Vol.

2 March 2012 Print ISSN International 2244-1476 Online ISSN 2244-1484 IAMURE: Journal of Education International Peer Reviewed Journal

IAMURE: International Journal of Education Educational Assessment Section

Grammar in the Language Classroom: A Case Study of Teachers Attitudes and their Actual Behaviour in the Class
MOZHGAN AZIMI azimimozhgan@yahoo.com University of Malaya, Malaysia

Abstract - The purpose of this paper was to explore the language teachers attitudes towards teaching English grammar. In addition, this study compared the teachers beliefs and their actual behaviours in the class. The Action Theory was chosen regarding this issue. It was investigated if there was any compatibility between their beliefs and practice or not and in case of incompatibility, the subjects were aware of it or not. This paper also tried to explore the reasons of this incompatibility as well as to find out the factors that influenced the teachers actual behaviours in the class. The present study is a case study done in a semi-government language centre in Mashhad, Iran. Three female language teachers were selected as subjects for this research. To identify the language teachers attitudes towards teaching English grammar, a series of observations was done. And also, some interviews with three English teachers were planned to make known their attitudes towards teaching grammar. The Constant Comparative Method (CCM) was used to analyze the data obtained from observations and interviews. The findings of this study revealed that sometimes there was no compatibility between beliefs and actual behaviours. Most of the time, teachers were not aware of this incompatibility.

188

International Peer Reviewed Journal

Keywords - Attitudes, Grammar, Belief, Behaviour, Action Theory and Compatibility

INTRODUCTION The word grammar is associated with a fixed set of word forms and rules of usage. This is a misconception that hearing the word grammar reminds many people, even language teachers. There are even divisions for grammar; good grammar and bad grammar. Good grammar refers to prestige forms of the language or the forms used in formal situations and in writing. But, what is bad grammar or simply, no grammar? It includes everyday conversations, daily dialogue or the form of language that nonprestige speakers use (Byrd, 1998). But where is the root of this misconception? Why do people, even language teachers, have a wrong idea about grammar? This misconception stems from the fact that language learners cannot apply their knowledge of grammar even after spending many years in the grammar classes (Cawley 1957; Hudson 1987; Macauley 1947). Hudson (2001) adds another reason for this misconception. He believes there is no strong underpinning for teaching grammar. He points out that there is not any boost for grammar in university. Teachers teach something they learned as students at school not in university. There is not anything new about grammar that university can provide to students. What can we expect from a subject with such shaky basis? But, this is a misconception about grammar rather a formal definition of it. In fact, there are any different definitions for grammar, but here the most common ones are presented. Chitravelu (1995) defines grammar as the rules of a language. It depends on the word order in different contexts, that is, the way the words are put together to transfer the meaning. Generally speaking, grammar is partly defined as the study of what patterns are acceptable in a language.

189

IAMURE: International Journal of Education

Thornbury (1999) states that grammar involves analysis at the sentence level; this kind of grammar is called descriptive grammar. There are rules that form grammatical sentences; descriptive grammar describes these rules. The other function of grammar is trying to find the reasons that make one sentence grammatically acceptable and the other not. It also explains how an ungrammatical sentence must be modified. Vossughi (2000) classifies grammar into two parts; prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. The former is a familiar type; it prescribes what people should do (writing and speaking). The latter is related to meaning of grammar which covers parts of speech. To clarify the meaning of prescriptive grammar, an analogy is used; it is like the physicist who says what the laws of physics are. The grammarian has no more right to decree how people should speak than the physicist has to decree how electrons should move. Then, he gives an explanation about parts of speech; it is analyzing a sentence, where the function of each word in the sentence must be labeled. After that, through an appropriate grammatical rule, it must be explained how the words combine (Vossughi, 2000). FRAMEWORK For many years, teaching of grammar has been debated; the place of grammar in the teaching of foreign languages is controversial (Ur 1996). Teaching grammar looks like a pendulum; it has two extreme ends. On one side stands the advocates of teaching grammar and on the other side, their opponents. Their different opinions result from the different methods of teaching introduced at different times. The pendulum swung as a result of new methods of teaching being introduced. But, grammar teaching has now gained its status in the language-teaching field. Nowadays, many teachers and researchers believe that teaching and learning grammar play an important role in every English class (Dadvand & Azimi n.d.). Krashen (1992) believes that grammar teaching plays a minor role in developing language competence. He asserts, Language is too complex to be deliberately taught and learned (Krashen 1992,
190

International Peer Reviewed Journal

p. 409). To Krashen, learners just acquire language by understanding it. If there is comprehensible input, persons can acquire a second language without being taught grammar. In other words, he believes that persons acquire structures naturally, through meaning. Krashen (1982, 1992, 1993, 1994) states that grammar teaching has peripheral effect on learning language. According to the monitor hypothesis, just acquired system is responsible for production; the learned system acts in a different way, its function is monitoring, and it can be useful just when the learners have time to check their output (as in a grammar test). The learned grammatical rules and the formal knowledge are responsible just for accuracy. Actually, learnt knowledge acts like an editor (Krashen 1982). The following diagram shows this event:

Fig. 1 The Monitor Model of L2 production (adapted from Krashen, 1981, p.7)

From the diagram, it can be seen that the learnt knowledge can edit the output before or after production. Krashen (1981) explains that persons cannot say something they want actually to say through learnt knowledge. This knowledge cannot be a basis for using language. Krashen (1982) states that learning results in information about the
191

IAMURE: International Journal of Education

language, not ability to use it. Since English is a foreign language in Iran, there is no acquired system in Iran But, some other researchers, such as Harley and Swain (cited in Yip, 1994), believe that some linguistic structures do not develop without teaching grammar. Harley and Swain (cited in Yip, 1994) did research into a French immersion program. They studied the effectiveness of the adequacy of comprehensible input and they concluded that although learners received a large amount of input, they did not remarkably progress in grammatical points. Long (1983) and Doughty and Williams (1998) claim that grammar teaching can make a difference, but Krashen and Terrell (1983) argue that learning works as an editor (monitor model). They believe that grammar teaching does not result in acquisition of structures, because conscious learning happens, and conscious learning is used just as a monitor, or editor. It can do just correction, but language fluency depends on acquisition. According to Krashen, there is no theory which supports the idea that students first learn grammatical rules, nor is it supported by observation of second language learners, because they can use the rules correctly that they have never learned before and they cannot use accurately the rules they have been taught before. Krashen stresses that instruction grammar, expressing difficult rules, analyzing structures about the target language is not language teaching, but language appreciation. In his latest article (2007), Krashen states that both learners and teachers are aware of deceiving themselves. They suppose that study of grammar is responsible for students progress, but in reality their progress is coming from the medium and not the message. In brief, Krashen believes that language is acquired through use and often time means more than principles that are learned in the traditional sense. Some researchers agree with Krashens views on the teaching of grammar. Elley, Barham, Lamb, and Wyllie (1975) conducted a study in New Zealand to find out the effectiveness of teaching grammar. They reported that English grammar instruction had virtually no influence
192

International Peer Reviewed Journal

on the language growth of typical secondary students. After doing an experimental research about grammar instruction, Harris (1962) detected that on an assessment test for sentence complexity and surface errors, five high school classes who received grammar instruction for two years performed worse than a similar group which did not receive any grammar instruction. Larsen-Freeman (1997) pointed out that there is a misunderstanding about grammar; many persons think learners acquire the grammatical points on their own; they assume teaching grammar is not a necessity. But, she believes that acquiring grammatical points can occur for immigrants, especially young immigrants. But, it does not happen to all the learners. She claims, Among the same immigrant groups are learners who may achieve a degree of proficiency, but whose English is far from accurate. Holdaway (1979) presumes that the form of knowledge can be divided into two classes: productive and abstract. Productive knowledge includes the way of doing something and abstract knowledge is about something. Regarding grammar, Holdaway emphasizes that the most important issue is that learners know how to use language. He emphasizes that teachers go about it the wrong way because they think knowing about language is necessary. To them, if students know about language, they will be able to use it successfully But, the language teachers wrong belief is not the whole story. Sometimes, there is difference between belief and practice. Argyris and Schon (1984) introduce the Action Theory regarding this issue. They believe that all persons have a mental map in their minds. Although they are not aware of it, they practice according to it; the mental map guide their performance instead of the theories they assert to believe (Argyris, 1980). The Action Theory divides theory into two parts: espoused theory and theory in use. If someone is asked about his action under certain circumstances, he explains his behaviours according to the espoused theory. Nevertheless, everybody behaves according to the theory in use. Sometimes, there is not any compatibility between two theories and persons are not aware of it (Argyris & Schon, 1974). This difference creates some questions: to what extent does actual behaviour fit with espoused theory? And what will happen if theory and practice are incompatible? According to Argyris (1980), the best
193

IAMURE: International Journal of Education

result can be gained in case of congruence between espoused theory and theory in use. Now, we can modify this model for teaching English grammar. It can happen for language teachers, there is no congruence between their espoused theory and theory in use. They are not aware that their espoused theory is not the same as their theory in use. They believe in something, but they perform the other thing in the class. Therefore, they cannot obtain effective results. Argyris (1980) stresses that if espoused theory and theory in use are aligned, the effectiveness will increase. The present study wants to generate awareness in the teachers in order that they create congruence between what they say they believe and their performances in the teaching field in case of inconsistency Argyris (1990) points out it is not possible to know someones theory in use by asking him. The only way of understanding someones theory in use, is observing his actual behaviours, because, theory in use governs the persons behaviours.

Fig. 2. Espoused theory and theory in use. Figure 2 demonstrates that theory in use includes some variables. These variables are unconscious beliefs, rules and assumptions. These
194

International Peer Reviewed Journal

are governing variables because they guide the persons behaviors to achieve certain goals. These variables create the actions. But espoused theory is the explanations that persons give when asked their idea about something. If these two theories are compatible, the most effective results will be gained (Argyris, 1993). For the present study, the above diagram was modified:

Fig. 3 . Theory and its relationship to effective teaching. It must be mentioned here that one of the governing variables can be teachers knowledge, because Larsen-Freeman (1998) believes that teachers teach according to their experiences in the class instead of their knowledge. Teachers beliefs are the words they use to explain what they think they do in the class (espoused theory). Their actual behaviour-method used in the class- is theory in use which may or not be the same as their espoused theory. The present study aims to compare these two theories, in case of difference; the correction will be needed to put both theories in line.

195

IAMURE: International Journal of Education

Significance of the Study Teaching is done through methods/techniques, and these methods/ techniques stemmed from a theory. English teachers play an important role in selecting the methods and techniques for teaching grammar (Dadvand & Azimi, n.d.). Kumaravadivelu (2003) points out it is generally agreed that teachers classroom practice is directly or indirectly based on some theory. On the other hand, Larsen-Freeman (1998) believes that teachers teach according to their experiences in the class instead of their knowledge. Larsen-Freeman (1998) points out experience is the only real reference point teachers share: experiences as students that influence their views of teaching, experiences in professional preparation, and experience as members of society (p. 10). Kumaravadivelu (2003) also believes teaching is a subjective activity. Teachers choose how to teach grammar according to their experiences, level of the students proficiency and materials. For this reason, the probability of making mistakes is high. One part of the problem refers to the language teachers. LarsenFreeman (2007) points out that teachers teach subjects according to their understanding. If teachers consider grammar as a static set of rules, they will teach in a static manner, that is, provides the rule and ask students apply it. Actually, this does not help learners to solve the inert knowledge problem. In addition, some teachers believe that teaching grammar is a waste of time. But, they have to teach grammar for keeping their jobs. They are asked to teach according to the language centre policy. They must choose; teaching grammar against their opinion or quitting. According to Kelly (1995), when attitude and behaviour are different, it is because of social pressure. She adds that the best solution is changing the teachers thinking about grammar. For doing this important job, first of all, the attitude of teachers must be understood. Therefore, the other goal of the present study is to find out the teachers attitude about grammar.

196

International Peer Reviewed Journal

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The aims of the present study were as follows: To explore the language teachers attitudes towards teaching English grammar. To compare the teachers beliefs and their actual behaviours in the class To investigate if there were any compatibility between beliefs and practice or not and in case of incompatibility, the subjects were aware of it or not. To explore the reasons of this incompatibility as well as to find out the factors that influenced the teachers actual behaviours in the class. MATERIALS AND METHODS Subjects and Procedure A series of indirect observations was done. All the observations were done by the researcher in the class; she went to the field and collect the data in the setting (fieldwork). Three classes in an English institute, in Mashad, Iran, were selected for observation. The selection was done purposefully. These subjects were selected because they could give the most useful information for in depth study; since grammar is not taught in the most language centres in Iran. The major focus is on speaking and listening. The majority of language centres ignore grammar teaching. The selected language centre is the only one that has grammar classes in Mashad. The observations were done in the classes during one semester (one month and a half, three days a week, with every session taking two hours). Generally, there are 22 sessions. The 11th and 22nd sessions were devoted to mid-term and final examination, respectively. Therefore, these two sessions were excluded from the series of observations. Twenty sessions were observed to describe the methods/techniques for teaching English grammar in Iran. It must be mentioned here all subjects participated in this study voluntarily, and they could drop out from the study at any time they wanted. The study was done through a qualitative description design about teaching methods and techniques for teaching English grammar
197

IAMURE: International Journal of Education

in Iran. A series of observations (20 sessions out of 20) was planned to be administered to describe the current methods and techniques used to teach English grammar, in Mashad, Iran.The type is descriptive observation. The aim of the observation was to evaluate the current methods/techniques. After finishing the series of observations, the teachers were interviewed to find out why they chose that method/technique for teaching grammar. It was planned that interviews with teachers lasted up to 45-60 minutes each. The questions started with general issues about the teachers, and then they moved toward the selected methods. The rest of the questions were made according to the teachers activities in the class (using the observations). All the interviews were conducted by the same researcher. All interview sessions were recorded and were subsequently transcribed. Interview data were added to that obtained from observation, because the researcher wanted to know the subjects (teachers) ideas, beliefs, opinions and expectations. Ekrami (2001) believes that whenever a researcher intends to gain a general trend, interview is the best and most appropriate instrument. The other reason for conducting interviews with Iranian EFL teachers cultural-Iranians feel nervous while writing (Ekrami 2001). They prefer not to answer some questions, or write something which is not true. So, the researcher used interview in order to get deep understanding; she could indirectly gain some insights during the conversation. The materials required for this study include observation and interview. Observation: To study actual behaviour, observation will be done. Creswell (2005) defines observation as follows: observation is the process of gathering open-ended, firsthand information by observing people and places at a research site (p. 211). Observation was done to describe the methods/techniques used for teaching grammar. According to Creswell (2005), descriptive analysis is done to identify general trends. Therefore, to explain the general picture, observation was done about the methods and techniques of grammar teaching. Interview: The questions were semi-structured. Subjects were
198

International Peer Reviewed Journal

interviewed in Persian. The interview was done with English teachers to find out why they select the current teaching method. The interviews were semi-structured because, in qualitative design, the interviews should be informal, free and without a special structure. It must be like a friendly chat (Mirzaee & Fatemipour 2000). Interviews were done face to face, separately, and they were recorded. Kvale (1983) defines the qualitative research interview as an interview, whose purpose is to gather descriptions of the life-world of the interviewee with respect to interpretation of the meaning of the described phenomena (p. 174). To answer the second research question, depth-data is needed. Since, in face-to-face interview, there is no delay between questions and answers, interviewees answer spontaneously. It is pressumed that their answers exactly reflect their opinions (Mirzaee & Fatemipour 2000). Furthermore, interviewers can observe facial expressions. The survey instruments for this study were developed by the researcher. Data gathered from these two instruments were evaluated to ascertain whether there was any compatibility between teachers thinking and actual behaviours in the class. The constant comparative method (CCM) was used to analyze the data obtained from observation and interviews. Glaser and Strauss (1967) believe the constant comparative method consists of four stages: 1. 2. 3. 4. Comparing incidents applicable to each category, Integrating categories and their properties, Delimiting the theory, and Writing the theory

These stages were followed in this study to analyzing the data. Goetz and LeCompte (1981) point out; this method combines inductive category coding with a simultaneous comparison of all social incidents observed (p. 58). The first step was categorizing the data, and then comparing them was done and refining the categories was the last stage. While the data were recorded and classified, the comparison across categories was done. Continuous refinement was done while data collecting and analyzing. Goetz and LeCompte (1981)
199

IAMURE: International Journal of Education

point out: As events are constantly compared with previous events, new topological dimension, as well as new relationships, may be discovered (p. 58). The researcher carried out data analysis during and after the data collection. The researcher followed the guidelines suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994, pp. 10-12) (See figure 3.3). Miles and Huberman define data analysis as consisting of three current flows of activity: data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing/verification (p. 10).

Figure 3.3. Components of Data Analysis. Adapted from Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.), by M The next step was member checking; the thematic analysis (list of categories) was returned to a few subjects. Then, the result was demonstrated in report form. The constant comparative method (CCM) was chosen to analyze the data of the present study, because according to Boyatzis (1998), this study is data driven approach, that is, by using raw answers, some codes and themes would be made. According to Ekrami (2001), the constant comparative method (CCM) is inductive, that is, the researcher does not impose the themes, and rather, they emerge from the data. Since the nature of this study is the same, choosing the constant comparative method (CCM) is appropriate.

200

International Peer Reviewed Journal

CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study revealed that the subjects (three English teachers) teach English grammar by referring to their experiences that they got from the training class. But, there was an interesting point: they do this unconsciously; they believe in some language theories and they think they teach according to it. It means that teachers believe in something, but they do another thing unconsciously. The observations revealed their actual teaching in the class and the interviews showed their opinions. It means that there is no relation between the methods/ techniques used for teaching English grammar and the reason for selecting them and there is no relationship between teachers thinking and their actions in the class, too. The researcher can claim that she could find one of the most important reasons which the current methods/techniques are used by the language teachers are not effective enough. By considering Action Theory, there is no congruence between teachers espoused theory and theory in use. They were not aware that their espoused theory was not the same as their theory in use. They believed in something, but they performed the other thing in the class. Therefore, they were not able to obtain effective results. Argyris (1980) stresses that if espoused theory and theory in use are aligned, the effectiveness will increase. The most contribution of this study is to in inform the other language teachers and learners about Action Theory. In addition, some teachers believe that teaching grammar is a waste of time. But, they have to teach grammar to keep their jobs. They are asked to teach according to the policy of the language centre. They must choose to teach grammar or quit. The teachers have to teach English grammar against their desire. According to Kelly (1995), when attitude and behaviours are different, it is because of social pressure. She adds that the best solution is changing the teachers thinking about grammar. For doing this important job, first of all, the attitude of teachers must be understood. Regard to this matter, additional research is obviously needed The major limitation of the present study is that transferability of findings would depend on the context of research. The subjects of this study felt free to discuss about their likes, desires and wishes in
201

IAMURE: International Journal of Education

education field, it is possible the same situation would not happen to other learners in a different place.

LITERATURE CITED Argyris, C. 1980 Inner contradictions of rigorous research. New York, NY: Academic Press. Argyris, C. 1990 Overcoming organizational defenses. Facilitating organizational learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Argyris, C. 1993 Knowledge for Action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., & Schn, D. 1974 Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. 1978 Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Argyris, C., & Schn, D. 1984 Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness (8th edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boyatzis, R. E. 1998 Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Byrd, P. 1998 Grammar in the foreign language classroom: Making principled choices. Retrieved from www.teachinggrammar.htm
202

International Peer Reviewed Journal

Cawley, F. 1957 The difficulty of English grammar for pupils of secondary school age. MEd thesis, University of Manchester. Chitravelu, N. & Sithamparam, S. & Choon, T. S. 1995 ELT methodology: Principles and Practice. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Fajar Bakti. Creswell, J. W. 2005 Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Creswell, J. W. 2008 Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Dadvand, B., & Azimi, H. English through fun. FLT Journal, 87, 22. Glaser, B. 1987 Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967 The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Harris, R. J. 1962 An experiment inquiry into the functions of value or formal grammar in the teaching of English. London, England: University of Londo Kelly, G. 1995 The psychology of personal constructs. 2 vols. New York, NY: Norton.
203

IAMURE: International Journal of Education

Krashen, S. 1981 Second language acquisition and second language learning Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/SLAcquisitionandLearning/ index.html Krashen, S. 1981 Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. 1982 Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. 1985 The input hypothesis: issues and implications. Longman. Krashen, S. 1985 Language acquisition and language education. Alemany Press. Krashen, S. 1992 Under what circumstances, if any should formal grammar instruction take place? TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411 Krashen, S. 1993a The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Krashen, S. 1993b The effect of formal grammar study: still peripheral.TESOL Quarterly, 27, 722-725. Krashen, S. 1994 The input hypothesis and its rivals. In S. Krashen & T. Terrell, The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. D. & Terrel, T. D. 1983 The Natural Approach: language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
204

International Peer Reviewed Journal

Kumaravadivelu, B. 2003 Beyond methods. Yale University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. 1992 Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. 1998 Learning teaching is a lifelong process. Cengage Learning College. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001 Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2007 New trends in grammar teaching: issues and applications. Atlantis, 29.1,157-163. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2008 Grammar and its teaching: Challenging the myth. School for International Training (VT). Retrieved from www.cal.org Long, M. H. 1983 Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly 17, 359-382. Macauley, W. J. 1947 The difficulty of grammar. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 18. Miles, M. B, & Huberman, A. M. 1994 Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication. Mirzaee, K. H., & Fatemipour, H. R. 2000 Second language research methods. Arasbaran Publishers.
205

IAMURE: International Journal of Education

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J, 1998 Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and producers for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thornbury, S. 1999 How to teach grammar. Essex: Pearson Education. Thornbury, S. 2006 Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ur, P. 1996

A course in language teaching. Practice and theory. Cambridge University Press.

Vossughi, H. 2000 An encyclopaedic dictionary of teaching English as a foreign language. Rahnama. www.englishraven.com www.grammarinduction.htm

Pursuant to the international character of this publication, the journal is indexed by the following agencies: (1)Public Knowledge Project, a consortium of Simon Fraser University Library, the School of Education of Stanford University, and the British Columbia University, Canada: (2) E-International Scientific Research Journal Consortium; (3) Philippine E-Journals; and, (4) Google Scholar.

206