Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Burgess - 2002 - Focus On Grammatical Form, Explicit or Implicit
Burgess - 2002 - Focus On Grammatical Form, Explicit or Implicit
www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Received 12 December 2001; received in revised form 15 April 2002; accepted 2 May 2002
Abstract
Grammar teaching has been and continues to be an area of some controversy and debate have
led to the emergence of a new classroom option for language teachers: that of Focus on Form (as
opposed to Focus on Meaning or Focus on FormS). Against this background of ‘interesting
times’ for grammar teaching, this paper reports research into teachers’ attitudes to grammar and
its teaching and learning within an EAP context. Responses from 48 EAP teachers in British uni-
versity language centres produced both quantitative and qualitative data. Results indicate that the
majority of teachers in this study appreciate the value of grammar for their students and possess a
sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues involved. There is evidence to support a
favourable attitude to Focus on Form approaches among this group. A further finding concerns
the importance of student characteristics, needs and wishes in influencing teachers’ classroom
actions in relation to grammar.
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Explicit; Form; Grammar; Implicit
1. Introduction
Grammar is being rehabilitated (e.g. Doughty and Williams 1998a) and recog-
nised for what it has always been (Thornbury, 1997, 1998): an essential, inescapable
component of language use and language learning. Few would dispute nowadays
that teaching and learning with a focus on form is valuable, if not indispensable.
What perhaps are still the subject of debate are two points:
1. the degree of explicitness such teaching and learning should display, and
2. the relationship of grammar-focused learning to learning activities with other
foci.
0346-251X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0346-251X(02)00048-9
434 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458
This paper reports research into EAP (English for Academic Purposes) teachers’
attitudes towards grammar relating to these points among others. Part 1 of the
paper briefly discusses aspects of grammar teaching and previous work on teacher
attitudes to grammar. Part 2 outlines the research and its findings.
The place and type of grammatical instruction within language learning has been
the subject of language acquisition research and discussion for at least 40 years
(Ellis, 2001). During this time, this research has developed in both its focus and
methodologies. The organisation of the discussion about the treatment of grammar
has been centred on comparison of teaching methodologies (e.g. Grammar-Trans-
lation vs. Audio-Lingual) and on different classifications of approach (e.g. Product
or Process teaching as described by Batstone, 1994a,b; the Analytical or Experiential
distinction proposed by Stern 1992). However, work over recent years has led to the
adoption of new (or at least re-ordered) taxonomies for grammar instruction, based
around the distinction, originally made by Long (1991), between Focus on FormS,
Focus on Form and Focus on Meaning approaches.
Like many terms used within academic discussion there is a degree of differentia-
tion in the use and definitions of these terms. However, it appears to be generally
accepted that Focus on FormS is characterised by a structuralist, synthetic approach
to language, where the primary focus of classroom activity is on language forms
rather than the meanings they convey. Focus on Form, in contrast, ‘consists of an
occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features—by the teacher or one or
more students’ (Long and Robinson, 1998, p. 23). Doughty and Williams (1998a,
p. 3) indicate that the Focus on Form approach provides learners an advantage over
Focus on FormS teaching through the ‘cognitive processing support provided by the
overriding focus on meaning or communication’. They continue, ‘to state this
advantage rather simply, the learners’ attention is drawn precisely to a linguistic
feature as necessitated by a communicative demand’.
A third option is Focus on Meaning, an approach where classroom work is
wholly concerned with communication of meaning but with no attention given to
the forms used to convey this. (The Natural Approach of Krashen and Terrell,
1983, and other ‘non-interventionist’ approaches are examples of this position.) It
is possible to conflate Focus on FormS and Focus on Meaning approaches with
the analytical and experiential options proposed by Stern (1992). However, Focus
on Meaning does not now feature as strongly in discussion concerning grammar
teaching as it once did: cumulated evidence from research in grammar learning and
SLA suggests that some conscious attention to form is necessary for language
learning to take place (see Ellis, 2001 for summary of research to date). It is ques-
tions around the nature of that attention which currently occupy researchers and
commentators in the field (e.g. Swain, 1998; Doughty and Varela, 1998) with a great
J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 435
deal of work concerned with the production of taxonomies of options for form-
focused teaching.
For example, Ellis’ (2001, 14f) taxonomy of approaches within what he terms
Form Focused Instruction covers Focus on FormS, Planned Focus on Form, and
Incidental Focus on Form. This distinction between the planned or incidental nature
of the focus on form is crucial for Ellis in terms of the type of learner interaction
with the forms (intensive interaction with one form in the case of planned focus and
extensive interaction covering several forms for incidental focus).
Similarly, Doughty and Williams (1998b) have produced an extensive, detailed
discussion of options within a Focus on Form approach along with an analysis of
classroom tasks in terms of those options. They too see choice between planned or
incidental approach as significant (framed around a choice between proactive or
reactive approaches) but also discuss the options concerning the choice of linguistic
form for focus, the extent of explicitness of focus on form, how focus on form
should be incorporated into a lesson (sequential or integrated) and its place within
the curriculum as a whole.
Developments of this kind have produced a varied set of options for teachers to
follow in relation to pedagogical grammar. The research described in this paper
attempts to establish some of the choices favoured by one group of teachers within a
particular sector of the profession.
Previous work on attitudes and perceptions within language learning suggests that
there is often a disparity between students and teachers (e.g. Kumaravadivelu, 1991;
Spratt, 1999). Such mismatches are often found around the area of grammar
teaching. For example, Brindley’s (1984) research within Adult Migrant Education
in Australia found teachers more in favour of communicative activities, while stu-
dents preferred more formal, explicit grammar teaching. More recently, Schultz’s
(1996, 2001) papers both delineate differences between teachers and students in
two different language teaching contexts (the USA and Colombia, with students
more favourable than teachers towards formal teaching of grammar and explicit
correction.
However, despite this lack of correspondence between teacher and student views,
research evidence also suggests that teachers may take learner wishes and preferences
into account in their decision making around grammar teaching (Borg, 1998, 1999c;
Macrory, 2000). One of the reasons for this appears to be that the inclusion of
explicit grammar teaching fulfils several classroom management needs. These
include appeasing student concerns about lack of grammar, contributing to the pace
of lessons, and making fluency work more relevant to students (Borg, 1998). These
sorts of issues weigh heavily enough with teachers to influence their decisions,
despite personal reservations about the pedagogical effectiveness of such gramma-
tical treatment. Indeed, Borg (1998, pp. 25–26) indicates the complexity of the deci-
sion-making process for pedagogical grammar: he shows how conflicts occur
between teacher cognitions in different areas (language, language learning, L2
436 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458
learning, grammar teaching, students and teacher’s self) and how principles become
blurred in the course of practice.
Within the EAP sector, surveys have indicated that language problems and
grammatical considerations are ranked fairly highly by students (e.g. Blue, 1993;
Grundy, 1993; Jordan, 1997, pp. 46–47). Research also shows that academic tutors
within universities feel that linguistic proficiency (with grammar playing a large part
in this) is of importance (Tonkyn et al., 1993, p. 42; Grundy, 1993; Jordan, 1997).
However, comparisons of students and teachers in EAP suggest that, as in other
areas of ELT, there is likely to be a mismatch between their attitudes and expecta-
tions (Jordan, 1997, p. 53) and there is some evidence that grammar is again an area
of contention. For example, in a study of perceptions about writing, Leki (1995)
reports that students cite grammar as an important component of good writing,
whereas for teachers, more emphasis is placed upon rhetorical considerations.
There has, however, been comparatively little exploration of the beliefs of EAP
teachers specifically concerning grammar and grammar teaching, despite indications
that some focus on grammar is important at this level (e.g. Leki and Carson, 1994;
Robinson, 1991).
Thus, the research detailed in Part 2 aims to look more closely at what teachers in
the EAP sector feel about grammar teaching and their students’ problems with
grammar. It could be argued that this group of teachers represent some of the most
sophisticated within the TESOL profession; certainly they tend to be well-qualified
and teachers of long-standing. Thus, their views may provide something of a
benchmark for the profession. Additionally, the learners within this sector tend to be
more advanced than those in other sectors, and, as decisions about grammar teach-
ing may depend on proficiency level, it is of interest to see what choices these tea-
chers make for these learners.
3. The research
Which beliefs about grammar and grammar teaching are most widely held by
EAP teachers?
Is there a bias towards decontextualised presentation of grammar and away
from discourse-based, unified approaches?
3.3. Subjects
The importance of definition of context in the study of beliefs and attitudes has
been well documented (Johnson, 1992, p. 102; Pajares, 1992, p. 327; Fortune, 1992,
p. 167). Questions should be as context-specific as possible in order to avoid ‘‘it
depends’’ replies (Pajares ibid.). Thus, here only one teaching context was con-
sidered in order to make as close a connection as possible between teachers and their
practical experience.
The context chosen was that of pre-sessional English for Academic Purposes
classes in British universities. These are typically summer classes of between 8 and 12
weeks attended by overseas students who are about to begin studies in the uni-
versity. It was hoped that teachers in this context would prove to be a readily iden-
tifiable group. Moreover, the specific nature of EAP classes would allow for as little
variation as possible between class types. Additionally, the presumed sophistication
and experience of teachers within this area permitted the inclusion of specialised
vocabulary within certain questions. The choice of such a population also increased
the possibility that subjects had some understanding/experience of the different
approaches mentioned.
The BALEAP (British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes)
members’ list was used as a source of addresses for EAP units and two questionnaires
were mailed to each unit for completion. This meant that a total of 128 questionnaires
were dispatched. It is believed that the targeted population provided a fair representa-
tion of EAP teachers on British university pre-sessional English courses.
It is important to acknowledge that a problem of ‘volunteer bias’ exists in the
sample. It represents only teachers who were sufficiently interested in the teaching of
grammar to complete and return the questionnaires. This bias could possibly have
been lessened through interviews with non-respondents to allow comparison of
438 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458
answers. Interviews with respondents could have also established reasons for the return
of the questionnaire. However, practicalities of time and funding prevented this option
being effected. Thus, the survey is unable to comment on the beliefs of university-based
EAP teachers in general. Nevertheless, the data collected are valuable, indicating the
opinions of a substantial proportion of the population. 48 replies were returned,
representing a 37.5% response rate. This sample size exceeds the number (30) which
Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 77) describe as the minimum for useful statistical analysis.
The questionnaire used for the collection of data is included in the Appendix.
Development of the questionnaire took place in several stages. First, background
reading led to the identification of certain dichotomies and continua within the
teaching of language and of grammar in particular. These were incorporated into a
framework for a consideration of grammar teaching. Key characteristics of each
were identified as shown in Fig. 1. These characteristics were used as the basis for a
set of open-ended questions concerning the teaching of grammar and these were
subsequently completed by 12 MEd TESOL students (all experienced ESOL tea-
chers) at Manchester University’s Centre for English Language Studies in Educa-
tion. Their responses were analysed for significant themes. This element of
qualitative research before embarkation on quantitative, and necessarily broader,
work allowed for the generation of feelings, beliefs and ideas about grammar which the
lone researcher may not have thought to include. As a result of this stage statements
Fig. 1. Dichotomies and continua in language teaching (adapted from Ellis, 1994; Stern, 1992).
J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 439
of 4.17 and over 90% of responses were of agreement or strong agreement. This is not a
particularly surprising result. Student expectations of traditional, explicit grammar
teaching are familiar to many teachers (cf Borg, 1999a,b), and the popularity of
grammar practice books for self-study purposes seems to confirm this view. The
responses here indicate that even with advanced, relatively sophisticated learners of
the kind EAP teachers in universities tend to deal with, teachers believe that this
expectation remains.
Responses to Question 2.13 (A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my stu-
dents feeling insecure) support the view that students prefer explicit grammar teach-
ing. Here just under 70% of responses were in categories 4 or 5, indicating
agreement or strong agreement. A useful comparison can also be made with the
responses to Question 1.20, which also deals with the explicit treatment of grammar
(Explicit discussion of grammar rules is helpful for students). Here responses were in a
similar pattern, with the number of replies in category 4, agreement, (43.8%) and cate-
gory 5, strong agreement, (25%) indicating a favourable reaction to the statement.
From these results it may be reasonable to conclude that while these teachers may
feel that explicit teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because of
expectations and feelings of security, the teachers also seem to support this approach
for pedagogical reasons of their own.
Further light is shed on this issue by the written additions made to the ques-
tionnaires by several teachers. Analysis of this qualitative data seems to show that
teachers’ belief in the need for an explicit focus on grammar stems from something
more than the wish to please students or from teachers’ own learning experiences.
Teachers wrote of ‘explicit’, ‘separate’, ‘analytical’ methods and ‘specific focus on
form’ having a place in the teaching of grammar.
However, it is important to note that these views were also qualified in some way in
added comments to the questionnaire: teachers stated that a separate focus was only
appropriate at certain stages of learning, either moving on from communicative tasks;
at intervals; or when students were already familiar with the form. For example, one
teacher indicated different treatment for students on different types of course:
A follow-up interview with teachers may have produced more specific information
about what teachers mean by explicit methods and teaching of grammar. However,
teachers’ responses to other questionnaire items which are concerned with aspects of
the implicit–explicit continuum provide some further detail about their under-
standing of, and orientation towards, this issue. These are explored later.
input sufficient?) provide a good indication of their orientation. Findings indicate that
most of the respondents agree that it is possible to learn grammar through natural
exposure to language (over 50% of teachers responded positively to the statement:
Students can learn grammar through exposure to language in natural use). However,
there appears to be greater agreement with the view that instruction helps learners to
produce grammatically correct language (over 70% of respondents agreed with the
statement Formal instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language.)
These two results do not necessarily indicate a contradiction of opinion. One
possible interpretation is that these teachers believe in the possibility of learning
grammar through input alone, but feel that learning is helped by instruction. One
comment expressing this view was:
Replies here are linked to those concerning the relationship between declarative
and procedural knowledge and the role of consciousness in learning.
1. in learners’ language use (Question 1.4: Student use of language does not
involve conscious knowledge of the grammatical system and how it works);
2. in the improvement of their grammatical accuracy (Question 1.6: Students
need a conscious knowledge of grammar in order to improve their language); and
3. about consciousness of form/function matches (Question 1.9: Students need
to be consciously aware of a structure’s form and its function before they can
use it proficiently).
The responses recorded here suggest that teachers feel that conscious knowledge
of the grammar system has a part to play in students’ use of language (47.9% rank
Statement 1.4 as 1 or 2 indicating Disagreement). However, it is not clear exactly what
role teachers believe that this knowledge plays in language use. It may be that they
understand its function as a monitor of output, but see no other role for it. The need
for conscious noticing as part of the learning process (Schmidt, 1990) is not necessarily
understood by teachers. Indeed, statements 1.6 and 1.9 did not produce conclusive
results. Additionally, the apparent belief of some respondents that learning of grammar
can take place simply through exposure to input seems to corroborate this interpreta-
tion. Further research is required to investigate this area of belief in more detail.
students talk about grammar they need terminology. Indeed, metalinguistic discus-
sion is seen by Stern (1992, p. 327) as one of the characteristics of explicit language
teaching.
Questions here sought to explore teachers’ perceptions of their students’ feelings
about the use of grammatical terms. For both questions 2.14, My students find
grammatical terminology useful and 2.19, My students find it difficult to use gram-
matical terminology, there was a clear trend in responses. The findings indicate that
these teachers believe their students see grammatical terminology as useful (57% of
replies showed agreement with statement 2.14). Similarly, there is some feeling that
its use does not present a particular difficulty for students (47% showed their dis-
agreement with statement 2.19, with only 21% indicating agreement of any kind).
This seems to link to students’ preferences for explicit grammar teaching. It may also
be related to students’ previous language learning experiences: if these are based in the
grammar-translation method, students will feel at home with this use of terminology.
Students at this level are often de-motivated by the ‘‘silly games’’ which are
often used in the ESOL classroom. These students need more serious approa-
ches to language learning. (T48)
Many games and activities are too silly for the serious pre-sessional student.
(T34)
J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 445
associated with a more analytical and explicit approach to language teaching. Fuller,
context-rich texts are typically present in an experiential approach, concentrating on
doing things with language (authentic communication) rather than focusing on the
language itself (Stern, 1990, p. 106 1992, p. 307 and 313). Recognition of these ten-
sions led to the development of questions concerning the use of complete and
authentic texts by teachers and student problems with them.
The teachers surveyed appear to feel that complete texts are a successful way of
presenting grammar (56% of responses agreed or strongly agreed with Statement 1.15
Students learn grammar more successfully if it is presented within a complete text).
Other questions concerning authentic texts asked about student problems with
their use, focusing on possible difficulties of vocabulary, variety of structures, cul-
ture and the finding of form-function matches. Teacher problems with authentic
texts were also touched on: the difficulty of producing suitable tasks from such texts
and the amount of time taken in using them were surveyed. Responses clearly
showed that these teachers do not believe that the grammar in authentic texts is too
difficult for students (53% of responses disagreed with Statement 2.6). In fact, it is
the existence of specialised vocabulary within authentic texts which is more likely to
be a problem for students and teachers: 52% of respondents agreed that vocabulary
in authentic texts caused problems for their students (Statement 2.9). Responses to a
statement about the amount of time needed for authentic texts (Question 2.11) seem
to indicate no general feeling that authentic texts take too much time in the class-
room or in preparation. Such results can be interpreted in two ways: teachers do not
find the use of such texts particularly time-consuming, or they consider any extra
time needed to be well-spent. In conclusion, it is apparent that teachers are enthu-
siastic about the use of authentic texts in the classroom, with only difficult vocabu-
lary appearing to present any real problems for learners.
knowledge). Although the data here are not as clear-cut as in Questions 1.5 and 1.12, it
seems that these teachers have some preference for real-life tasks for the development of
grammatical structures: just over 50% of replies agree with the statement.. It could be
argued that there is possible confusion here about the meaning of ‘real-life’ tasks (again
follow-up interviews with respondents may have reduced this uncertainty). Never-
theless, the data seem to indicate that teachers understand the value of practising
language as real communication. The smaller numbers of positive responses to this
statement may reflect some concern within this group of teachers about the lack of
sufficient focus on form for development of grammatical knowledge, something
which may be associated with purely communicative tasks (Batstone, 1994b, p. 229;
Johnson, 1992).
3.5.12.1. Grammar work arises most naturally from skills work.. Four teachers wrote
at length about their beliefs in this area, arguing that the best place for treatment of
grammar was in the course of skills work, particularly writing. For example, one
teacher wrote:
For me. . .‘‘grammar’’ comes out of and feeds back into academic writing. It is
academic writing and discourse functions which form the core of a pre-sessional
EAP course. Not the other way around. (T48)
Comments from other teachers also indicated favour for an integrated approach
to grammar teaching:
I teach a great deal of academic writing but my classes are not grammar based but
process and skills based. I deal with grammar as the need arises from analysing my
students’ work. (T1)
3.5.12.2. Student characteristics play a large part in determining student wishes and
what kind of grammar teaching is most appropriate for students. Almost a quarter of
the teachers mentioned that students’ backgrounds and previous learning experi-
ences had a large impact on their present learning preferences. For example,
Students often ask for more grammar. They are usually over 35 or from a
country whose own education system relies heavily on grammar-translation
method. (T47)
(in response to item 2.5 ‘My students prefer to find matches between meaning
and structure for themselves’) ‘This is cultural- Asian students tend to resist this
type of learning activity’. (T19)
Additionally, for some teachers it appears that student expectations and pre-
ferences may be a factor in their choice of grammar teaching approach. For example,
Within the language centre our courses cater for a large number of Asian stu-
dents particularly from Japan and Korea and student expectations regarding
grammar teaching obviously affect teaching. More traditional methods tend to
be more readily accepted: although we can but try! (T17)
Many students still want explicit grammar teaching isolated from other
work and I run a 10 week course which is largely input due to class size.
(T 29)
This interpretation accords with Borg’s findings (1998) concerning the influence of
student preferences on teachers’ pedagogic decisions.
Several teachers identified other individual differences as important when deciding
on their approach to grammar: these included student level, subject area, age, cul-
ture and mother tongue. For example, comments included:
Students from different language learning backgrounds and L10 s have different
problems. (T2)
Such comments reflect Celce-Murcia and Hilles’ (1988) discussion of the learner
variables which may influence choices of teaching approaches. They also serve to
J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 449
emphasise the importance of placing any study of teaching beliefs and practice within
as specific a context as possible. Although the research design attempted to restrict the
context as much as possible, any future research may do well to take note of the fac-
tors mentioned here in addition to that of classroom context. However, it should also
be noted that too great a consideration of student differences may lead to a study of
individuals only, with no power to generalise.
The survey was not limited to questions about only one approach to grammar
teaching. It covered a wide range of options within different methodologies. There-
fore, it was impossible to construct a questionnaire conforming to strict Likert-scale
methodology, allowing no opportunity to use the ‘split half’ method in order to
check reliability (Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Cohen and Manion, 1994). However, cer-
tain statements were paired to provide some possibility of checking the consistency
of teachers’ replies in some areas. Where paired statements existed replies were seen
to be consistent. The inclusion of different approaches to grammar teaching within
one questionnaire does, however, provide a reasonably realistic view of teacher
beliefs. These are complex and dynamic entities, with many factors influencing
them—not static, one-dimensional objects which can be judged through one view-
point alone.
The study does not include any observation of teachers’ actual classroom beha-
viour. This could have provided valuable triangulation for the attitudes expressed
within responses (Pajares, 1992, p. 316). However, it was hoped that questions about
practice included in the second section of the questionnaire would cover this area.
The lack of follow-up interviews is a major limitation to the study. This would
have given greater reliability to results. In addition, interviews with some of the
teachers who chose not to return questionnaires would have shown how typical the
respondents were among EAP teachers as a whole.
There is a strong possibility of a response effect here, with teachers giving replies
which are not accurate representations of their actual attitudes, but are calculated to
present a favourable impression to the researcher. However, it has been argued that
such data are nevertheless useful, since they reflect feelings and beliefs about an ideal
professional, in this case teaching, situation (Davies, 1997, p. 154). Similarly, Block
(1998, pp. 151–152) argues that such replies may indicate the type of discourse which
is permitted within one discourse community and as such are representative of the
community as a whole.
The context used for the research may not have been specific enough: many tea-
chers intimated that they made judgements concerning teaching approaches based
on each particular class which they teach. Moreover, classes which can be described
as ‘pre-sessional EAP’ vary a great deal across and within different institutions.
Further research within a tighter context may be desirable.
Despite these limitations, it is felt that this work represents a step towards a better
understanding of teachers’ thoughts and feelings about grammar teaching in the
EAP context.
450 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458
From the results it seems possible to make some claims about the beliefs of this
group of EAP teachers concerning grammar and grammar teaching. The majority of
teachers represented here appear to see grammatical knowledge as important for
their students and to have a sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues
involved in its teaching. The importance placed on grammatical issues may be sur-
prising in light of research reported earlier which suggests that grammar may not
hold so much weight for teachers.
Indeed, there does not appear to be a bias towards decontextualised presentation
of grammar for these teachers, but instead they seem to favour more discourse-
based approaches. Their concern for grammar in connection with an apparent
inclination towards the use of authentic, full texts and real-life tasks for practice may
indicate that these teachers are well-disposed to a Focus-on-Form approach. Quali-
tative comments appear to reinforce this view, particularly those suggesting that
teachers prefer explicit teaching of grammar within communicative or skills-based
work.
It can be argued that Focus on Form teaching has only emerged fairly recently
within the research and methodological literature (see Ellis, 2001; Doughty and
Williams, 1998a) and thus it is interesting to speculate about the origins of this
group of teachers’ preferences. Are they the result of an influence of research on
practice, or do they stem from teachers’ personal intuitions about what works best
in their classrooms? Without a much more in-depth study, it is difficult to determine
the factors which influence teachers’ thinking in this area. However, reference to
student characteristics, needs and wishes in several answers indicate that teachers’
classroom actions are not determined by theoretical beliefs alone, but that student
reaction to different approaches is taken into account.
3.8. Conclusion
The research reported here has attempted to discover something about the state of
grammar teaching in EAP courses in British universities, both in relation to theore-
tical issues and concerning problems of implementation of principles. The results
paint a picture of the approaches to grammar teaching taken in EAP courses across
the UK which may be encouraging to those who advocate a Focus on Form
approach.
The EAP context demands high levels of grammatical accuracy and commu-
nicative effectiveness from learners and thus is an area in which a Focus on Form
approach would appear to be particularly appropriate. Student preferences for
grammar work may not accord with a Focus on Form approach (they may stem
from more traditional grammar treatments) but teachers may be able to utilise these
feelings to include more integrated, skills-based grammar work in their courses.
Teachers may however, also need to be explicit in indicating to students the gram-
mar-orientation of these sorts of activities in order that they are appreciated as ful-
filling student wishes.
J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 451
Please indicate how far you agree with the following statements about the role and
teaching of grammar on a typical pre-sessional EAP course. If you agree strongly
mark a5 on the scale, if you strongly disagree mark a 1 on the scale. Please feel free
to add any comments you wish to make.
Disagree Agree
1. The role of grammar in language is as: (please answer for each option)
a) a framework for the rest of the language— 1 2 3 4 5
a basic system to build everything else on.
b) the building blocks of language which are 1 2 3 4 5
combined to form a whole.
c) something which is added on to language 1 2 3 4 5
proficiency: a refinement of more basic
language knowledge.
d) an equal pillar in supporting language 1 2 3 4 5
proficiency. (Other pillars could be
knowledge about pronunciation,
appropriacy or culture etc.)
These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in the
classroom. Again please indicate your agreement or disagreement with these state-
ments as above.
Disagree Agree
Please add any further comments which you have about your approach to the
teaching of grammar and any problems with grammar which occur in the classroom.
Name of department:
Please add any other information about your teaching situation which you feel may
be of interest to this survey.
References
Ellis, R., 1997. SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ellis, R., 1998. Teaching and research: options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 39–60.
Ellis, R., 2001. Introduction: Investigating Form-Focused Instruction. Language Learning. Supplement 1:
Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning 51, 1–46.
Etherington, S., 1997. Teachers’ Attitudes to the Teaching of Grammar within the Context of English for
Academic Purposes. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Manchester.
Fortune, A., 1992. Self-study grammar practice: learners’ views and preferences. English Language
Teaching Journal 46 (2), 160–171.
Fotos, S., 1994. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar
consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly 28, 323–351.
Grundy, P., 1993. Student and Supervisor Perceptions of the role of English in Academic Success. In:
Blue, G.M. (Ed.), Language Learning and Success: Studying through English. Review of English Lan-
guage Teaching 3/1. MET/British Council.
Hall, N., Shepheard, J., 1991. The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. Longman, London.
Imssalem, N., 1997. Communicative Pedagogic Grammar for Learning Another Language. Unpublished
PhD Thesis, University of Manchester.
Johnson, K., 1992. The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for
non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behaviour 24 (1), 83–108.
Jordan, R., 1997. English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Karavas-Doukas, E., 1996. Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative
approach. ELT Journal 50 (3), 187–198.
Krashen, S., Terrell, T., 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Perga-
mon, Oxford.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 1991. Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT
Journal 45 (2), 98–107.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 1994. The post-method condition: emerging strategies for second/foreign language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28 (1), 27–48.
Leki, I., Carson, J., 1994. Student perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the
disciplines. TESOL Quarterly 28 (1).
Leki, I., 1995. Good writing: I know it when I see it. In: Belcher, D., Braine, G. (Eds.), Academic Writing
in a Second Language. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ.
Long, M.H., 1991. Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, K.,
Ginsberg, R., Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 39–52.
Long, M.H., Robinson, P., 1998. Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In: Doughty, C., Wil-
liams, J. (Eds.). pp. 15–41.
Macrory, G., 2000. Learning to Teach Grammar in the MFL classroom and some implications for Initial
Teacher Education. Research In Education 64, 1–11.
Murphy, R., 1985. English Grammar in Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pajares, F. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research 62(3), 307–332.
Robinson, P.C., 1991. ESP Today: A Practitioner’s Guide. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Schmidt, R., 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 10, 209–
231.
Schultz, R., 1996. Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students’ and teachers’ views on error
correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals 29 (3), 343–364.
Schultz, R., 2001. Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar
instruction and corrective feedback: USA—Colombia. The Modern Lang Journal 85 (ii), 244–258.
Soars, J., Soars, L., 1986. Headway Intermediate. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Spratt, M., 1999. How good are we at knowing what learners like? System 27, 141–155.
Stern, H.H., 1990. Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In: Harley, B.,
Allen, P., Cummins, J., Swain, M. (Eds.), The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 93–109.
458 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458
Stern, H.H., 1992. Issues and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Swain, M., 1998. Focus on form through conscious reflection. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 64–81.
Thornbury, S., 1997. Grammar, power and bottled water. IATEFL Newsletter 140.
Thornbury, S., 1998. Comments on Marianne Celce-Murcia, Zoltán Dörnyei and Sarah Thurrell’s
‘‘Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in communicative language teaching?’’ A reader
reacts. . .. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 109–119.
Tonkyn, A., Locke, C., Robinson, P., Furneaux, C., 1993. The EAP teacher: prophet of doom or eternal
optimist? EAP teachers’ predictions of students’ success. In: Blue, G.M. (Ed.), Language Learning and
Success: Studying through English. Review of English Language Teaching 3/1. MET/British Council.