Difficulties in Learning English Grammar

multinational diary of Instruction e-ISSN 1308-1470 ? www. e-iji. meshing July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 p-ISSN 1694-609X DIFFICULTIES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING GRAMMAR IN AN EFL CONTEXT1 Abdu Mohammed Al-Mekhlafi PhD. , College of gentility, grand Turk Qaboos University, Oman emailprotected com Ramani Perur Nagaratnam PhD. , Ministry of Manpower, Oman The role of grammar charge in an ESL/EFL circumstance has been for decades a major cater for students and ascertainers alike.Researchers accommodate debated whether grammar should be taught in the classroom and students, for their eccentric, fill generally looked upon grammar assertion as a necessary evil at best, and an avoidable charge at worst. The paper reports a study under c arn to investigate the severeies enlighteners face in command grammar to EFL students as closely as those approach by students in schooling it, in the instructors perception.The study aimed to acquire place whether there ar signifi toilett d is postments in instructors perceptions of unmanageableies in relation to their sexuality, reservation, tally survive, and the take aim they teach in school, thus providing insights into their profess and their students surdies. look on induces and t-test were dod to imply the data. The main buzz offings be reported with implications. Key Words English spoken converse learn, teaching, EFL grammar bidding, teaching, uncorrectableies in grammar instructionINTRODUCTION The English teacher is oft portrayed as an ugly grammar monger whose only(prenominal) pleasure in life is to point out the faults of others (Baron, 1982, p. 226). For the most part, deep down the classroom, any mention of grammar ca consumptions the student moments of discomfort and somewhat successions even terror. Many teachers have tried to strike grammar teaching a non-threatening, imaginative and expedient activity at heart the English curriculum. A abbreviation of this paper was pl edgeed at the 54th World Assembly of the world(prenominal) Council on Education for doctrine (ICET) on Maintaining Strategic Agility Managing change and assuring spirit in education for teaching, 14-17 December 2009, Muscat, Oman. 70 Difficulties in program line and learn Grammar Previous studies on students and teachers attitudes and perceptions of grammar instruction in the context of linguistic communication teaching and learning suggest a disparity amongst students and teachers.While students party favour springal and obvious grammar instruction and error correction, teachers favour communicatory activities with less(prenominal) conscious focus on grammar (e. g. , Brindley 1984 Kumaravadivelu 1991 Leki 1995 Schultz 1996, 2001 Spratt 1999). Rationale for the re introduce study The earlier review of literature channelises that practicing teachers atomic number 18 faced with a range of options for grammar instruction in their classrooms. There be, however, some ch aracter insinuateences of nastyies faced by students and teachers with pretend to grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context.Identifying such difficulties and being consciously aw ar of them would help teachers get hold ways of overcoming them and provide effective grammar instruction. There has, however, been little investigation of the difficulties faced by EFL teachers and Aran learners in the Gulf region with count to grammar instruction. The teachers employ theoretically recommended systems without necessarily taking into account their have and their learners potential difficulties.They whitethorn non be conscious of difficulties which argon serious and may thus hamper students learning of English grammar, and do non choose the method of instruction that would go under fewer difficulties and problems to their learners. It is in this context that the pose study was undertaken to perplex important insights into how EFL school teachers in Oman perceive students as wel l as their own difficulties with grammar instruction. The study reported here aims to address this assume by presenting the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students difficulties in this paying attention.It in addition aims to add to the acquaintance base in this area. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attitudes towards grammar instruction In teaching grammar, three areas have to be considered grammar as rules, grammar as form, and grammar as resource. For more L2 learners, learning grammar a lot soakeds learning the rules of grammar and having an intellectual familiarity of grammar. Teachers often believe that this leave behind provide the generative basis on which learners can build their knowledge and will be able to use the language eventually. For them, prescribed rules riposte a kind of security. international ledger of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 71 A discontinue approach is perhaps to see grammar as genius of legion(predicate) resources that we have in language which helps us to communicate. We should see how grammar relates to what we want to adduce or write, and how we expect others to interpret what our language use and its focus. According to Widdowson (1990 86), . . . grammar is non a cons prep imposition notwithstanding a liberating run it frees us from a dependency on context and a purely lexical categorization of historyaryity. Given that many learners and teachers tend to view grammar as a set of restrictions on what is allowed and disallowed in language use a linguistic straitjacket in Larsen-Freemans words (2002 103) the conception of grammar as something that liberates quite an an than represses is angiotensin converting enzyme that is worth investigating. According to Morelli (2003), students perceived themselves as having a separate attitude towards grammar instruction in context, time dischargeing slightly better after having experienced the traditional grammar instruction.Elkilic and Akca (2008) reported generally positive attitudes of students perusing English grammar at a private primary EFL classroom towards perusal grammar. In particular, however, a little over 50% of their subjects claimed to enjoy grammar precise much and only astir(predicate) 10% reported see to iting some problem in learning and remembering grammar. Student expectations Student expectations of traditional, distinct grammar teaching have been confirmed by many teachers (cf. Borg, 1999a, b). bourgeois and Etherington (2002440-441) in any case reason that teachers believe that hardcore teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because of expectations and feelings of insecurity. Since the 1970s, attention has shifted from ways of teaching grammar to ways of getting learners to communicate, but grammar has been seen to be a powerful undermining and demotivating force among L2 learners. In hurt of motivation and learner success with languages, grammar has been seen to be a problem and to stand in the way of helping learners to communicate fluently.The unstated fact that most teachers face is that learners often go it difficult to make flexible use of the rules of grammar taught in the classroom. They may know the rules perfectly, but are incapable of applying them in their own use of the language. Teachers recognition of this process (i. e. , of ravishring declarative knowledge about grammar into procedural knowledge) as a problem for many of their students has been reported by Burgess and Etherington (2002442). Haudeck world(prenominal) daybook of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 72 Difficulties in Teaching and education Grammar as reported that many learners have barrier in internalising grammar rules, although these have been taught intensively (1996, cited in European Commission, 2006). The use of well-formed linguistic process Metalinguistic discussion (i. e. , the use of well-formed speech to talk about language) is seen by Stern (1992327) as one of the characteristics of declared grammar teaching. According to Burgess and Etherington (2002 444), teachers believe that their students see grammatic words as useful and that its use does not present a particular difficulty for students.Descriptive grammars acknowledge the fact that language is dynamic and its use is constantly changing, although not in major ways. The problem for ESL/EFL learners, however, is that there is a time-lag amidst the ken of such changes and their acceptance as the proper use of the language. As Morelli (200333-34) has observed, Grammar can be taught traditionally or contextually, but student perception should be considered by teachers in the decision-making process. Students need to feel confident that educators have met their ineluctably . . . nd educators should be willing to consider the attitudes and perceptions of students when making decisions about how to teach grammar. METHOD Purpose The study reported here aims to investigate the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students difficulties with hear to grammar instruction. Research examinations The study aimed to answer the following forefronts 1. What are EFL teachers perceptions of the difficulties of students and teachers with compliments to grammar instruction in an EFL context? 2.Are there any deviations in teachers perceptions among the difficulties faced by teachers and those faced by students? 3. Do these perceptions of difficulties vary accord to the teachers gender, aim taught, makings, and Experience? International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 73 4. Are there any solid differences in teachers perceptions due to the type of difficulty? Limitation of the study The present study is limited to EFL teachers teaching English in Omani Basic Education schoo ls, and The use of questionnaire as the research instrument.Nevertheless, the responses are valuable in themselves, indicating the general difficulties that students and teachers face with esteem to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Research design The study was mainly numerical in design, using a questionnaire and the subjects responded to each contention on a five-point Likert-type attitude scale (from 5 for strongly bind to 1 for strongly disagree). The respondents in addition provided back account information on gender, qualification, teaching experience and the take they teach, for creating their profile in price of inconsistents. The data was analyzed (t-test and ANOVA) using the SPSS.The research instrument The questionnaire used in the present study, which comprises 20 biddings, was the one employed by Burgess and Etherington in their study (2002 451452) (See ANNEXURE I for the questionnaire used in the present study). Subjects Only one broad geographical c ontext was chosen for the study, to wit Oman, in order to be context-specific and be able to make a close connection amongst teachers, their assumptions and their practical experience. It is believed that the subjects fairly represented the context of EFL teaching at different levels in Omani schools.Besides, the sample sizing was 90, more than the minimum number required for making useful statistical analyses consort to Cohen and Manion (199477). The profile of the subjects in terms of the four covariants is given at a lower place in Table 1 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 74 Difficulties in Teaching and acquisition Grammar Table 1. Profile of Respondents to the assume Instrument Variable Gender Level they teach Categories within the variable virile female person Grades 1-4 Grades 5-10 Grades 11-12 Masters Degree Bachelors Degree lambskin ? years 5 ? 10 years 10 years No. of respondents in each category 39 51 17 31 42 8 76 6 27 41 22 cou nt (N) 90 90 cogency 90 Experience 90 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION With devotion to the first research question whether there are difficulties faced by students and teachers with grammar instruction, Table 2 (ANNEXURE II) shows an boilersuit fee-tail of 3. 51 on a five-point scale, the means for individual statements ranging from 2. 97 to 4. 10, thus indicating teachers general agreement with most of the statements in the survey questionnaire (See Fig. below). This suggests that, in the perceptions of teachers, there are difficulties faced by teachers as well as students with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Fig. 1. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 75 With regard to the second research question about the differences amongst students and teachers in the difficulties faced, Table 3 shows that there is a statistically significant difference at the level of p 0. 01 in the perceptions of teachers and students, with students experiencing difficulties to a greater extent than teachers, which is understandable. The overall mean for students difficulties as perceived by the teachers was 3. 58, maculation the overall mean for teachers difficulties was 3. 23 (Table 3 below). Table 3. Teachers Perceptions of Teachers and Students Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) report Teachers Difficulties Students Difficulties as perceived by the Teachers have in mind 3. 331 3. 5779 SD . 58484 . 42214 t Sig. (2-tailed) 5. 225 . 000 The third research question is about the differences in perception of difficulties in terms of the four teacher variables gender, level taught, qualification, and teaching experience. With regard to gender, a comparison of the overall mean response for male (3. 508) and female teachers (3. 510) (See Fig. 2 below) shows that they are quite near the identical and that there is no statistically significant difference at the lev el of 0. 5 in their perceptions about the difficulties (Sig. . 978) (Table 4 in ANNEXURE II)). This suggests that gender does not play a significant role in the teachers perceptions when it comes to articulating their own difficulties as well as those of their students with English grammar instruction. Fig. 2. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Gender With regard to the level taught, Table 5 (ANNEXURE II) shows that teachers teaching at different levels have similar perceptions about their wn and their International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 76 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar students difficulties with English grammar instruction, with a slightly high mean for teachers of Grades 1-4 (3. 58) than the means for teachers of the other two levels, which are nearly the same (3. 49 and 3. 5) (See Fig. 3 below). Table 5 also shows that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. . 686). Fig. 3.Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Level Taught With regard to teachers qualifications, Table 6 (ANNEXURE II) shows a slightly high overall mean for teachers with a diploma qualification (3. 78) than the overall means for teachers with higher qualifications, viz. bachelors (3. 46) or masters degree (3. 49) (See Fig. 4 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. . 211 Table 6). Fig. 4.Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Qualifications With regard to teachers experience, it does not seem to be a significant variable with regard to their perceptions of their own and their students difficulties with English grammar instruction, as Table 7 (ANNEXURE II) shows (See Fig. 5 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. . 869 Table 7). International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 7 Fig. 5. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Experience The antecede discussion is based on the overall mean bell ringer obtained for the difficulties in general and for each of the four teacher variables considered in the present study. With regard to the fourth research question, a minute analysis of the results provides interesting and valuable insights into teachers perceptions of different types of difficulties for students and teachers themselves and their concerns about classroom application of grammar teaching principles.The results are discussed with obligingness to difficulties categorized in terms of the themes listed in Table 8 below Table 8. rumors in the Questionnaire Categorised according to Themes Theme Explicit grammar teaching The transfer of declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge The use of well-fo rmed speech Error correction Problem-solving activities The use of true(p) texts for grammar instruction The use of spoken and write communicatory activities arguing(s) 3, 4, 5, 13 1, 17, 18 14, 19 15, 16 2, 20 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 17, 18Explicit grammar teaching The dichotomies of unconscious/conscious learning and inducive/deductive teaching methods are both sometimes equated with the dichotomy in the midst of implicit and explicit instruction. Attitudes to inductive and deductive methods were investigated through statements concerning explicit intro of grammar by teachers, students incuring form-function matches for themselves, and the constraints in using either of the two methods. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 78 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar education 3 (My students expect teachers to present grammar explicitly) and Statement 13 (A pretermit of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure) produced a mean score of 3. 61 and 3. 38 independently (Table 2 ANNEXURE II), supporting the view that students, in teachers perception, opt explicit grammar teaching. This is not surprising, as students are known to expect traditional, explicit grammar instruction (e. g. , Borg, 1999a, b). The responses in the present study indicate that this expectation of students until now remains, especially at the school level.Responses to Statement 5 (My students prefer to find matches between center and structure for themselves), however, produced a mean score of 3. 59 (Table 2 ANNEXURE II), which is very close to the mean score for students expectation about explicit teaching of grammar. This perception of students mouthful for an inductive method of learning grammar on the part of the same responding teachers is surprising. With regard to the same statement, the difference in mean between males and females seems to be higher than for the other statements (Table 4 ANNEXURE II).A action inter view with teachers big businessman have provided more specific information and propel light on their apprehension of explicit and implicit methods of teaching grammar. With regard to Statement 4 (My students prefer to learn grammar from onesentence examples), which come tos to explicit grammar teaching, responding teachers produced the last-place mean score (2. 97) of all statements in the questionnaire (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). In terms of experience, however, there seems to be some significant difference at the level of 0. 5 in favour of teachers with more than 10 years of experience (Table 7 ANNEXURE II). Declarative vs procedural knowledge Statement 1 (My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use), designed to identify teachers beliefs about the affirmable transfer of declarative knowledge (i. e. , knowledge about grammar) into procedural knowledge (i. e. , ability to use that knowledge in true(a) communication), produced a mean score of 3. 81 (Table 2 ANNEXURE II).This indicates that responding teachers secernate this process of transfer of one kind of knowledge into another as a problem for a large number of their students. This gap between students grammatical knowledge and communicative ability is not surprising to teachers, who often find that most of their students can recall grammatical rules accurately and perform very well on discrete-point grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 79 exercises, but fail to achieve such grammatical verity in actual communication.This fact is corroborated by the responses to Statements 17 and 18 (My students find it difficult to change the truth of their grammatical knowledge within a wholly communicative write/speaking activity), which produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree strongly ( mean of 4. 33) that their students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 ANNEXURE II).The use of grammatical terminology The use of grammatical terminology in the EFL classroom is seen as a necessary part of the explicit method of teaching grammar. When students and teachers talk about grammar (i. e. , in meta-linguistic discussion), which is one of the characteristics of explicit language teaching (Stern 1992 327), they need to use grammatical terms. twain statements (14 & 19) sought to explore teachers perceptions of how their students feel about the use of grammatical terminology.Statement 14 (My students find grammatical terminology useful) and Statement 19 (My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology) produced a mean score of 3. 82 and 4. 07 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). This indicates that, in the responding teac hers perception, their students see grammatical terminology as useful, but find difficulty in using the terms to be of a greater magnitude. Interestingly, the usefulness of grammatical terminology seems to be linked to the students preference for explicit grammar instruction. The difference in mean between teachers of Grades 1-4 and 11-12 on the one hand (mean of ? ) and those of Grades 5-10 (mean of 3. 4), however, seems to be higher with regard to their perceptions of the usefulness of grammatical terminology to their students. That is, teachers of the lowest and highest levels think that their students find grammatical terminology more useful than those of the middle grades. There is a significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of the level taught with regard to the usefulness of grammatical terminology (statement 14) (Table 5 ANNEXURE II). In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 0) that their students find it diffi cult to use grammatical terminology and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelors International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 80 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 04). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 ANNEXURE II). Error fudge factor Teachers generally tend to believe that errors of form committed by EFL learners should be corrected even when communicative goals are intended.This need for correction of form even within a communicative context, either spoken or written, may arise from a concern for grammatical accuracy in students communicative output or for avoiding fossilization of errors in their interlanguage. Statements 15 and 16 aim to capture teachers perceptions in this regard. Statement 15 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communica tive context) and Statement 16 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context) produced a mean score of 3. 26 and 3. 7 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). It may be inferred from the results that the responding teachers experience more difficulty in correcting their learners spoken communication than written. Problem-solving techniques Problem-solving techniques in relation to grammar teaching are inductive techniques that require learners to find form-function matches by themselves. (e. g. , Hall and Shepheard, 1991). Responses of teachers surveyed in the present study produced a mean score of 3. 58 for Statement 2 (My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar), showing a link to responses to Statement 5 bout students preference for finding matches between meaning and structure for themselves. Surprisingly, however, the same responding teachers produced a mean score of 3. 60 for Statement 20 (M y students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). A possible interpretation could be that teachers, while recognising the motivational potential of problem-solving techniques, also observe their students frustrating experience with such techniques, possibly because they are as well as challenging for the learners to cope with.Another interpretation could be that teachers responses to Statement 2 are based on their theoretical assumption about what these techniques could do to the learners, while those to Statement 20 could be based on teachers assessment of the ground reality. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 81 With regard to the statement about students being motivated by problemsolving techniques for learning grammar (Statement 2), there is also a significant difference at the level of 0. 5 between males and females in their perceptions (Table 4 ANNEXURE II). The use of real texts for grammar instruction Authentic texts are texts that are not produced artificially for the purpose of language teaching, but are used for genuine purposes in the real world, like newspaper articles and recipes. By implication, these texts are contextualised and communicatively complete in themselves. They focus is on conveying real meaning rather than on form.Decontextualised examples of language, on the other hand, are one-sentence examples commonly found in EFL textbooks and grammar practice books. They illustrate grammatical forms and structures in context-free sentences and are generally associated with the explicit method of teaching grammar. The use of texts illustrating certain communication for presenting grammar is generally seen as posing problems to teachers and students alike. Students problems with their use arise from difficulties of variety of structures Statement 7), socialization (Statement 8), vocabulary (Statement 9), and implicit form-function matches (Statement 10), besides an overall difficulty in handling grammar presented within regular(a) texts (Statement 6). Teachers difficulties with authentic texts include those arising from the amount of time needed for using them (Statement 11) and producing suitable tasks from such texts (Statement 12). According to the responding teachers perceptions, students experience greater difficulties from vocabulary (Mean=3. 52), variety of structures (Mean=3. 49) and finding form-function matches (Mean=3. 3) than from handling from presented within authentic texts (Mean=3. 33) and refinement (Mean=3. 26). Statements 11 and 12 relating to teachers difficulties in using authentic texts produced a mean score of 3. 03 and 3. 09 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE II), which indicates a lower perception of teachers of their own difficulties than those of students. The use of spoken and written communicative activities Statements 17 and 18 refer to the possible difficulties students expone nt have in improving the accuracy of their grammatical language within all in all communicative activities.Responding teachers produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 for the two statements respectively. In fact, the highest mean score of International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 82 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar all scores for the survey questionnaire (4. 10) was obtained for Statement 17 (My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical knowledge within a totally communicative writing activity) (Table 2 ANNEXURE II).The results indicate that, in teachers perceptions, totally communicative activities, whether written or spoken, pose great difficulties to students for learning grammar and improving grammatical accuracy, writing activities proving more challenging than spoken ones. It might be inferred that the teachers surveyed might have a serious concern about the lack of enough focus on form in purely communicative activities or tasks for developing students grammatical knowledge. Practising language as communication in real-life tasks might not give sufficient opportunities for students to improve their grammatical knowledge.In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 67) that their students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelors degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 01). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 ANNEXURE II).CONCLUSION Generally speaking, in teachers perceptions, both teachers and students invariably face serious difficulties with regard to EFL grammar instruction, students facing them to a greater extent than teachers. It is obvious that EFL teachers consider these difficulties quite serious, which suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to them. There may be generally recommended ways of teaching EFL grammar (for example, the implicit method), but it would not be proper to adopt them universally without looking at the possible difficulties that might go with those methods suggested.While a less favoured method might pose fewer problems and hence be more effective, a more favoured method might be less effective owing to greater difficulties or problems in implementing it. The difficulties may also be influenced by the context in which a particular method is used. It is, therefore, necessary to make a detailed study of such difficulties faced by teachers and students in specific contexts, take appropriate steps to overcome them, and adapt the method to suit the actual teaching and learning International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 83 environment. This is not to suggest diluting a sound approach or method, bu t only to plan mediating or supplementary tasks to help learners tide over the difficulties. IMPLICATIONS The findings of the present study point to the following implications 1. EFL Curriculum and material developers should show an understanding of learners and teachers difficulties, and provide sufficient guidance and help in the curriculum document and the teachers book showing how the potential difficulties could be addressed in be after their classroom activities.Teachers may be given examples of mediating tasks, which would mitigate the difficulties. 2. As Morelli (2003 33-34) has pointed out, students need to be taught grammar through various methodologies and approaches to cater to their individual styles of learning, and educators should consider students attitudes and perceptions when making decisions about how to teach grammar. 3. EFL teachers would do well to understand and address their learners concerns in planning their lessons and classroom activities, and use suppl ementary materials, if necessary, to help learners cope with the difficulties. 4.Both in-service and pre-service training programmes should be planned in such a way that student-teachers and practising teachers converse the potential and actual difficulties and discuss ways of overcoming or at least(prenominal) coping with them. The database relating to teaching English as a foreign language, including the difficulties of learners and teachers with regard to grammar instruction, should be enriched by more detailed research and analysis, which would enable generalizations across the gulf countries. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 84 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning GrammarREFERENCES Baron, D. (1982). Grammar and good taste Reforming the American language. New Haven, NJ Yale University Press. Borg, S. (1999a). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom a qualitative study of teachers practices and cognitions. Applied Lin guistics, 20 (1) 95-126. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002) Borg, S. (1999b). Teachers theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53 (3) 157-167. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002). Brindley, G. (1984). Needs Analysis and physical object Setting in the Adult unsettled Education Program. NSW Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney.Burgess, J. and Etherington, S. (2002). counsel on grammatical form explicit or implicit? System, 30 433-458. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. C. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London Routledge. Elkilic, G. and Akca, C. (2008). Attitudes of the Students Studying at Kafkas University Private Primary EFL Classroom towards Storytelling and Motivation. Journal of speech and Linguistic Studies, 4(1) 1-22. European Commission (2006). The Main Pedagogical Principles Underlying the Teaching of dictions to Very junior Learners. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 Study Edelenbos, P. , Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. Hall, N. nd Shepheard, J. (1991). The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. London Longman. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (2) 98-107. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The Grammar of Choice. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds. ). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leki, I. (1995). Good writing I know it when I see it. In In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds. ) Academic Writing in a Second Language. Norwood, NJ Ablex Publishing. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. , No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 85 Morelli, J. A. (2003). Ninth Graders Attitudes toward Different Approaches to Grammar Instruction. Unpublished Dissertation. The Graduate School of Education, Fordham University, New York. 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. USAColombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(ii) 244-258. Spratt, M. 1999). How good are we at knowing what learners like? System, 27141-155. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Grammar and nonsense and learning. In H. G. Widdowson, Aspects of language teaching, pp. 79-98. Oxford Oxford University Press. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 86 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar ANNEXURE I RESEARCH INSTRUMENT QUESTIONNAIRE STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITH GRAMMAR These are questions about how students and teachers hand out with grammar in the classroom.Please indicate how far you agree or disagree with these statements. If you agree strongly, mark a 5 on the scale if you strongly disagree, mark a 1 on the s cale. No. Statement SA 1 My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2 My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3 My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4 My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5 My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7 My students find authentic texts difficult because of the ample variety of structures which appear. 8 My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9 My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10 My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers. 11 Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12 Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts. 3 A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14 My students find grammatical terminology useful. 15 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context. 16 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context. 17 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 18 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 9 My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20 My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. A N D SD International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 87 ANNEXURE II Table 2. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement 1. My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2. My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3. My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4.My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5. My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. 6. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7. My students find authentic texts difficult because of the wide variety of structures which appear. 8. My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9. My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10. My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers. 11.Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12. Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level fro m authentic texts. 13. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14. My students find grammatical terminology useful. 15. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context. 16. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context. 17. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 8. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 19. My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20. My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. general Mean 3. 8111 3. 5778 3. 6111 2. 9667 3. 5889 3. 3333 3. 4889 3. 2556 3. 5222 3. 4333 3. 0333 3. 0889 3. 3778 3. 8222 3. 2556 3. 5730 4. kilobyte 3. 7333 4. 0667 3. 6000 3. 5090 SD . 93490 . 97125 1. 0 4607 1. 49494 . 94684 1. 03858 1. 01941 1. 03382 1. 07293 1. 02825 1. 05415 1. 16739 . 97816 1. 5937 1. 25027 . 83785 . 90006 . 99210 . 87152 1. 08927 7. 71887 Table 4. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Gender ( manlikes N=39 distaffs N=51) Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gender manlike female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 3. 8718 3. 7647 3. 2308 3. 8431 3. 7436 3. 5098 3. 1282 2. 8431 3. 7949 3. 4314 3. 2821 3. 3725 3. 5128 3. 4706 3. 2051 3. 2941 3. 5128 3. 5294 3. 3846 3. 4706 3. 0769 3. 0000 3. 1282 3. 0588 SD . 86388 . 99173 1. 6281 . 80926 . 96567 1. 10223 1. 47219 1. 51489 . 95089 . 92206 1. 02466 1. 05756 . 79046 1. 17223 1. 10452 . 98578 . 99662 1. 13759 1. 09100 . 98697 1. 10940 1. 01980 1. 19603 1. 15606 F 1. 357 4. 942 1. 447 . 032 . 068 . 095 9. 319 . 295 1. 240 . 600 . 062 . 107 t . 536 3. one hundred five 1. 051 . 8 95 1. 828 . 408 . 194 . 403 . 072 . 391 . 341 . 278 Sig. (2-tailed) . 593 . 003 . 296 . 373 . 071 . 684 . 847 . 688 . 943 . 697 . 734 . 782 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 88 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar Statement 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 OverallGender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 3. 3333 3. 4118 3. 9231 3. 7451 3. 3590 3. 1765 3. 5385 3. 6000 4. 0769 4. 1176 3. 7179 3. 7451 3. 8974 4. 1961 3. 4359 3. 7255 3. 5077 3. 5100 SD . 98230 . 98339 1. 28523 1. 24649 1. 34726 1. 17823 . 82226 . 85714 . 98367 . 84017 .88700 1. 07412 . 94018 . 80049 1. 16517 1. 02134 6. 67887 8. 50930 F . 018 . 105 1. 363 . 174 . 023 1. 454 . 201 2. 494 1. 604 t . 375 . 662 . 684 . 342 . 212 . 128 1. 626 1. 254 . 028 Sig. (2-tailed) . 708 . 510 . 496 . 733 . 833 . 898 . 108 . 213 . 978 Table 5.Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to the Level taught Stat ement 1 Level 1-4 5-10 11-12 primitive 1-4 5-10 11-12 come in 1-4 5-10 11-12 full(a) 1-4 5-10 11-12 sum 1-4 5-10 11-12 lend 1-4 5-10 11-12 essence 1-4 5-10 11-12 join 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 N 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 Mean 3. 8824 3. 5484 3. 9762 3. 8111 3. 5882 3. 2903 3. 7857 3. 5778 3. 7059 3. 5161 3. 6429 3. 6111 2. 7647 3. 4516 2. 6905 2. 9667 3. 7059 3. 6774 3. 4762 3. 5889 3. 1765 3. 3871 3. 3571 3. 3333 3. 6471 3. 4839 3. 4286 3. 889 3. 6471 3. 2903 3. 0714 3. 2556 3. 7059 3. 5484 3. 4286 3. 5222 3. 7647 SD 1. 05370 1. 09053 . 71527 . 93490 1. 00367 . 97275 . 92488 . 97125 1. 04670 . 99569 1. 10036 1. 04607 1. 52190 1. 43385 1. 47314 1. 49494 . 77174 . 79108 1. 10956 . 94684 1. 01460 1. 02233 1. 07797 1. 03858 1. 16946 1. 06053 . 94075 1. 01941 . 99632 . 93785 1. 09082 1. 03382 1. 26317 1. 09053 . 99125 1. 07293 1. 20049 F 1. 970 Sig. .146 2 2. 394 .097 3 .213 . 809 4 2. 593 .081 5 .557 .575 6 .242 .785 7 .274 .761 8 1. 943 .149 9 .413 1. 116 .663 . 332 10 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 9 Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Level 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total N 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 41 89 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 Mean 3. 3871 3. 3333 3. 4333 2. 8824 3. 0968 3. 0476 3. 0333 3. 1176 3. 1290 3. 0476 3. 0889 3. 5294 3. 0645 3. 5476 3. 3778 4. 0000 3. 3871 4. 0714 3. 8222 3. 0588 3. 5161 3. 429 3. 2556 3. 6471 3. 7419 3. 4146 3. 5730 4. 2941 4. 0323 4. 0714 4. 1000 3. 6471 3. 6774 3. 8095 3. 7333 4. 3529 3. 9355 4. 0476 4. 0667 3. 5294 3. 5806 3. 6429 3. 6000 3. 5824 3. 4871 3 . 4951 3. 5090 SD . 91933 1. 02806 1. 02825 1. 05370 1. 10619 1. 03482 1. 05415 1. 21873 1. 14723 1. 18841 1. 16739 1. 17886 . 99785 . 83235 . 97816 1. 22474 1. 22956 1. 23748 1. 25937 1. 39062 1. 17958 1. 24100 1. 25027 . 93148 . 68155 . 89375 . 83785 . 77174 . 87498 . 97262 . 90006 1. 27187 . 90874 . 94322 . 99210 . 70189 . 81386 . 96151 . 87152 1. 12459 1. 14816 1. 05510 1. 08927 7. 94466 8. 51652 7. 09156 7. 71887 F Sig. .230 .795 049 .953 2. 509 .087 2. 968 .057 1. 056 .352 1. 443 .242 .499 .609 .233 .792 1. 287 .281 .072 .931 .378 .686 Table 6. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Qualifications Statement 1 Qualification MA BA fleece Total MA BA fleece Total N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 3. 5000 3. 8026 4. 3333 3. 8111 3. 6250 3. 5395 4. 0000 3. 5778 SD 1. 30931 . 89472 . 81650 . 93490 . 91613 . 99921 . 63246 . 97125 F 1. 394 Sig. .253 2 .630 .535 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 90 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar Statement 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Qualification MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 75 6 89 8 76 6 Mean 3. 5000 3. 5921 4. 0000 3. 6111 3. 3750 2. 9605 2. 5000 2. 9667 3. 7500 3. 5526 3. 8333 3. 5889 2. 6250 3. 4079 3. 3333 3. 3333 3. 2500 3. 4605 4. 1667 3. 4889 3. 5000 3. 2237 3. 333 3. 2556 3. 1250 3. 5000 4. 3333 3. 5222 3. 3750 3. 4079 3. 8333 3. 4333 2. 7500 3. 0526 3. 1667 3. 0333 3. 5000 3. 0132 3. 5000 3. 0889 3. 2500 3. 4079 3. 1667 3. 3778 3. 1250 3. 8947 3. 8333 3. 8222 3. 3750 3. 2237 3. 5000 3. 2556 3. 5000 3. 5200 4. 3333 3. 5730 4. 5000 4. 0132 4. 6667 SD 1. 06904 1. 03509 1. 26491 1. 04607 1. 40789 1. 50058 1. 64317 1. 49494 1. 38873 . 91498 . 75277 . 94684 1. 30247 . 96854 1. 36626 1. 03858 1. 16496 1. 01247 . 75277 1. 01941 1. 06904 1. 02760 1. 21106 1. 03382 1. 24642 1. 05198 . 81650 1. 07293 1. 18773 1. 03509 . 75277 1. 02825 1. 58114 1. 00525 . 98319 1. 05415 1. 30931 1. 13717 1. 37840 1. 6739 1. 58114 . 86684 1. 47196 . 97816 1. 80772 1. 16137 1. 60208 1. 25937 1. 68502 1. 18433 1. 64317 1. 25027 1. 19523 . 77738 . 81650 . 83785 . 75593 . 91642 . 51640 F . 467 Sig. .629 .586 .559 .366 .694 2. 108 .128 1. 596 .209 .272 .762 2. 348 .102 .484 .618 .345 .710 1. 029 .362 .240 .787 1. 363 .261 .173 .842 2. 757 2. 407 .069 . 096 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 91 Statement 18 19 20 Overall Qualification Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total N 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 4. 1000 3. 6250 3. 7632 3. 5000 3. 333 4. 0000 4. 0395 4. 5000 4. 0667 3. 8750 3. 5658 3. 6667 3. 6000 3. 4563 3. 4933 3. 7750 3. 5090 SD . 90006 1. 40789 . 92186 1. 37840 . 99210 . 75593 . 90097 . 54772 . 87152 1. 35620 1. 08733 . 81650 1. 08927 10. 98619 7. 29186 7. 44983 7. 71887 F Sig. .244 .784 .798 .453 .299 .742 1. 582 .211 Table 7. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Experience Statement 1 Exp. (yrs) ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 0 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 N 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 Mean 3. 5556 3. 9250 3. 9130 3. 8111 3. 4444 3. 5500 3. 7826 3. 5778 3. 4444 3. 8000 3. 4783 3. 6111 3. 2222 3. 1500 2. 3478 2. 9667 3. 7407 3. 5000 3. 5652 3. 5889 3. 2963 3. 4000 3. 2609 3. 3333 3. 4074 3. 5250 3. 5217 3. 4889 3. 1481 3. 2000 3. 4783 3. 2556 3. 8519 3. 3000 3. 5217 3. 5222 3. 3333 3. 4500 SD 1. 12090 . 91672 . 66831 . 93490 . 84732 . 95943 1. 12640 . 97125 . 97402 1. 01779 1. 16266 1. 04607 1. 52753 1. 45972 1. 40158 1. 49494 . 81300 1. 13228 . 2777 . 94684 1. 17063 . 98189 1. 00983 1. 03858 1. 24836 . 93336 . 89796 1. 01941 . 81824 1. 11401 1. 12288 1. 03382 1. 06351 1. 11401 . 94722 1. 07293 1. 03775 1. 06096 F 1. 457 Sig. .239 2 .778 .462 3 1. 185 .311 4 2. 772 .068 5 .525 .593 6 .153 .859 7 .121 .886 8 .733 .484 9 2. 189 . 214 .118 . 808 10 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 92 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Exp. (yrs) 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total ? 5 5 ? 10 10 Total N 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 89 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 Mean 3. 5217 3. 4333 2. 8889 3. 0750 3. 1304 3. 0333 3. 3333 3. 0750 2. 8261 3. 0889 3. 3704 3. 2750 3. 5652 3. 3778 3. 4815 3. 8500 4. 1739 3. 8222 3. 1481 3. 2500 3. 3913 3. 2556 3. 6667 3. 5000 3. 5909 3. 5730 4. 0741 4. 1000 4. 1304 4. 1000 3. 6667 3. 8250 3. 6522 3. 7333 4. 0370 4. 0500 4. 1304 4. 0667 3. 4074 3. 000 3. 6522 3. 6000 3. 4759 3. 5250 3. 5201 3. 5090 SD . 99405 1. 02825 1. 25064 . 99711 . 91970 1. 05415 1. 14354 1. 11832 1. 26678 1. 16739 . 92604 1. 01242 . 99206 . 97816 1. 36918 1. 23101 1. 11405 1. 25937 1. 43322 1. 14914 1. 23359 1. 25027 . 87706 . 87706 . 73414 . 83785 1. 03500 . 74421 1. 01374 .90006 1. 03775 . 84391 1. 19121 . 99210 . 70610 . 90441 1. 01374 . 87152 1. 18514 1. 06699 1. 02730 1. 08927 9. 44364 7. 20399 6. 48558 7. 71887 F Sig. .377 .687 1. 182 .311 .639 .530 1. 935 .151 .232 .794 .321 .727 .024 .976 .304 .739 .083 .921 .612 .545 .140 .869 International Journal of In struction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2