These teachers partly blame
the state standards because they are very vague and
rarely enforced by administration. If the motivator of
accountability were in place, teachers would be more
likely to spend the time to learn grammar on their own,
and some schools would offer more staff development on
the topic of grammar.
A second major factor is how their preparation
methods impacted their teaching methods. The majority
of the teachers used what they knew first. In other words,
if they were taught in context of writing and reading, that
is what they tried in their classrooms first. So preparation
definitely did have an impact. However, despite what
method they began with, almost all of them switched to,
or at least tried, other methods. Only about half of the
participants are comfortable in their current method, and
of that half, some of them are open to trying other
methods that may work better for them.
The preceding sections enlightened the
researcher as to the individual thoughts on grammar
education of each teacher in her department. The
methods of preparation and the methods used to teach
are in no way uniform. Despite district attempts at
implementing a uniform grammar teaching method for all
language arts teachers, most teachers revolted and
refuse to follow the recommended guidelines. Instead,
they prefer to use what they know or experiment with
other methods, or the worst case scenario, just avoid

teaching grammar at all.
A couple of patterns did emerge as the results of
the study were put together. Of those teachers who
regularly teach grammar, despite what method is used,
direct instruction plays some role in their teaching. Even
those teachers who use NCTE and locally recommended
Daily Grammar Practice, Daily Oral Language, or teach in
context of reading and writing, still stray from those pure
methods to do isolated units. They have discovered that
students do not just automatically know the concepts
brought up using these methods. The teacher has to
pause to directly explain the concept and show examples.
Technically, this is using isolated units. Therefore, the
majority of the teachers use a combination of methods, all
of which include some type of isolated units.
Another pattern that emerged among all of the
subjects is the need for better teacher preparation. One
hundred percent of the subjects agreed that staff
development sessions on teaching grammar for language
arts teachers (and possibly teachers of other subjects as
well) is needed or at least a good idea. All of the
individuals except Deborah involved in the case studies
would participate in these sessions if offered.

Conclusions The debate between which method is most
effective will probably continue forever, but two final
outcomes came out in this study. The first is that no
matter which method a teacher prefers or a school
mandates, the teacher has to be trained properly. The
second is that is seems the dichotomy between holistic

progressive methods and essentialist isolated methods
should not exist. A combination of the two would be the
ideal. Students must know the rules of the difficult English
language, but they must know them so that they can
apply them in real life writing and speaking.

Recommendations English teachers must be better prepared to teach
grammar. Whether this happens at the college level or in
the form of staff development, it has to happen. Of those
who do feel competent and teach grammar regularly, the
NCTE and district recommended methods are not
sufficient. All teachers must incorporate direct instruction
(isolated units) even if they use one of the recommended
methods as a springboard to get the students thinking
about grammar. And finally, although isolated units may
seem to be the most effective method to use, the
knowledge and time required for this method is limited for
most teachers.
References Hunter, A. D. (1996, November). A new grammar that has
clearly improved writing. English Journal, 102-
108.
Smith, A. K.(2013). Grammar In Context and Isolated
Units: the Impact of Dichotomized Teaching
Methods In A Rural Southern High School.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/876
Future Research Title TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT OR IN
from the ISOLATION FOR MARKED AND UNMARKED
Recommendations of STRUCTURES
the Study
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Telefax: (083) 552-3624
USING MULTICULTURAL LITERATURE TO TEACH GRAMMAR TO ENGLISH

LEARNERS
Subject

LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student
JIMBOY H. BALDESCO, LPT
ABSTRACT
As an elementary teacher, it is my professional assumption that public
schools aim to be inclusive to all students. The issue I am confronting is how
inclusive the literature that is available for students to read in their school
classrooms and libraries is. Inclusive in this case means representative of all of
the cultures, races, ethnicities, and languages present in the school. Are all
students represented across school wide curriculums and lessons? It is
important for teachers to be self-reflective in their practice to evaluate if and how
they represent the cultures of their students. Teachers know that the
multicultural, multilingual nation in which we live is reflected in our students. As
Richard and Ernst, (1993) asked, how do teachers represent this reality in the
materials used to teach their diverse learners? A premise of this capstone is that
teachers of all disciplines should step up and advocate for their students to make
sure their school truly is inclusive and one-way teachers can do that is to develop
culturally relevant lessons employing multicultural literature. My professional
obligation is that all students have the right to see characters similar to
themselves represented in literature, and represented in a way that is culturally
and linguistically positive. Bishop as cited by Harris, (2002). argued, literature

should serve as “mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors” This leads me to my
driving research question, What are the implications for using multicultural
literature as mentor texts to teach academic English language grammar
structures in an elementary setting?
My assumption is that by using multicultural literature in which students
see themselves and build a positive self-image will facilitate their learning of
English language structures. The purpose of this capstone project is to develop a
curricular unit to implement culturally relevant English language lessons using
multicultural literature as mentor texts for English learner (EL) students in an
elementary setting. In this capstone, a mentor text is defined as a story that is
used in instruction to teach a content or language-specific concept. English
language grammar structures are defined in this capstone as the arrangement of
words, phrases, and clauses in an English sentence. Linguistically, this is
referring to the syntactic structure of a sentence. My goal is to create meaningful
English language lessons that incorporate multicultural fiction books with
characters and content representing all types of backgrounds and experiences.
Chapter One explains my past personal and professional experiences that
inspired my passion in pursuing this goal, conducts a literature review on current
research behind diverse literature and EL best practices, and explains the
process and result of creating the curriculum. This chapter first describes my
personal experiences as a young reader and student. Then, this chapter explains
my travel experiences that exposed me to people of other cultures and
languages and made me culturally aware and how I chose my undergraduate
major and its resulting practicum experiences. My professional experiences as
an English Language (EL) teacher and Master of Arts in English as a Second
Language (MA-ESL) graduate student are discussed. Throughout the chapter I
explain how my personal experience from a child to a professional has led me to
pursue this topic as my capstone project.

Research Title USING MULTICULTURAL LITERATURE TO TEACH
GRAMMAR TO ENGLISH LEARNERS

Author/s Laura Anderson
Date of December 2018
Publication
Problem of the What are the implications for using multicultural
Study literature as mentor texts to teach academic English
language grammar structures in an elementary setting?
Summary of the Through this capstone writing process, I have
Findings learned the importance of creating a school culture in
which all students feel welcomed and represented in all
areas of the school - from the staff to the curriculum. I
have seen that students feel valued when they
45can see aspects of themselves within the

school. And when students feel valued, they are more
likely to engage in lessons and take risks with their
language learning. One easy way teachers and
administrators can promote equality and respect of
differences in a school setting is by providing quality
multicultural literature for students to read in school and
for use in academic lessons. Curriculums are not always
designed to be culturally responsive or culturally
sensitive. While there may be diverse figures present in
reading or social studies curriculum, teachers should
evaluate if the figures are described in ways that are
stereotypical or oppressive. It is my belief that quality
multicultural literature could easily be purchased or
fundraised to supplement the curriculum. Through this
capstone project, I have realized that a single
multicultural book could be used in multiple lessons,
such as teaching different grammar and writing skills or
social skills. In fact, the more familiar students are with a
story, the deeper their learning becomes, and a stronger
connection is made. So, just adding one multicultural
text to a class, with purposeful planning, can create
many learning opportunities. I have seen firsthand how
using multicultural literature and multilingual literature n
a lesson can increase the engagement of all students,
whether it is used simply as aread-aloud story or as a
tool to teach academic concepts. Even having
multicultural literature present on your bookshelves
available for students to pick up and read creates a
more inclusive classroom environment.

Conclusions This capstone project brings to the surface the
reality of the demographics in the American school
system. An increasing number of students are
immigrants or family of immigrants, are students of
color, or have some other form of identity or culture that
is not in the American majority (US Department of
Education, 2016). Therefore, the literature and
curriculum in our American schools should reflect our
student body. Students should not be made to feel
“other” in school, whether unintentionally or not. Schools
should be a beacon of safety and acceptance; a place
where students can take academic risks and grow
emotionally, socially, and academically. Teachers
should take a look at what they are teaching. If what
they are teaching is biased and exclusive, and if what
students are reading in schools is one-dimensional,
teachers should take a step forward by selecting
multicultural literature that reflect the lives of their
students to use with their students. That will help our
students have a positive self-identity in another wise
uneasy political society, it will help them find their voice,
become invested in their learning, and maybe learn
some academic skills along the way.
Recommendatio First of all, I would strongly suggest to all
ns teachers to look at their curriculum through a
multicultural lens. Are there authentic multicultural
characters and authors represented in what you teach
every week? Is there a way you can bring multicultural

literature into your classroom and school library? I would
also like to see teachers using and displaying
multicultural literature, whether it is children’s literature
or young adult, from preschool, elementary, middle
school, high school, to even college settings. It would be
very interesting to see how this idea can be adapted for
different ages and contexts. Additionally, a great lesson
or unit for secondary students or in college preparation
classes would be to evaluate the quality of multicultural
literature based on the criteria discussed in Chapter Two
of this capstone. This could spark a conversation about
diversity, inclusion, and bias that could benefit not only
students but society. As far as next steps in research, I
have a few suggestions. One suggestion is to create
formative language assessments to measure language
proficiency growth when implementing multicultural
literature in EL lessons. I would also suggest
researching more specific benefits to using multicultural
literature, such as collecting academic data growth and
conducting interviews with students.

References Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing
words to life robust vocabulary instruction (2nd
ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective

method for building meaning vocabulary in
primary grades. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(1), 44-62.doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.98.1.44
Bishop, R. (1990). “Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass

doors.” Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books
for the Classroom, 6(3).
Bowen, Ryan S., (2017). Understanding by Design.

Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching.
Retrieved from
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/understanding-by-
design/Capella-Santana, N. (2003). Voices of
teacher candidates: Positive changes in
multicultural attitudes and knowledge. The
Journal of Educational Research,96(3), 182-190.
doi: 10.1080/00220670309598806
Cartaret, M (2010). Eight dimensions of American

culture. Dimensions of Culture. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.dimensionsofculture.com/2010/10
/eight-dimensions-of-american-culture/
College Factual (2018). Minnesota state university,

Mankato. [Data file]. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/min
nesota-state-university-mankato/student-life/
Derewianka, B., & Primary English Teaching

Association. (2011). A new grammar companion
for teachers / Beverly Derewianka. (2nd ed.).
Marrickville Metro,N.S.W.: E:lit - Primary English
Teaching Association.
Ebe, A. E. (2010). Culturally relevant texts and reading

assessment for English language learners.
Reading Horizons, 50(3), 193-210. Retrieved
from ProQuest
Feger, M. (2006). "I want to read": How culturally

relevant texts increase student engagement in
reading. Multicultural Education, 13(3), 18-19.
Retrieved from ProQuest
Giroir, S., Romero Grimaldo, L., Vaughn, S., & Roberts.,

G. (2015). Interactiveread-alouds for English
learners in the elementary grades. The Reading
Teacher,68(8), 639-648.
Harris, V. J. (2012). On creating a diverse classroom

library. Journal of Children's Literature, 38(1), 75-
76. Retrieved from ProQuest
Humphrey, S., Droga, L., & Feez, S. (2013). Grammar

and meaning. Newtown, AU: Primary English
Teaching Association.
Kagan, S., Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative

learning. San Clemente, California: Kagan
Publishing.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2017). How languages

are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Minnesota Report Card. (2018) Prairie elementary [Data

file]. Retrieved
fromhttps://rc.education.state.mn.us/#mySchool/o
rgId--10518001000__p—1
Nash, K., Panther, L., & Arce-Boardman, A. (2018). La
historia de mi nombre: A culturally sustaining
early literacy practice. The Reading Teacher, 71
(5), doi:605-609. 10.1002/trtr.1665
Richard, K. J., & Ernst, G. (1993). Using multicultural

novels in the classroom: Understanding the other,
understanding myself. The Clearing House: A
Journal ofEducational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas, 67(2), 88-90.
doi:10.1080/00098655.1993.9956030
Salas, R., Lucido, F., Canales, J. (2002). Multicultural

literature: broadening young children’s
experiences. Early Childhood Literacy: Programs
& Strategies to Develop Cultural, Linguistic,
Scientific and Healthcare Literacy for Very Young
Children & Their Families, 2001 Yearbook, 3-12.
Retrieved from ERIC
Senokossoff, G., Jiang, X. (2015). Raising cultural

awareness among US teachers and promoting
elementary student’s cultural competence.
Literacy Practice &Research, 7-13.
Steiner, S. (2016). Multicultural literature: Reflecting

diversity in literature for youth. International
Literacy Association. [Book review]. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.literacyworldwide.org/blog/literac
y-daily/2016/10/17/multicultural-literature-
reflecting-diversity-in-literature-for-youth
Teaching Tolerance (2018). Being culturally responsive.

Retrieved
fromhttps://www.tolerance.org/professional-
development/being-culturally-responsive
Titone, C., Plummer, E., & Kielar, M. (2012). Creating

culturally relevant instructional materials: A
Swaziland case study. International Education,
42(1), 22-42.Retrieved from ProQuest
US Department of Education (2016). Status and trends

in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016.
National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved
fromhttps://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016007.pdf
WIDA. (2014). The WIDA Can Do Philosophy. Board of

Regents at the University of Wisconsin System.
Retrieved from:
www.wida.us/aboutUs/AcademicLanguage/
Williams, N.,. & Bauer, P. (2006). Pathways to affective

accountability: Selecting, locating, and using
children's books in elementary school
classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 14-22.
doi: 10.1598/RT.60.1.2
Wiseman, A. (2011). Interactive read a-louds: Teachers

and students constructing knowledge and literacy
together. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38
(6),431-438. doi:10.1007/s10643-010-0426-9
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by

design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wissman, K. (2018). Names, journeys, and dreams:

Engaging families and enhancing literacy learning
with culturally diverse children’s literature. Journal
of Children’s Literature, 44(1), 62-64.
Wright, W.E. (2017). Foundations for teaching English

language learners: Research, theory, policy, and
practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.
Yoon, B., Simpson, A., & Haag, C. (2010). Assimilation

ideology: Critically examining underlying
messages in multicultural literature. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2), 109-118.
Retrieved from JSTOR
Future Research Formative Language Assessments to Measure
Title based from Language Proficiency Growth when Implementing
the Multicultural Literature in EL lessons.
Recommendation
s of the Study
GRADUATE SCHOOL
THE EFFECT OF GRAMMAR CONCIOUSNESS-RAISING

TASK ON EFL LEARNERS’ PERFORMANCE
Subject

LEARNERS(ENGL206)
Professor

Student
HERNAN L. BIÑAS JR., LPT
ABSTRACT
This study aims to investigate different approaches in grammar teaching
and compare the traditional approaches with Consciousness-Raising (CR)
tasks. The author implements some CR tasks in the classroom during the
second semester of educational year, one session per week and investigates
the effectiveness of these tasks. The participants were female senior high
school students in Sabzevar, Iran. The results were compared with a control
group who were taught based on the pattern drill practice and traditional
approaches. Analysis shows that using CR tasks in grammar teaching is
significantly more effective than the traditional approaches. Therefore, it is
recommended that other teachers consider CR as an option in teaching
grammar in their classrooms.
ANALYSIS
Research Title The Effect of Grammar Consciousness-Raising
Tasks on EFL Learners Performance

Author/s Seyyed Mohammad Reza Amirian
Fatemeh Sadeghi
Date of Publication September 1, 2012
Problem of the Study This study aims to investigate different
approaches in grammar teaching and compare the
traditional approaches with Consciousness-Raising
(CR) tasks.
The findings obtained by the research
Summary of the
showed that there was a significant difference
Findings
between the grammar mean of the two groups
allowing the researcher to reject the null
hypothesis of no difference between the mean of
the two groups. Therefore, the study supported the
effectiveness of Consciousness-Raising activities
in teaching grammar to EFL learners in senior high
school. The study also suggested that
implementing Consciousness-Raising activities
can help learners to improve their knowledge of
grammar. Moreover, the findings showed that the
students were more active in class while they
were learning the grammar point because they
were asked to extract the grammar point
themselves by focusing on the examples in their
handout.
The conclusion of the study was explained
Conclusions
in connection to Mishan‟s (2005) argument which
stated that through Consciousness-Raising
approach to teaching grammar, students are given
sufficient exposure and opportunity. This results to
learners discovering elements of L2 grammar.
Furthermore, the result of the study
suggested that because of the important role of
the L2 learners in extracting and even explaining
the grammar point in front of the class, students
were all motivated in learning the grammar point
which can lead to language acquisition.

Hence, the study will not reject the role of
other techniques or approaches in teaching
grammar. The study just aimed at holing up the
claim that the use of Consciousness-Raising
activities in the classroom is suitable in teaching
grammar to EFL learners. The study suggested
that it is better for the teacher to be aware of
different techniques in teaching
grammar and use them based on different
circumstances.
Recommendations  The findings of the study suggested the
superiority of CR grammar tasks to pattern
practice in promoting grammar knowledge in
Iranian high school students.
 Language teachers are encouraged to
consider CR tasks as an effective means in
promoting learners’ grammar knowledge.
 Applying this approach trains learners in
techniques which they can then use to study
independently.
 A second line of research may address the
appropriateness of CR tasks for teaching
young learners as it is not known how CR tasks
could be applied to younger learners.

References Dickens, P. M. R., & Woods. E. G. (1988). Some
criteria for the development of
communicative grammar tasks. TESOL
Quarterly, 22, 623-646.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587260.
Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-

raising tasks: a
perspective.
ELT Journal, 228- 237.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.3.228
Moradkhan, D., & Sohrabian, R. (2009).

Grammatical Consciousness-Raising
Tasks and the Imrovment of Irainian
Students' Knowlege of Grammar.
Journal of Teaching English as
a Foreign Language and
Literature, 57-70.
Nitta, R., & Gardner, S. (2005). Consciousness-

raising and practice in ELT coursebooks.
ELT Journal, 5. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/elt/cci001,
Peterson, J. (1997). Grammar Consciousness

Raising Tasks. Unpublished MA
Assignment, University of Reading,
England.
Rezaei, A. A., & Hosseinpur, R. M. (2011). On the

Role of Consciousness-Raising Tasks in
Learning Grammer: A Learner
Perspective. Irainian EFL Journal, 239-
240.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy.

Oxford: Oxford University Press
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman

Dictionary of Language Teaching &
Applied Linguistics. Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1988).

Consciousness raising and universal
grammar. In W. Rutherford, & M.
Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Grammar and
second language teaching (pp. 107-116).
New York: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in

second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129–58. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/applin/11.2.129.
Sugiharto, S. (2006). Grammar Consciousness-

Raising:Research, Theory, and Application.
mIndonesian Journal of English Language
Teaching, 142.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1996).

Consciousness raising activities.
In J. Willis, & D. Willis, Challenge and
Change in Language Teaching (p. 69).
Oxford: Heinemann.
Yip, V. (1994). Grammatical Consciousness-raising

and Learnability. In T. Odlin, Perspective on
Pedagogical Grammar (pp. 123-139).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Future Research Title An Empirical Study on the Efficacy of
based from the Consciousness-Raising Approach in
Recommendations of Teaching Grammar for Primary Grades
the Study
Second Language Learners’ View on
Consciousness-Raising Tasks: A New
Perspective in Learning Grammar
GRADUATE SCHOOL
LIVED EXPERIENCES OF TEACHERS HANDLING BASIC GRAMMAR:

A PHENOMENOLOGICAL INQUIRY
Subject

LEARNERS (ENGL206)
Professor
Student
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to describe the lived experiences of
teachers handling Basic Grammar subject in Ramon Magsaysay Memorial
Colleges, General Santos City, wherein the analysis was focused in analyzing
their experiences based on sex, age, civil status, year in service, and highest
degree earned.
The researcher employed phenomenological qualitative research method
specifically hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry carried through one-on-one
interview involving eight fulltime English teachers of Ramon Magsaysay
Memorial Colleges, General Santos City. Thus, the study is qualitative in
approach, phenomenology in tradition, hermeneutic in discipline, and
interpretative in interpretation.
The study revealed that the teachers teaching Basic Grammar
experienced difficulty in the face of diversity that is revealed in its sub-themes
such as teaching-learning difficulties/understanding barriers, learners and
learning diversity, negative learning attitude, inaccessibility, unpleasant emotions,
reflective measures as mechanism in hurdling challenges is the theme that
emerged. In addition, for the teaching strategies/ approaches, this study revealed
one theme, the diversity of student-centered pedagogies as counters against
students’ diversity.
ANALYSIS
Research Title Understanding the Lived Experience of Teachers Handling

Basic Grammar: A Phenomenological Study
Author IRISH T. PANTINOPLE, MAED
Date of December 2016
Publication
Problem of the The study sought to explore the lived experience of the
Study
teachers in Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges in teaching
Basic Grammar subject. The focus of the analysis, which is
interpretive, is the analysis of their experiences according to
sex, age, civil status, number of years in service, and highest
degree earned.
Lived experience refers to the experiences of the
teachers during the teaching only of the subject area. More so,
another significant purpose of this phenomenological inquiry
was to gather understanding on the essential meanings of this
phenomenon as it is lived in the everyday lives of particular
teachers.
To gather the relevant data, the author formulated the
following research questions for the respondents:
1. How do teachers handling basic grammar subject
describe their lived experiences?
1.1 what are the challenges experienced by the
teachers handling Basic Grammar subject when
described according to:
1.1.1 sex;
1.1.2 age;
1.1.3 civil status;
1.1.4 year/s in service; and
1.1.5 highest degree earned?
1.2 How do the teachers overcome the challenges
in handling Basic Grammar subject when
1.2.1 sex;
1.2.2 age;
1.2.3 civil status;
1.3 How do the teachers describe their approaches
in teaching Basic Grammar subject when
1.3.1 sex;
1.3.2 age;
1.3.3 civil status;

Summary of The study revealed that the teachers found it hard to
Findings
teach the students from diverse backgrounds and learning
orientation, those who lack focus and interest in the subject
matter, and performed slow in the class because of poor
background knowledge or orientation and learning abilities.
They were also challenged with the topics they were teaching
due to the complexity of grammar concepts and lesson. Aside
from the aforementioned, the teachers were challenged with the
students who have attitude problem.

It also revealed that teachers have reflective measures
as mechanism in hurdling the challenges and/or difficulty faced.
In overcoming those challenges, teachers were optimistic and
had a good self-motivation in showing patience and flexibility in
teaching despite of the difficulties encountered; they were even
willing to exert extra effort and conducted reviews and
recapitulations just to let the learners learn. They also had set
goals that inspire them to continue teaching amidst challenges
and difficulties. Also, they had done thorough preparation to
combat fears of committing errors in teaching to help facilitate
smooth flow of a teaching-learning progress in their respective
classes.
Moreover, the study revealed that teachers employ
variety of student-centered pedagogies as counters against
students’ diversity. They employed various
strategies/approaches that are suitable to students’ needs and
learning capabilities. Those were the collaborative and
inductive/deductive approaches in teaching wherein they
encouraged pair or group work among their students. They
integrated some disciplines like music and use of printed
learning resources and ICT or media. The teacher had used
strategies beyond the traditional approached instructions that
enabled them to have varied strategies.
Lastly, even the teachers lived experiences were
analyzed according to sex, age, civil status, number of years in
service, and highest degree earned, only one theme emerged.
Thus, there are no differences among their experiences in
handling basic grammar subject.

Conclusion Teaching grammar was never an easy subject to teach
for the respondents of this research. The subject itself is
intricate in nature, a lot of rules that are needed to be mastered
to be able to come up with a comprehensive production of
language both in writing and speaking. The students should
have already possessed the basic knowledge of grammar
during basic education so that when they get in the college, it
would be easy for them to catch up with the new concepts.
Thus, the teachers need to consider the background of the
students in order for him/her figure out the teaching approach
that is just right for the particular group of students since they
all have different levels of capacity in understanding the subject
matter.
More so, even the teachers lived experiences were
analyzed according to sex, age, civil status, number of years in
service, and highest degree earned, only one theme emerged.
Thus, there are no differences among their experiences in
handling basic grammar subject.

Recommendation The sense of illumination that the summary of findings
and conclusion has given, the followings are recommended:
1. The school administrators should provide a
seminar workshop for teachers on how to teach grammar to
students who have different backgrounds as well as a
seminar on how to handle challenges in teaching basic
grammar.
2. The school administrators should monitor all
teachers that the curriculum is well implemented to have an
efficient development of grammatical proficiency among the
students.
3. The teachers should be given equal opportunity in
experiencing pedagogical training in teaching grammar to
further develop their teaching skills and maximize their
tolerance regardless of sex, civil status, year of service in
school, and level of earned degree.
4. Teachers should vary their teaching approach for
a particular group of students. As to consider the students
diversity, it is a prime responsibility of the teacher to have a
background check of the students to come up with an
appropriate teaching approach.
5. Teachers must diagnose the students’ strengths
and weaknesses in learning basic grammar in order for
her/him to come up with the right interventions.
6. Non-basic grammar teachers should still observe
grammatical competence among the students. In a good
way, other teachers should correct student if ever they
commit grammatical mistakes. It would be a great help for
teachers who actually taught basic grammar.
7. A continual teaching grammar related studies
must be conducted by the future researchers to determine
either the problem is consistent or not.

References Abushihab, I., AH & Tobat, M. (2011). An Analysis of Written
Grammatical Errors of Arab Learners of English as a
Foreign Language at Alzaytoonah Private University of
Jordan. Europhean Journal of Social Science Volume
20, Number 4.
Ahern, k (1999). Ten tips for reflexive bracketing. Qualitative
Health Research, 9 (3), 407-411
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitude, personality behavior (2 nd ed.). New
York: Open University Press
Al Manum, A., Rahman, A., & Hossaim, A. (2012). Students’
attitude towards Englsih: The case of life science school
of Khulna University. International Review of Social
Science and Humanities, 12(1). 145-159.
Al-Magid, A., & Al-Manum M. (2009). The effect of teachers’
attitude on the effective implementation of the
communicative approach in ESL classrooms (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.nl/scholor
Benner, P. (1985). A phenomenological perspective on
explanation, prediction and understanding in nursing
science. Advantages in Nursing Science, 8(1). 1-14.
Bergum, V, (1991). Being a phenomenological researcher. In J.
Morse (Ed.) Qualitative Nursing Research: A
contemporary dialogue (pp. 55-71). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Bitcher, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of
different types of corrective feedback on esl student
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (3),
191-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive
approach to language pedagogy. New York.
Carbonnea, N., & Vallerrand R.J.M Fernet, c., & Guay F.,
(2008). The role of passion for teaching in intrapersonal
and interpersonal outcomes. Journal of Education
Psychology, 100(4), 977-987. doi: 10.1037/a00012545
Celce-Murcia. (2005). Why it makes sense to teach grammar in
context and through discourse. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos
(Eds.) New perspective on grammar teaching in second
language classroom (pp.119-134). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Chodorow, M., Tetreault, J. R., & Han, N. (2007). Detection of
grammatical errors involving prepositions. In F. Costello,
J. Kelleher, & M. Volk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4 th ACL-
ASIGMEN Workshop on Prepositions (pp. 25-30) Pague.
Czech Republic: Association for Computational
Linguistics.
Close, R.A. (1982). English as a foreign language. London:
George Allen and Unwin
Colaizzi, P (1978). Psychological research as the
phenomenologist sees it. In R. Valle & M. King (Eds.)
Existential-phenomenological alternative for psychology
(pp. 48-71). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cresswell, J W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cresswell, J W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Dalgish, G (1985). Computer Assisted ESL reseach. Calico
Journal, 2(2).
Derewianka, G B. (1999). An editorial footnote. Australian
Journal of Language and Literary, 22(1), 22-25.
Fochtman, D. (2008). Phenomenology in pediatric cancer
nursing research. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing,
25(4), 185-192.
Fox, Raymon. (1964). The “committed” Teacher. Educational
Leadership. Retrieved
www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_196410_fo
x.pdf
Fried, R.L (2001). The Passionate Teacher: A practical Guide.
Boston: Beacon Pres.
Garrison, J. & Liston, D. (2004). Teaching, learning, and loving.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Gearing, R. (2004). ‘Bracketing in Research: A Typology’,
Qualitative Health Research 14(10): 29-52.
Gipps, CB 1999, ‘Sociological aspects of assessment’, Review
of Research in Education, 24, 370.
Hinkel E, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic
text, Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 5-29.
Ikpia, V.,I. (2007). The attitude and participations of non-native
English speaking adults towards explicit grammar,
Humanitarian Review Journal, 5 1-13
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An
interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Morellie, J. M. Ninth Graders’ Attitude toward different
approaches to grammar instruction. Unpublished
Dissertation. The graduate school of education, Fordham
University, New York.
Morse, J M. (1994). Approaches to quantitative-qualitative
methodological triangulation. Nursing research, 4(1),
120 -123.
Rosenhpolts, S.J. (1989). Teacher’s Workplace: The Social
Organization of Schools. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Savage, K. L., Bitterlin, G., & Prince, D. (2010). Grammar
matters: in adult ESL classes, USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Shank, G. (2002). The communication of grammatical
proficiency. In Vargas L. (Eds.), The Even Yearbook (pp.
146-174). Dept. of Linguistics, SEAS, ELTE.
Shatz, M., & Wilinso, L.C. (2010). The education of English
Language Learners: Research to practice, New York:
The Guilford Press.
Thornbury, S. (2000). How to teach grammar, London: Pearson
ESL.
Van Manen, M (1984). “Doing” phenomenological research and
writing. Alberta: University of Alberta Press.
Van Manen, M (1990). Researching Lived Experience of Public:
Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy.
Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press.
Wallence, M., & Irons, J. (2010). The live experience of public
school teachers: Novice to expert. National Social
Science Journal, 33(2), 166-172.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key
changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Wilson, H., & Hutchison, S. (1991). Triangulation of Qualitative
Methods: Heideggerian Hermeneutics and Grounded
Theory. Qualitative Health Research.
Wojnar, D. and Swanson, K. (2007). Phenomenology: an
exploration. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25 (3), 172-180.
Wallence, D. and Swanson, K. (2007). Phenomenology: an
exploration. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25 (3), 172-180
Future Research Teachers’ Perceived Effective Teaching Approach for
Title Based on
Students Having Difficulties in Learning Grammar: A
The
Comparative Study
Recommendation
of the Study

GRADUATE SCHOOL
A Comparison between Deductive and Inductive Approaches for
Teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Grammar to High
School Students

(ENG206)
Subject
Professor
Student
DIVINE F. SANZ, LPT
ABSTRACT
This study had the purpose of testing two methods for teaching grammar
in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) class: the deductive and inductive
approaches in terms of effectiveness and rapport. This research was conducted
in a public high school in Ecuador. Seventy students enrolled in the second year
of senior high school participated. One in-service teacher taught the EFL classes
during the process of intervention (10 weeks), and two EFL teachers observed all
of these classes and recorded the information by filling in observation sheets.
The students were administered grammar pre-tests and post-tests in order to
assess their grammar knowledge. The results of the tests showed a significant
difference in the scores in favor of the inductive approach. After the statistical
analysis of the data obtained from the tests and observation sheets, we
concluded that the inductive approach is more effective for teaching grammar in
the EFL classroom in terms of instruction and rapport.
Keywords: inductive approach, deductive approach, EFL teaching,
rapport, teaching grammar
ANALYSIS
Research Title A Comparison between Deductive and Inductive

Approaches for Teaching English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) Grammar to High School Students
Author/s Carmen Benitez-Correa
Paul Gonzalez-Torres
Cesar Ochoa-Cueva
Alba Vargas-Saritama
Date of January 2019
Publication
Problem of the The present study focuses on exploring the
Study difference in effectiveness between the inductive and
deductive approaches to teach grammar in the EFL
classroom. Additionally, the effectiveness of rapport
during the English lessons was also assessed. The
research questions to be answered were the following:
1. Which of the two approaches is more effective for
teaching EFL grammar?
2. How effective is rapport when teaching EFL
grammar deductively and inductively?
Summary of the It is important to mention that the grammar
Findings knowledge of both groups, deductive and inductive, were
similar at the beginning of the intervention as evidenced
in the results of the pre-tests. This similarity makes the
two groups comparable. At the end of the intervention,
the significant increase in the scores in the post-test show
that both groups improved their grammar knowledge after
taking EFL grammar lessons with the deductive and
inductive approaches.
When comparing both approaches, the significant
difference in the scores of the groups indicate that the
inductive approach was more effective than the deductive
approach when teaching grammar to these students (see
Table 3). These findings are consistent with studies such
as the one by Dang and Nguyen (2012), which favors an
indirect approach over a direct one for teaching grammar
rules. However, other studies have given an advantage to
the deductive method (e.g. Mohammed & Jaber, 2008;
Deng & Lin, 2016; Negahdaripour & Amirghassemi, 2016)
and others have found no significant difference when
using the two approaches in teaching grammar (e.g.
Zamani & Mohammadi, 2014).
In addition, the results obtained from the
observations mean that rapport was more effective in the
inductive group rather than in the deductive one, which
might be caused by a more dynamic teaching process
involved in the communicative approach activities that
were used as a part of the inductive method for teaching
grammar.
Conclusions The present study explored the difference in
effectiveness between the inductive and deductive
approaches as well as the effectiveness of rapport when
teaching grammar in an EFL context. After the analysis
and discussion of results, the following conclusions have
been drawn:
Both groups had a similar level of grammar
knowledge before the intervention, which improved after
it; however, the statistical analysis shows that the
inductive approach had a slight advantage in terms of
improving students’ grammar knowledge.
There was an effective rapport in the EFL classes in
both groups. However, the rapport observed in the
inductive approach group was slightly more effective,
considering aspects such as the teacher being respectful,
feedback being provided, students participating in class
and interacting with teachers, enthusiasm, and
confidence when asking for explanations in class.
Recommendations Despite the fact that the present study favors the
inductive approach as a more effective method to
teaching EFL grammar, we have to consider the fact that
this is a study conducted in one high school and may not
be generalizable to other contexts. It is suggested to
continue doing research on this controversial issue in
different EFL contexts with larger samples and longer
intervention periods. These studies can be done
especially in Latin American countries, where this aspect
has not been deeply explored.
References Bouras, H., & Keskes, S. (2014). Teacher-learner rapport
impact on EFL learners’ motivation. In International
Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities.
Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from www. Ocerint
org/Socioint14_ebook/papers/201. pdf.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An
interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
Creswell, J., W. (2015). Educational research: planning,
conducting and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Harlow, Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
Dang, T. T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2012). Direct Versus
Indirect Explicit Methods of Enhancing EFL
Students’ English Grammatical Competence: A
concept CheckingBased Consciousness-Raising
Tasks Model. English Language Teaching, 6(1),
112- 121.
Deng, F., & Lin, Y. (2016). A Comparative Study on
Beliefs of Grammar Teaching between High
School English Teachers and Students in China.
English Language Teaching, 9(8), 1-10.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the
language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
El Comercio (2017, November, 10). El nivel de inglés en
el Ecuador todavía es bajo. Retrieved May 15,
2018 from
www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/ecuador-nivel-
inglesadultos-educacion.html
Ellis, E. M. (2006). Language Learning Experience as a
Contributor to ESOL Teacher Cognition. TESL-EJ,
10(1), 1-7.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching Grammar:
An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-
107.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. New York:
Pearson Education Limited.
Huang, Z. (2005). Grammar Teaching as Product or as
Process? Sino-US English Teaching, 2(11), 27-31.
Kyriacou, C. (2009). Effective teaching in schools: Theory
and practice. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Grammar: Rules and
Reasons Working Together. ESL/EFL Magazine,
3(1), 10–12.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into Practice:
Grammar Learning and Teaching. Language
Teaching, 48(2), 263-280.
Mohammed, A. A., & Jaber, H. A. (2008). The Effects of
Deductive and Inductive Approaches of Teaching
on Jordanian University Students’ Use of the
Active and Passive Voice in English. College
Student Journal, 42(2), 545-553.
Nassaji, H. & Fortos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in
second language classroom: Integrating form-
focused instruction in communicative context. New
York: Routledge.
Negahdaripour, S., & Amirghassemi, A. (2016). The effect
of deductive vs. inductive grammar instruction on
Iranian EFL Learners’ Spoken Accuracy and
Fluency. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 8-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.8
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A
textbook for teachers. London: Prentice Hall
International LTD.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Paterson, K. (2005). 55 Teaching dilemmas: Ten powerful
solutions to almost any classroom challenge.
Ontario: Pembroke Publishers.
Petraki, E., & Hill, D. (2010). Theories of Grammar and
Their Influence on Teaching Practice: Examining
language teachers' beliefs. University of Sydney
Papers in TESOL,5(5), 65-99.
Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in
language teaching: An anthology of current
practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and
methods in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge university press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman
dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics (4th ed.). London: Longman Pearson
Education.
Future Research Students' Perception toward the Use of Deductive

Title based from and Inductive Approaches in Teaching English
the Grammar
Recommendations
of the Study

GRADUATE SCHOOL
EFFECTS OF INTEGRATIVE LANGUANGE TEACHING

APPROACH ON SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’
ACHIEVEMENT AND INTEREST IN ENGLISH GRAMMAR:
ABSTRACT OF THE STUDY
(ENGL206)
Professor
Student
VERGINIA G. SUAN
ABSTRACT
The study was designed to empirically investigate the effect of Integrative
Teaching Approach (ILTA) on secondary school student’s achievement and
interest in English grammar. It also determined the influence of gender and
location on students’ achievement and interest in English grammar. The

achievement and interest of students taught with ILTA were compared with those
of students taught with the Form Based Approach (FBA). Ten research questions
and ten hypotheses guided the study. A quasi-experimental designed was used.
Specifically, the nonrandomized control group design, involving eight intact class
was used. The sample for the study consisted of 296 SSS II students from four
co-educational secondary schools in Nsukka Local Government Area which was
the area of the study. A multi-stage sampling technique was used, first to draw
the four co-educational schools and two intact classes from each school, and to
assign schools to experimental (ILTA) and control groups (FBA). Two
instruments, namely the English Grammar Achievement Test (EGAT) and the
English Grammar Interest Inventory (EGII) were developed and validated. The
internal consistency of EGAT was computed and found to be 0.95 using Kuder
Richardson’s formula (K – R 20), while that of EGII was 0.71 using Cronbach’s
Alpha Coefficient Method. Before treatment commenced, the EGAT and EGII
were administered as pretest to the two groups in each of the sampled schools.
The treatment lasted for one month.
After the treatment session, the same instrument, with numbers re-
arranged, were administered to the subjects to obtain the post-test scores. The
data obtained were used in answering the research questions and testing the
hypotheses. The research questions were answered using mean scores, while
the hypotheses were tested using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) at 0.05
level of significance. The results indicated that ILTA had significant effect on
students’ achievement and interest in English grammar, but gender did not
significantly influence students’ achievement and interest in English grammar.
Location was a significant factor in students’ achievement and interest in English
grammar. The results also showed that there was no significant interaction effect
of instructional approach and gender on students’ achievement and interest in
English grammar. However, while there was significant interaction effect of
instructional approach and location on students’ achievement in English

grammar, there was no significant interaction effect of instructional approach and
location on students’ interest in English grammar. Based on the findings, it was
concluded that the study provided empirical evidence of the efficacy of ILTA in
enhancing students’ achievement and interest in English grammar. By
implication, if teachers of the English language adopt ILTA and practice it in their
various schools, students’ achievement and interest in English grammar may
improve. It was, therefore, recommended among others that government and
other professional bodies should organize workshops, seminars and conferences
to educate and sensitize the serving teachers on the use of ILTA in teaching
English grammar.
ANALYSIS
Research Title Effects of Integrative Language Teaching Approach on
Secondary School Students’ Achievement And Interest in
English Grammar
Author/s Cajetan Ikechukwu Egbe PG/Ph. D
Date of Publication February 2015
Problem of the The English language is Nigeria’s second as well as
Study official language. It is also the medium of instruction in schools
and the language with which Nigerians interact with the outside
world. But not minding this important place of English in
Nigeria’s educational and social spheres, secondary school
students do not perform well in it. This poor performance is
especially noticeable in their inability to use the grammar of the
English language correctly. Many students have problems
especially in applying the rules of agreement and sequence of
tenses in their speech and writing. Thus, their sentences are
grammatically infelicitous and cannot help them engage in
meaningful discourse both within and outside the classroom
and in passing their examinations.

Therefore, the problem of this study is to determine the
effects of Integrative Language Teaching Approach on
students’ achievement and interest in English grammar.

Summary of Results presented in this chapter reveal the following as
Findings the major findings of the study:
1. The Integrative Language Teaching Approach (ILTA)
has significant effect on students’ achievement in English
grammar. The group taught with ILTA achieved significantly
higher than the group taught with the Form Based Approach
(FBA).
2. The Integrative Language Teaching Approach has
significant effect on students’ interest in English grammar. The
group taught with ILTA showed significantly higher interest in
English grammar than the group taught with the FBA.
3. Gender has no significant influence on students’
achievement in English grammar.
4. Gender has no significant influence on students’
interest in English grammar.
5. School location has a significant influence on students’
achievement in English grammar, with the urban students
achieving significantly higher than the rural students.
6. School location has a significant influence on students’
interest in English grammar. Urban students had significantly
higher mean interest rating scores than the rural students.
7. There is no significant interaction effect of instructional
approach and gender on students’ mean achievement scores in
English grammar.
8. There is no significant interaction effect of instructional
approach and gender on students’ mean interest rating scores

in English grammar.
9. There is significant interaction effect of instructional
approach and school location on students’ mean achievement
scores in English grammar.
10. There is no significant interaction effect of
instructional approach and school location on students’ mean
interest rating scores in English grammar.

Conclusions On the strength of the findings of this study, the following
conclusions are hereby drawn. The ILTA has facilitative effects
on secondary school students’ achievement and interest in
English grammar. Students taught English grammar using the
ILTA achieved significantly higher than those taught with the
Form Based Approach (FBA). This means that the ILTA proved
superior to the FBA in promoting students’ achievement and
interest in English grammar. Gender had no significant
influence on students’ achievement and interest in English
grammar. The male and female students maintained almost the
same level of interest in English grammar.
However, school location had significant influence on
students’ achievement and interest in English grammar. Urban
students had higher achievement and interest in English
grammar than the rural students. The interaction effects of
instructional approach and gender on students’ achievement
and interest were not statistically significant. Though there was
significant interaction effect of instructional approach and
location on students’ achievement, there was no significant
interaction effect of instructional approach and location on
students’ interest in English grammar.

Recommendations The following recommendations are hereby made in line
with the findings and implications

of the study
1. The results of the study have shown that the integrative
language teaching approach (ILTA) has significantly
positive effect on secondary school students’
achievement and interest in English grammar. Thus,
English language teachers should adopt the approach as
an alternative to the form-based approach (FBA) in
teaching English grammar.
2. Workshops, seminars and conferences should be
regularly organized for English language teachers by
education authorities such as Universities, Colleges of
Education, Ministries of Education Post Primary Schools’
Management Board and the Universal Basic Education
Commission (UBEC) on the use of ILTA in teaching
English grammar.
3. English teacher preparation programmes in Colleges of
Education and Universities should include in their
relevant courses on methodology (like Special Method)
the use of ILTA in teaching English grammar so that pre-
service teachers will be trained on how to use this
approach in teaching English grammar on employment.
4. Curriculum developers for secondary schools such as
the Nigerian Educational Research and Development
Council (NERDC) should incorporate the ILTA as an
effective approach in teaching English grammar in the
next review of the curriculum as well as carry out further
research on other areas of the English language where
the ILTA could be applied.
5. Government should ensure equal provision of qualified

teachers and instructional materials to urban and rural
schools so that no school will be disadvantaged as a
result of location.
6. Textbook writers especially in English grammar should
develop new textual materials that are ILTA compliant.
Such texts should have copious exploration passages on
each unit of grammar where grammatical structures
demonstrating the rules of grammar are integrated.

References Egbe,C. (2015). Effect of integrative language teaching
approach on secondary school students' Achievement
and interest in English grammar
https://www.unn.edu.ng/publications/files/Egbe%20Cajetan
%20Ikechukwu.pdf
Future Research Effect of Integrative Language Teaching Approach on
Title based from the Students’ Achievement and Interest in Essays and Reading
Recommendations Comprehension
of the Study
GRADUATE SCHOOL
EMBEDDING GRAMMAR WHILE DEVELOPING

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN ENGLISH:
ABSTRACT OF THE STUDY
Subject

LEARNERS (ENGL206)

Professor
Student
ABSTRACT
This article examines Arab-heritage learners’ preferences on
how grammar is taught in English classes with a communicative
competence focus, serving as a basis for developing principled
teaching practices and teacher-training. Data was collected via a
questionnaire from 336 adult learners that attend a private teaching
facility using primarily Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
methods. In the study, learners were pooled into lower-level, or higher-
level groups depending on their Common European Framework (CEF)
language level. Data was collected on learners’ preferred
teaching/learning strategy choices including (i) deductive or inductive
approaches, (ii) embedding grammar in local or ‘international’ cultural
contexts, (iii) use of tasks and exercises or activities, and (iv)
immediate or delayed teacher intervention.
Results indicate Arab learners’ overall preference of grammar
instruction practices based on deductive approaches, conditional to
teaching practices being embedded in meaningful contexts. Lower-
level learners prefer local cultural contexts, while higher-level learners
prefer Western/international ones. Very few Arab-heritage learners

prefer methods based on guided inductive approaches using tasks and
exercises with periodic teacher-intervention, and almost none chose
the deep-end CLT inductive approach. Conversely, shallow-end
inductive approaches, with contextualized tasks, activities and delayed
teacher intervention are almost as popular as contextualized deductive
approaches. This study indicates the importance of meaningful cultural
contexts for embedding grammar instruction, reappraising
contemporary deductive methods, and the balanced use of shallow-
end CLT and inductive approach. These results should therefore help
teachers and teacher-trainers realign popular Western beliefs about
English teaching and teacher- training when operating in Arab-heritage
communities.
ANALYSIS
RESEARCH Embedding Grammar while Developing Communicative
TITLE Competence in English: Relevant Cultural Contexts and
Teaching Approaches
AUTHOR/S Joseph George Mallia
DATE OF March 2015
PUBLICATIO
PROBLEM OF
THE STUDY This article examines Arab-heritage learners’
preferences on how grammar is taught in English classes
with a communicative competence focus, serving as a
basis for developing principled teaching practices and
teacher-training.
The study then examines the following:

1. Contemporary Arab learners’ acceptability of
traditional grammar teaching classroom practices
using deductive approaches, such as PPP;
2. Arab learners’ acceptability of deep-end CLT
classroom practices using ‘rigorous’ inductive
approaches;
3. Arab learners’ acceptability of shallow-end CLT
classroom practices using guided inductive
approaches;
4. Explore the importance of using familiar and
meaningful ‘Arab heritage’ cultural contexts in which
to embed grammar instruction as an aid to
presenting its form, and illustrating meaning and
use.
5. Explore the importance of using ‘new’ cultural
contexts that may strengthen intercultural
communicative competence.
SUMMARY
OF THE Descriptive statistics
FINDINGS The use of tasks and activities with the teacher’s
opportune intervention towards the end of the lesson was
popular and is preferred to the use of more ‘traditional’
tasks with the teacher’s periodic involvement at all
learner levels, they rigorously avoid the ‘deep-end’
inductive approach. When using more traditional tasks
and exercises learners clearly preferred deductive
approaches, which was the overall preference for both
lower and higher-level learners. While using deductive

approaches, reducing or eliminating the presentation and
discussion of contextualized examples and moving
directly to practice was not favoured by learners of high-
and low-levels.
Creating a context and embedding examples that clearly
show the meaning and use of the new language was
favoured by learners at all levels. Lower- and higher-level
learners preferred deductive approaches with local
contexts out of all the choices as a backdrop for
developing an understanding of the accurate meaning of
new language and noticing its appropriate use.
Teaching Approach Preference
When comparing the proportion in the lower-level
group that chose a deductive approach with that in the
higher-level group, therefore the proportion of learners at
lower-levels that prefer to learn new grammar via
deductive approaches is significantly higher than that of
higher-level learners. When comparing the proportion in
lower level group that chose a guided inductive approach
with that in the higher level group. Therefore, the
proportion of learners at higher-levels that prefer to learn
new grammar via guided inductive approaches is
significantly higher than that of lower-level learners. The
proportion of learners at higher-levels that also prefer to
learn new grammar via inductive approaches is
significantly higher than that of lower-level learners.
Cultural Context Preference

The comparison of the proportions in the lower
level and higher groups that chose a familiar ‘local’
cultural context for embedding the learning and practice
of grammar as opposed to a western context yielded a
Yates corrected Pearson’s chi-square statistic of 6.93.
Therefore, the proportion of learners at lower-levels that
prefer grammar learning to be embedded in a familiar
context is significantly higher than that of higher-level
learners.
CONCLUSION The research indicates the Arab learners’ overall
S preference of grammar instruction practices based on
deductive approaches, conditional to teaching practices
being embedded in meaningful contexts. Lower-level
learners prefer local cultural contexts, while higher-level
learners prefer Western/international ones. Very few Arab-
heritage learners prefer methods based on guided
inductive approaches using tasks and exercises with
periodic teacher-intervention, and almost none chose the
deep-end CLT inductive approach. Conversely, shallow-
end inductive approaches, with contextualized tasks,
activities and delayed teacher intervention are almost as
popular as contextualized deductive approaches.
Therefore, this study indicates the importance of
meaningful cultural contexts for embedding grammar
instruction, reappraising contemporary deductive methods,
and the balanced use of shallow-end CLT and inductive
approach.
RECOMMEND These results should therefore help teachers and

ATIONS teacher-trainers realign popular Western beliefs about
English teaching and teacher-training when operating in
Arab-heritage communities.
REFERENCE Al-Mahrooqi, R., & Asante, C. (2010). Promoting

Autonomy by Fostering a Reading Culture. In R. Al-
S Mahrooqi & V. Tuzlukova (eds.), The Omani ELT
symphony: Maintaining linguistic and socio-cultural
equilibrium (pp. 477-494). Muscat: Sultan Qaboos
University Academic Publication Board.
Burns, S. (2010). How the Other Half Learns. In R. Al-
Mahrooqi & V. Tuzlukova (eds.). The Omani ELT
Symphony: Maintaining Linguistic and Socio-
Cultural Equilibrium (pp. 91-110). Muscat: Sultan
Qaboos University Academic Publication Board.
Ezzi, N.A.A. (2012). Yemeni Teachers’ Beliefs of Grammar
Teaching and Classroom Practices. English
Language Teaching, 5, 8.
Mallia, J.G. (2014). Inductive and Deductive Approaches
to Teaching English Grammar. Arab World English
Journal, 5, 2, 221 -235. Available at:
http://www.awej.org/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=495:joseph-
george-mallia&catid=49&Itemid=15
Omran Akasha, O. (2013). Exploring the Challenges
Facing Arabic-Speaking ESL Students & Teachers
in Middle School. Journal of ELT and Applied
Linguistics (JELTAL), 1, 1.
Amalgamating English Grammar Teaching in Cross-
FUTURE Culturally Influenced Task Based Language Teaching
RESEARCH Approach
TITLE
BASED
FROM THE
RECOMMEN
DATION OF
THE STUDY

GRADUATE SCHOOL
A COMPARISON BETWEEN DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE

APPROACHES FOR TEACHING EFL GRAMMAR TO HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS: ABSTRACT OF THE STUDY
Subject

LEARNERS(ENGL206)
Professor
Student
ABSTRACT
This study had the purpose of testing two methods for teaching
grammar in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) class: the deductive and
inductive approaches in terms of effectiveness and rapport. This research
was conducted in a public high school in Ecuador. Seventy students
enrolled in the second year of senior high school participated. One in-
service teacher taught the EFL classes during the process of intervention
(10 weeks), and two EFL teachers observed all of these classes and
recorded the information by filling in observation sheets. The students
were administered grammar pre-tests and post-tests in order to assess
their grammar knowledge. The results of the tests showed a significant
difference in the scores in favor of the inductive approach. After the
statistical analysis of the data obtained from the tests and observation
sheets, we concluded that the inductive approach is more effective for
teaching grammar in the EFL classroom in terms of instruction and
rapport.
ANALYSIS
Research Title A Comparison between Deductive and Inductive
Approaches for Teaching EFL Grammar to High School
Students
Author/s Carmen Benitez-Correa
Paul Gonzalez-Torres
Cesar Ochoa-Cueva
Alba Vargas-Saritama
Date of Publication January 2019
Problem of the The research questions to be answered were the
Study following:
1. Which of the two approaches is more effective for
teaching EFL grammar?
2. How effective is rapport when teaching EFL
grammar deductively and inductively?

Summary of the To sum up, it can be observed that, although both
Findings
approaches to teaching grammar have been effective in
terms of rapport, the percentages of effectiveness in
rapport in the inductive group are slightly higher.
In addition, the results obtained from the
observations mean that rapport was more effective in the
inductive group rather than in the deductive one, which
might be caused by a more dynamic teaching process
involved in the communicative approach activities that
were used as a part of the inductive method for teaching
grammar.
Conclusions The present study explored the difference in
effectiveness between the inductive and deductive
approaches as well as the effectiveness of rapport when
teaching grammar in an EFL context. After the analysis
and discussion of results, the following conclusions have
been drawn:
Both groups had a similar level of grammar
knowledge before the intervention, which improved after
it; however, the statistical analysis shows that the
inductive approach had a slight advantage in terms of
improving students’ grammar knowledge.
There was an effective rapport in the EFL classes

in both groups. However, the rapport observed in the
inductive approach group was slightly more effective,
considering aspects such as the teacher being respectful,
feedback being provided, students participating in class
and interacting with teachers, enthusiasm, and
confidence when asking for explanations in class.

Recommendations Despite the fact that the present study favors the
inductive approach as a more effective method to
teaching EFL grammar, we have to consider the fact that
this is a study conducted in one high school and may not
be generalizable to other contexts. It is suggested to
continue doing research on this controversial issue in
different EFL contexts with larger samples and longer
intervention periods. These studies can be done
especially in Latin American countries, where this aspect
has not been deeply explored.

References Barmaki, R. (2014). Nonverbal communication and
teaching performance. Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Educational Data
Mining (EDM), 441-443. Retrieved from
http://educationaldatamining.org/EDM2014/uploads/
procs2014/YRT/441_EDM-2 014Full-
Proceedings.pdf.
Bouras, H., & Keskes, S. (2014). Teacher-learner rapport
impact on EFL learners’ motivation. In International
Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities.
Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from www. Ocerint
org/Socioint14_ebook/papers/201. pdf.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An
interactive approach to language pedagogy.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
Creswell, J., W. (2015). Educational research: planning,
conducting and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Harlow, Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
Dang, T. T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2012). Direct Versus
Indirect Explicit Methods of Enhancing EFL
Students’ English Grammatical Competence: A
concept CheckingBased Consciousness-Raising
Tasks Model. English Language Teaching, 6(1),
112121.
Deng, F., & Lin, Y. (2016). A Comparative Study on
Beliefs of Grammar Teaching between High School
English Teachers and Students in China. English
Language Teaching, 9(8), 1-10.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language
classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
El Comercio (2017, November, 10). El nivel de inglés en
el Ecuador todavía es bajo. Retrieved May 15, 2018
from www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/ecuador-
nivel-inglesadultos-educacion.html
Ellis, E. M. (2006). Language Learning Experience as a
Contributor to ESOL Teacher Cognition. TESL-EJ,
10(1), 1-7.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching Grammar:
An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-
107.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. New York:
Pearson Education Limited.
Huang, Z. (2005). Grammar Teaching as Product or as
Process? Sino-US English Teaching, 2(11), 27-31.
Kyriacou, C. (2009). Effective teaching in schools: Theory
and practice. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Grammar: Rules and
Reasons Working Together. ESL/EFL Magazine,
3(1), 10–12.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into Practice:
Grammar Learning and Teaching. Language
Teaching, 48(2), 263-280.
Mohammed, A. A., & Jaber, H. A. (2008). The Effects of
Deductive and Inductive Approaches of Teaching on
Jordanian University Students’ Use of the Active
and Passive Voice in English. College Student
Journal, 42(2), 545-553.
Nassaji, H. & Fortos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in
second language classroom: Integrating form-
focused instruction in communicative context. New
York: Routledge.
Negahdaripour, S., & Amirghassemi, A. (2016). The effect
of deductive vs. inductive grammar instruction on
Iranian EFL Learners’ Spoken Accuracy and
Fluency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics
and English Literature, 5(1), 8-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.8
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A
textbook for teachers. London: Prentice Hall
International LTD.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Paterson, K. (2005). 55 Teaching dilemmas: Ten powerful
solutions to almost any classroom challenge.
Ontario: Pembroke Publishers.
Petraki, E., & Hill, D. (2010). Theories of Grammar and
Their Influence on Teaching Practice: Examining
language teachers' beliefs. University of Sydney
Papers in TESOL, 5(5), 65-99.
Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in
language teaching: An anthology of current practice.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches
and methods in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge university press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary
of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th
ed.). London: Longman Pearson Education.
Shrum, J. L. & Glisan E. W. (2016). Teacher's handbook
contextualized language instruction. Boston:
Cengage Learning.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow,
Essex: Longman.
Urdan, T. C. (2011). Statistics in plain English. New York:
Routledge.
Zamani, A., & Mohammadi, F. A. (2014). A Comparison
between Using an Inductive Strategy and a
Deductive one in Grammar Instruction for Iranian
EFL Learners. Enjoy Teaching Journal, 2(1), 90- 98.
Future Research
The Effects of Using Deductive and Inductive
Title based from the Approaches for Teaching EFL Grammar to The Grade
8 Students in Danao Integrated School
Recommendations
of the Study
Students’ Profile
Photo Basic Information
Name: Crezel Joy C. Agregado

Educational Background:
Undergraduate: General Santos Foundation College,

Inc.
Course: Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in
English
Occupation: Teacher
Affiliation: Deped-Sarangani
GRADUATE: Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges

(2019-Present)
Eligibility: Licensed Professional Teacher
Name: Farina Alysa B. Alipio
Undergraduate: Notre Dame of Dadiangas University

English
Graduate: Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges-

General Santos City 2019-Present
Occupation: Teacher
Affiliation: Deped-General Santos City
Name: Jelaine C. Balatayo
Undergraduate: Ramon Magsaysay Memorial

Colleges General Santos City

English
Graduate: Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges
General Santos City 2019- Present
Occupation: N/A
Affiliation: N/A
Name: Jimboy H. Baldesco
Undergraduate: Bachelor of Secondary Education

Course: Major In English - General Santos Foundation
College, Inc.
Graduate: Master of Arts in Education Major in

English- Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges-
General Santos City 2019-Present
Occupation: Teacher
Affiliation: STI College-General Santos
Name: Hernan L. Biñas Jr.

Inc.
English
Occupation: Teacher
Affiliation: Deped-General Santos City
Graduate: Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges

(2019-Present)
Name: Jeffrey B. Jarantilla
Undergraduate: Bachelor of Secondary Education

Course: Major in English – Ramon Magsaysay
Memorial Colleges
Graduate School: Master of Arts in Education Major in

English – Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges
(2019-Present)
Occupation: Teacher
Affiliation: Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges,
General Santos City
Name: Divine F. Sanz
Undergraduate: Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges

-Bachelor of Secondary Education
Course: Major in English
Graduate: Master of Arts in Education Major in English

– Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges (2019-
Present)
Occupation: Teaching
Affiliation: DepEd-General Santos City
Name: Verginia G. Suan
Undergraduate: Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges

-Bachelor of Secondary Education
Course: Major in English – Ramon Magsaysay
Memorial Colleges

Present)
Occupation: Child Development Worker/Teaching

Affiliation: LGU (CSWDO)-GENSAN
Name: Neliza G. Parojinog
Undergraduate: Mindanao State University

English – Mindanao State University, Gensan

Present)
Occupation: Teacher
Affiliation: Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges-
Basic Education Program
Name: Cherry Mae A. Vicente

Inc.
English
Occupation: Teacher
Affiliation: Deped-Sarangani

Present)
Professor’s Profile
Photo Basic Information
 FRANCISCO LORENZO JR., PhD
 Assistant Professor at University of

Mindanao and works at Lecturer at
CBRC and Dean-CTE at South
East Asian Institute of Technology
 Past: Rizal Sped Learning Center -
A De La Salle Supervised
Accredited School and Ateneo de
Davao University
 Studied Doctor of Philosophy in

Education Major in Applied
Linguistics at University of the
Immaculate Conception

Edited Engl206 Compendium

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edited Engl206 Compendium

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges

Compendium of the Requirements

FRANCISCO Z. LORENZO JR., PHD

AGREGADO, CREZEL JOY C.

VICENTE, CHERRY MAE

II. Research Analysis

III. Students’ Profile

IV. Professors’ Profile

DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR

ENGLISH GRAMMAR APPROACHES FOR ENGLISH

FRANCISCO Z. LORENZO, JR., PHD

CREZEL JOY C. AGREGADO, LPT

O’Halloran (2005) stated that grammar contributes to the meaningful

linkage between words and phrases, making sense of a language semantically in

to produce a uniform structure of a language usage. Concerning about social

acceptability, different theories have been employed to result in different types of

rigidity of these rules is greater in some languages. It is very important to

and prescriptive grammar. Descriptive grammars are essentially scientific

theories that attempt to explain how language works.

Descriptive grammar is different from prescriptive grammar in that

intended for the receiver is achieved.

grammar prescribe a standard of usage and this standard English, a sociolinguist

prescriptive rules are taught in schools by teachers to students in the standard

academic writing, and when a speaker gives a speech to an audience, or a

prescriptive rules (especially in technical or formal writing) is a direct reflection of

strategies to avoid producing sentences which obey prescriptive rules while

violating descriptive ones. Moreover, certain rules must be inherently prescriptive

punctuation and spelling) have no independent authority other than the

prescriptive conventions we as a society have developed. In other words, nobody

the rules specific to writing.

So, to summarize, a prescriptive grammar serves to impose its own vision

of ‘correct’ language use, and a descriptive grammar observes how language is

used and passes this information on to readers. To me as a speaker of the

English language, both descriptive and prescriptive grammars are useful.

ENGLISH GRAMMAR APPROACHES FOR ENGLISH

FRANCISCO Z. LORENZO, JR., PHD

CREZEL JOY C. AGREGADO, LPT

Content-Based Instruction is a grammar approach for which are language and

content integrated instruction, content-enhanced teaching, foreign language

medium instruction, foreign languages across the curriculum, or learning with

languages–is a significant approach in second language acquisition(SLA),

designed to provide second-language (L2) learners with concurrent instruction in

content and language. Lasagabaster (2008) described CBI as based on three

main theories of language: ―language is text–and discourse-based, and

therefore the focus of language acquisition is on meaning rather than

form;―language use draws on integrated skills; and―language is purposeful.

world (Crandall, 1994). The goal of CB courses is to provide a meaningful

language, content, and study skills needed in a particular academic context.

largely based on written texts. Comprehensive input provided through content

materials leads to language acquisition.

a general nature. Readings from textbooks, followed by vocabulary and

comprehension exercises, and authentic materials from subject-specific source

developing general academic language skills and skills needed to operate in a

content-specific community through interesting and relevant content. (Stoller,

of the main challenges however is how to focus on language form in an effective

linguistic form without isolating it from its meaningful context (Basturkmen,

Loewen & Ellis, 2004; Ellis, 2009). Therefore, close-ended information

exchanges within collaborative activities aimed at fulfilling a meaningful task can

resources to reconstruct a text or to resolve a problem. Segments of learner

a given task are called Language-Related Episodes (LREs) (Leeser, 2004).

Content-based Instruction also have a good Impact on the students and

the programme. The delivery of the CB courses, much emphasis is placed on

students‘ collaboration in the process of co-constructing knowledge. Thus, Senior

―communities of learners (p.149). Adamson stresses that collaborative learning