©Regine Lin
TESOL Theory & Method
Journal Article Reading Worksheet
Reader: _____Sugi_______(ID:__0859811__)
Date: __2020/12/14__
Article (in APA):
Uysal, H. H., & Bardakci, M. (2014). Teacher beliefs and practices of grammar teaching:
focusing on meaning, form, or forms?. South African Journal of Education, 34(1).
Stage 1: What is the purpose of the study?
1-1. Identify the topic and the key variables.
The topic of the recent research is identifying Turkish Elementary EFL teachers’ beliefs and
practices of teaching grammar, whether they construct a focusing on meaning, focusing on form, or
focusing on formS instruction while teaching grammar.
1-2.
Write down the exact statement in which the authors specify the research purpose(s)
and/or research questions (in quotation marks and with page numbers). Then describe the
purpose of the study as you understand it in your own words.
“It is known that the success of any curriculum innovation is dependent on teachers. Therefore,
given that teaching grammar has always been a central, but problematic domain for language
teachers, what teachers believe and do regarding grammar instruction is an important issue that needs
to be investigated. However, studies that research teachers and their grammar teaching are rare, and
almost non-existent at the elementary-level English teaching contexts.” (abstract)
“Therefore, given the importance of the issue and scarcity of research on teacher beliefs and
practices of grammar teaching, particularly at elementary-level EFL contexts, the present study
aimed to explore the issue in the Turkish context by examining Turkish primary-school EFL
teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices in terms of grammar teaching. The data were collected
through a questionnaire given to 108 teachers and a focus-group interview to explore teachers’ stated
belief and behaviour patterns, as well as the reasons behind these patterns. The research questions
which guided the study were:
1. What are teachers’ beliefs about the way grammar should be taught?
2. What are teachers’ stated practices of teaching grammar?
3. What are the reasons behind the belief and behaviour patterns?” (p. 5, 2nd paragraph)
Turkey's Ministry of National Education (MEB) initiated, in 1997 and 2005, a new innovation
to their national curriculum to put English subjects at Grade 4 of elementary school and to introduce
a meaning-focused communicative approach. This new curriculum guideline affects most of English
language teachers, in that the most familiar way of teaching application most teachers do is
teacher-centered traditional grammar teaching methods. It is mainly due to various reasons, such as
teachers’ and students’ low proficiency in English, time constraints, lack of materials, low student
motivation, noise and classroom management problems, grammar-based examinations, clash of
western and eastern cultural values, first language (L1) use during group work activities, limited
resources and exposure to English, and lack of teacher training in CLT (Carless, 2002; De Wet, 2002;
Gorsuch, 2000).
Knowing that teaching English grammar is important in accordance with the new curriculum
guideline, but at the same time it is also difficult for teachers to shift from what they have culturally
©Regine Lin
done in teaching grammar to a new meaning-focused communicative approach that is suggested by
the Ministry of Education (MEB). The recent paper noticed that it is crucial to investigate teachers’
beliefs and practices regarding their grammar instruction. Moreover, the study of teachers’ grammar
teaching is rare and almost non-existent in the elementary school context. Therefore, understanding
the research gap, the researcher proposed a qualitative based study investigating Turkish Elementary
EFL teachers about their grammar teaching beliefs and practices.
Stage 2: What are the major findings of the study?
2-1.
Make some notes about the authors’ major conclusions or findings as written in the
article. Include quotation marks whenever you use their exact wording, and indicate
page number(s).
1. Behavior
2. Beliefs
©Regine Lin
“As for the beliefs, the teachers surveyed were found to be quite conservative, because their
thoughts and beliefs tended to be more in line with traditional approaches and processes with
regards to language learning and teaching.” (p. 7)
3. Reasons behind the belief and behavior patterns
“Reasons affecting classroom teaching, according to the questionnaire, the three most
important factors were the Ministry of National Education curriculum (25%), student
expectations (18%), and the textbook (15%).” (p. 8)
“The focus-group interview helped reveal, especially, the contextual causes of the traditional
teacher beliefs and behaviours of grammar teaching and failures of application of CLT in
detail. The first factor found was the time constraints (three hours a week).” (p. 8)
“Crowded classes, low student motivation, and classroom management issues were also
frequently mentioned.” (p. 8)
“Another problem was the textbooks. Teachers described the textbooks by MEB as having no
explicit grammar teaching and expecting students to implicitly learn grammar while speaking
and through repetitions.” (p. 8)
2-2.
Now summarize the major findings or conclusions in your own words.
1. Behaviors
The result on table 1 indicates teachers’ teaching grammar behavior according to their
answer from the given questionnaires. The data displays that most teachers favor the
traditional grammar teaching approach presented by doing workbook or worksheet exercises
on grammar (86%), explaining grammar rules (84%), giving quizzes on grammatical points
(83%), and repetition drills (78%) as the top 4 with the highest percentage considered
important.
On the other hand, it also represents that the most relevant communicative approaches for
teaching grammar such as; conversations and role-plays (75%), pair/group work (71%), and
songs or chants (49%) only come after those traditional practices.
Moreover, the result on table 2 shows that 70% of teachers reflect their teaching pattern as
focus-on-formS, employing such a deductive instruction by first explicitly and directly
explaining the grammar rules. In addition, 19 teachers (18%) were found to do pure
meaning-focused communicative language teaching, and only 13 teachers (12%) were found
to do focus-on-form.
2. Beliefs
The questionnaire survey reveals that the teachers’ thoughts and beliefs lean towards
traditional approaches with regards to English grammar teaching. These traditional
approaches and teaching instructions are indicated from high percentage of their beliefs of
chosen conventional activities such as; the necessary of mechanical drills, exercises, and
repetitions (88%), the view that English learning cannot be acquired without explicit
grammar instruction (84%), and the agreement that grammar concept is allowed to be
explained in first language (86%).
3. Reasons behind the belief and behavior patterns
The questionnaire survey also suggests that the three top factors influencing their beliefs and
©Regine Lin
behaviors were the Ministry of National Education curriculum (25%), student expectations
(18%), and the textbook (15%), respectively. The other influences are considered little effect
to their thoughts and teaching patterns, which are the way teachers themselves learned
English (11%), in-service professional development opportunities (11%), research-based
readings (10%), and collaboration with another teacher (7%).
Furthermore, the findings reported from focus-group interviews discover these conventional
patterns and inappropriate CLT application of teaching grammar. The following were the 8
factors determining the teachers’ reasons:
● Time constraints
● Crowded classes
● Low student motivation
● Classroom management
● Insufficient textbook by MEB (Turkey Ministry of Education)
● Culture and L1 related problems
● Lack of special training in teaching English to young learners
● Unfamiliarity with focus-on-form approach
Stage 3: How did the authors conduct the study and test their hypothesis?
3-1.
Briefly describe the research method: the participants, research context, materials used,
and procedures etc. (a flowchart or mind map will work).
● Participants: 108 EFL teachers, 95 female and 13 male.
● Research context: 4th and 5th grade of elementary in 42 (randomly selected) state
schools in Ankara, Turkey.
● Research Materials: (1) A set of questionnaires, adapted from Zucker’s (2007) study. (2) A
focus-group interview with 10 teachers (randomly selected).
3-2.
How did the authors analyze their data?
To understand the stated belief and behaviour patterns of teachers in teaching English grammar
to elementary students, a set of questionnaires adapted from Zucker’s study (2007). This set of
questionnaires was then distributed to all 108 EFL teachers to investigate their beliefs and practices.
Furthermore, to dig more data necessary for the recent study, which is to accomplish an in-depth
understanding of teacher perspectives and experiences of grammar teaching and to explore the
possible factors behind their common belief and practice systems, 10 EFL teachers out of 108 were
selected to participate in a focus-group interview.
It is reported that assigning a focus-group interview favors a higher data validity due to its
larger number of participants that could reveal data needed on group interaction within a group
context, as well as maximizing the data information obtained. Furthermore, a briefly descriptive
frequency analysis of the prevalent teacher beliefs and practices was conducted.
In order to find the reliability of the scale, Cronbach’s alpha analysis was applied, and it was
found to be .703, which is an accepted valid value. In addition, one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and an independent t test were conducted to see whether teachers’ educational
background, gender, and teaching experience have any effect on the findings.
Stage 4: How is the study contextualized in and supported by theory and previous literature?
4-1.
Identify the primary literature or theory the research is based on in the Literature
©Regine Lin
Review section.
● Long (1991: 45-46): Research and discussions on grammar teaching have recently focused
on three options – “focus-on-formS,” “focus-on-meaning,” and “focus-on-form”
● Long (2000): In focus-on-formS instruction, language is divided into isolated linguistic units
and taught in a sequential manner through explicit explanations of grammar rules and
immediate correction of errors.
● Krashen and Terrell’s (1983): Focus-on-meaning completely refuses any direct instruction
on grammar, explicit error correction, or even consciousness-raising, as L2 is claimed to be
naturally acquired through adequate exposure to language or “comprehensible input”.
● Long (1991; 2000): Both focus-on-formS and pure focus-on-meaning have been subject to
serious criticism. Focus-on-formS has been criticized for being teacher-centred, artificial,
boring, and for not allowing meaningful communication and interaction, which are essential
to language acquisition.
● “Focus-on-form,” which was defined as “any planned or incidental instructional activity that
is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic forms” (Ellis, 2001:1-2)
during meaningful communication (Long, 1991) was introduced to the field.
● (Doughty & Williams, 1998; et.al.): this view proposes that some sort of noticing and
consciousness-raising to target grammar structures in input, and feedback on errors during
language use in meaningful communicative activities would facilitate the acquisition of
language.
● A meta-analysis of 49 studies by Norris and Ortega (2000, 2001) and 11 studies by Ellis
(2002) demonstrated that focus-on-form contributed to faster language acquisition, higher
levels of accurate oral or written language production, and longer retention of forms when
compared to pure meaning-focused implicit learning, which four studies involved young
learners.
● (Harley, 1998; et. al.): Some other studies conducted with children in Grades 2,4 and 5 in
French immersion and intensive language programmes in Canada also provided evidence that
some input enhancement and attention-taking to certain grammatical features, along with
communicative language use have a positive and long-lasting effect on L2 proficiency
compared with pure communicative focus.
● Many large-scale national curriculum reforms around the world have targeted mainly one end
– the meaning-focused communicative approach by encouraging implicit learning of
grammar in many regions such as Europe (Nikolov & Curtain, 2000) and Asia-Pacific
region (Nunan, 2003).
● However, because meaning-focused language teaching, which merely targets communicative
competence, can lead to fossilization and weak grammatical competence, it was seen as
inadequate for developing academic English skills, which are based on accurate and
appropriate grammatical use (Peirce, 1989; Swain & Lapkin, 1995).
● These teachers followed the familiar teacher-centred traditional grammar teaching methods
both in Turkey (Kýrkgöz, 2007, 2008a, 2008b; Uysal, 2012) and in other EFL/ESL contexts
due to various reasons, such as teachers’ and students’ low proficiency in English, time
constraints, lack of materials, low student motivation, noise and classroom management
problems, grammar-based examinations, clash of western and eastern cultural values, first
language (L1) use during group work CLT (Carless, 2002; De Wet, 2002; Gorsuch, 2000;
Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Li, 1998; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; O’Connor & Geiger,
2009; Prapaisit de Segovia & Hardison, 2009; Sakui, 2004; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999;
Ting, 2007)
● Few such studies investigated teacher beliefs regarding grammar teaching and found that
teachers in general believe that grammar is central to language learning and students need
©Regine Lin
direct and explicit teaching of grammar rules for accuracy (Burges & Etherington, 2002;
Ebsworth & Schweers, 1997; Potgieter & Conradie, 2013).
● Empirical research into what teachers believe and do regarding teaching grammar is also
reported to be inadequate (Ellis et al., 2002), especially at the elementary level in EFL
contexts.
●
4.2.
In Discussion, are the results of the study related to theoretical explanations or
compared to previous research?
● “In summary, most teachers favoured the beliefs that represent traditional approaches to
grammar teaching such as the use of explicit grammar teaching followed by controlled
practice, use of L1, mechanical drills and repetitions. This finding also pointed out a severe
divergence of the teaching practices from the curriculum goals in Turkey, which is similar to
the findings of other studies that revealed incongruence between curriculum innovations and
teacher behaviours, such as Li (1998), Sato & Kleinsasser (1999), Sakui (2004), and Ting
(2007).” (p. 10)
● “In terms of the reasons behind the teaching beliefs and practices, although the majority of
teachers claimed that MEB curriculum and textbooks (40%) are the determining factors in
their classroom teaching in the questionnaire; interview results revealed that, in fact, teachers
have serious concerns with the meaning-oriented communicative curriculum and the
textbooks. From teachers’ accounts it was found that they did not believe that the new
innovations could be employed in their own classroom contexts, and thus most teachers
developed their own working practices demonstrating a more traditional explicit deductive
method of grammar teaching (focus-on-formS) due to factors such as time constraints,
crowded classes, low student motivation, noise and classroom management problems,
textbooks, central examinations, cultural and L1-related problems, and their lack of special
training in teaching English to young learners. Both teachers’ concerns and the reasons
behind their practices were similar to previous studies reporting problems with pure
meaning-focused teaching in other contexts such as Li (1998) and Sakui (2004).” (p. 10)
The previous studies discussed in the theoretical framework section generally elucidate many
scholars’ point of view with regards to providing grammar instruction among three different types of
approaches, namely: Focus on meaning, Focus on FormS and Focus on form. Both definitions of
each type of the approaches and the critiques towards one another are explained in pretty detailed
ways. In addition, in accordance with the new curriculum guideline by MEB (Turkey Ministry of
Education), which stated that the earliest English teaching should begin at the 4th grade of
elementary school level, as well as shifting the new approach of English teaching into a
meaning-focused communicative one. Therefore, knowing the research gap in that the kind of
research related to teachers teaching and thought patterns in line with the development of new
curriculum guidelines is crucial, however, limited research had evaluated this concern, precisely in
Tukey’s education context, the researcher wanted to explore Turkey Elementary EFL teachers’
beliefs and behaviors concerning their teaching behaviors and thoughts. Moreover, in the discussion
section, some aforementioned studies from the literature review are used to support the
findings of the current research, as clearly mentioned above.
©Regine Lin
Stage 5: How reliable are the results? What’s the implication?
5-1.
Do the authors suggest any problems or limitations with their study? Do you see any
problems or limitations?
Regretfully, the author did not cover any discussion regarding limitations within his study.
One limitation I found to be crucial for being left undiscussed, the participants’ age
descriptions. The research findings were to conclude that the EFL teachers’ behaviors and
beliefs in teaching grammar against the newly suggested curriculum designed by the MEB in
which I believe age factor plays a role as well, especially teachers of state school. Kinney, D.,
& Smith, S. (1992) had earlier investigated that there was a significant relationship between
teaching effectiveness and age among the active tenured faculty. Therefore, further
investigations related to teachers’ age and their conservative teaching behaviors, as what the
study findings have shown, seems necessary to be explored and discussed.
5-2.
Generate (or draw) pedagogical implications or suggestions.
The recent study has exposed how the majority of Turkish Elementary School teachers taught
English grammar conservatively, concerning their traditional way such as doing workbook or
worksheet exercises on grammar, explaining grammar rules, giving quizzes on grammatical
points, and repetition drills. The focus-group interview has revealed how these teachers
struggle fitting themselves with the new curriculum guideline initiated by Turkey MEB
(ministry of Education). Furthermore, other factors such as; crowded classes, low student
motivation, textbooks, central examinations, etc., that contribute to these conventional
approaches of grammar teaching has informed the readers or the new curriculum initiators
(MEB) about the real situation in the field, that these teachers lacked comprehension with
regard to grammar teaching and suggest that such teachers’ training is urgently necessary,
precisely when a new curriculum being issued and released to be publicly implemented. In
addition, the recent research also suggests that maintaining teachers’ training programs to
satisfy the curriculum objectives as well as to sustain teachers’ development in teaching is
essentially required.
Another interesting finding I discover is that the study took place in Ankara, the capital city
of Turkey itself. If somehow the current research findings noticed a host of weaknesses of
EFL teachers in teaching grammar, where the context of the study was in the main big capital
city of a country, we should raise an important investigation to verify the EFL teachers’
conditions in other countryside areas with regards to their teaching behaviors and beliefs that
are far away from accessibility for good education compared to big city like Ankara.
Reflections
Ask questions that will have your audience apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the research
you present. And incorporate the online and in-class discussion to provide your concise answers
to and reflections of the questions you raise.
1. I was wondering why did not the researcher observe the classroom grammar teaching activity,
followed by digging additional information from interviews and questionnaires?