System 30 (2002) 433458

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit?

John Burgess, Sian Etherington
University of Salford, UK
Received 12 December 2001; received in revised form 15 April 2002; accepted 2 May 2002

Abstract
Grammar teaching has been and continues to be an area of some controversy and debate have
led to the emergence of a new classroom option for language teachers: that of Focus on Form (as
opposed to Focus on Meaning or Focus on FormS). Against this background of interesting
times for grammar teaching, this paper reports research into teachers attitudes to grammar and
its teaching and learning within an EAP context. Responses from 48 EAP teachers in British university language centres produced both quantitative and qualitative data. Results indicate that the
majority of teachers in this study appreciate the value of grammar for their students and possess a
sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues involved. There is evidence to support a
favourable attitude to Focus on Form approaches among this group. A further nding concerns
the importance of student characteristics, needs and wishes in inuencing teachers classroom
actions in relation to grammar.
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Explicit; Form; Grammar; Implicit

1. Introduction
Grammar is being rehabilitated (e.g. Doughty and Williams 1998a) and recognised for what it has always been (Thornbury, 1997, 1998): an essential, inescapable
component of language use and language learning. Few would dispute nowadays
that teaching and learning with a focus on form is valuable, if not indispensable.
What perhaps are still the subject of debate are two points:
1. the degree of explicitness such teaching and learning should display, and
2. the relationship of grammar-focused learning to learning activities with other
foci.

E-mail address: j.burgess1@salford.ac.uk (J. Burgess).

0346-251X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0346-251X(02)00048-9

434

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

This paper reports research into EAP (English for Academic Purposes) teachers
attitudes towards grammar relating to these points among others. Part 1 of the
paper briey discusses aspects of grammar teaching and previous work on teacher
attitudes to grammar. Part 2 outlines the research and its ndings.

2. Grammar teaching and teacher attitudes

2.1. Approaches to grammar in the classroom
The place and type of grammatical instruction within language learning has been
the subject of language acquisition research and discussion for at least 40 years
(Ellis, 2001). During this time, this research has developed in both its focus and
methodologies. The organisation of the discussion about the treatment of grammar
has been centred on comparison of teaching methodologies (e.g. Grammar-Translation vs. Audio-Lingual) and on dierent classications of approach (e.g. Product
or Process teaching as described by Batstone, 1994a,b; the Analytical or Experiential
distinction proposed by Stern 1992). However, work over recent years has led to the
adoption of new (or at least re-ordered) taxonomies for grammar instruction, based
around the distinction, originally made by Long (1991), between Focus on FormS,
Focus on Form and Focus on Meaning approaches.
Like many terms used within academic discussion there is a degree of dierentiation in the use and denitions of these terms. However, it appears to be generally
accepted that Focus on FormS is characterised by a structuralist, synthetic approach
to language, where the primary focus of classroom activity is on language forms
rather than the meanings they convey. Focus on Form, in contrast, consists of an
occasional shift of attention to linguistic code featuresby the teacher or one or
more students (Long and Robinson, 1998, p. 23). Doughty and Williams (1998a,
p. 3) indicate that the Focus on Form approach provides learners an advantage over
Focus on FormS teaching through the cognitive processing support provided by the
overriding focus on meaning or communication. They continue, to state this
advantage rather simply, the learners attention is drawn precisely to a linguistic
feature as necessitated by a communicative demand.
A third option is Focus on Meaning, an approach where classroom work is
wholly concerned with communication of meaning but with no attention given to
the forms used to convey this. (The Natural Approach of Krashen and Terrell,
1983, and other non-interventionist approaches are examples of this position.) It
is possible to conate Focus on FormS and Focus on Meaning approaches with
the analytical and experiential options proposed by Stern (1992). However, Focus
on Meaning does not now feature as strongly in discussion concerning grammar
teaching as it once did: cumulated evidence from research in grammar learning and
SLA suggests that some conscious attention to form is necessary for language
learning to take place (see Ellis, 2001 for summary of research to date). It is questions around the nature of that attention which currently occupy researchers and
commentators in the eld (e.g. Swain, 1998; Doughty and Varela, 1998) with a great

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

435

deal of work concerned with the production of taxonomies of options for formfocused teaching.
For example, Ellis (2001, 14f) taxonomy of approaches within what he terms
Form Focused Instruction covers Focus on FormS, Planned Focus on Form, and
Incidental Focus on Form. This distinction between the planned or incidental nature
of the focus on form is crucial for Ellis in terms of the type of learner interaction
with the forms (intensive interaction with one form in the case of planned focus and
extensive interaction covering several forms for incidental focus).
Similarly, Doughty and Williams (1998b) have produced an extensive, detailed
discussion of options within a Focus on Form approach along with an analysis of
classroom tasks in terms of those options. They too see choice between planned or
incidental approach as signicant (framed around a choice between proactive or
reactive approaches) but also discuss the options concerning the choice of linguistic
form for focus, the extent of explicitness of focus on form, how focus on form
should be incorporated into a lesson (sequential or integrated) and its place within
the curriculum as a whole.
Developments of this kind have produced a varied set of options for teachers to
follow in relation to pedagogical grammar. The research described in this paper
attempts to establish some of the choices favoured by one group of teachers within a
particular sector of the profession.
2.2. Teacher attitudes to pedagogical grammar
Previous work on attitudes and perceptions within language learning suggests that
there is often a disparity between students and teachers (e.g. Kumaravadivelu, 1991;
Spratt, 1999). Such mismatches are often found around the area of grammar
teaching. For example, Brindleys (1984) research within Adult Migrant Education
in Australia found teachers more in favour of communicative activities, while students preferred more formal, explicit grammar teaching. More recently, Schultzs
(1996, 2001) papers both delineate dierences between teachers and students in
two dierent language teaching contexts (the USA and Colombia, with students
more favourable than teachers towards formal teaching of grammar and explicit
correction.
However, despite this lack of correspondence between teacher and student views,
research evidence also suggests that teachers may take learner wishes and preferences
into account in their decision making around grammar teaching (Borg, 1998, 1999c;
Macrory, 2000). One of the reasons for this appears to be that the inclusion of
explicit grammar teaching fulls several classroom management needs. These
include appeasing student concerns about lack of grammar, contributing to the pace
of lessons, and making uency work more relevant to students (Borg, 1998). These
sorts of issues weigh heavily enough with teachers to inuence their decisions,
despite personal reservations about the pedagogical eectiveness of such grammatical treatment. Indeed, Borg (1998, pp. 2526) indicates the complexity of the decision-making process for pedagogical grammar: he shows how conicts occur
between teacher cognitions in dierent areas (language, language learning, L2

436

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

learning, grammar teaching, students and teachers self) and how principles become
blurred in the course of practice.
Within the EAP sector, surveys have indicated that language problems and
grammatical considerations are ranked fairly highly by students (e.g. Blue, 1993;
Grundy, 1993; Jordan, 1997, pp. 4647). Research also shows that academic tutors
within universities feel that linguistic prociency (with grammar playing a large part
in this) is of importance (Tonkyn et al., 1993, p. 42; Grundy, 1993; Jordan, 1997).
However, comparisons of students and teachers in EAP suggest that, as in other
areas of ELT, there is likely to be a mismatch between their attitudes and expectations (Jordan, 1997, p. 53) and there is some evidence that grammar is again an area
of contention. For example, in a study of perceptions about writing, Leki (1995)
reports that students cite grammar as an important component of good writing,
whereas for teachers, more emphasis is placed upon rhetorical considerations.
There has, however, been comparatively little exploration of the beliefs of EAP
teachers specically concerning grammar and grammar teaching, despite indications
that some focus on grammar is important at this level (e.g. Leki and Carson, 1994;
Robinson, 1991).
Thus, the research detailed in Part 2 aims to look more closely at what teachers in
the EAP sector feel about grammar teaching and their students problems with
grammar. It could be argued that this group of teachers represent some of the most
sophisticated within the TESOL profession; certainly they tend to be well-qualied
and teachers of long-standing. Thus, their views may provide something of a
benchmark for the profession. Additionally, the learners within this sector tend to be
more advanced than those in other sectors, and, as decisions about grammar teaching may depend on prociency level, it is of interest to see what choices these teachers make for these learners.

3. The research
The earlier discussion indicates something of the interesting times in which
grammar teaching currently nds itself. The wealth of research ndings and accompanying protracted discussion about grammar and its teaching (Thornbury, 1997,
1998; Celce-Murcia et al., 1997; among others) mean that teachers are faced with a
potentially bewildering range of options for use in their classrooms. In such a climate,
it is important that the opinions and experience of teachers themselves are not
overlooked. As Ellis (1998, p. 58) points out, very little is known about how teachers
transform their technical knowledge about the teaching of grammar through their
actions. As the profession moves into a Post-method condition (Kumaravadivelu,
1994), it is becoming clearer that it is the choices made by teachers in their individual
contexts which play a large part in determining the kind of teaching which takes
place. Thus, the beliefs and attitudes which inuence teacher classroom decisions are
important areas of study. The research reported here aimed to ll some of the gaps
in this area by providing a picture of one group of teachers beliefs concerning
grammar and its teaching.

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

437

3.1. Research questions

The questions which this research sought to answer were as follows:

Which beliefs about grammar and grammar teaching are most widely held by
EAP teachers?

Is there a bias towards decontextualised presentation of grammar and away
from discourse-based, unied approaches?
3.2. Methods and materials
The research was mainly quantitative in design, using a questionnaire to survey
attitudes across a large group of teachers. The questionnaire took the form of a vepoint, Likert-type attitude scale, which was completed by EAP teachers in British
universities. Lengthier comments made by some of the teachers formed a body of
qualitative data. Finally, background information provided by the respondents
allowed for the creation of a teacher prole.
3.3. Subjects
The importance of denition of context in the study of beliefs and attitudes has
been well documented (Johnson, 1992, p. 102; Pajares, 1992, p. 327; Fortune, 1992,
p. 167). Questions should be as context-specic as possible in order to avoid it
depends replies (Pajares ibid.). Thus, here only one teaching context was considered in order to make as close a connection as possible between teachers and their
practical experience.
The context chosen was that of pre-sessional English for Academic Purposes
classes in British universities. These are typically summer classes of between 8 and 12
weeks attended by overseas students who are about to begin studies in the university. It was hoped that teachers in this context would prove to be a readily identiable group. Moreover, the specic nature of EAP classes would allow for as little
variation as possible between class types. Additionally, the presumed sophistication
and experience of teachers within this area permitted the inclusion of specialised
vocabulary within certain questions. The choice of such a population also increased
the possibility that subjects had some understanding/experience of the dierent
approaches mentioned.
The BALEAP (British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes)
members list was used as a source of addresses for EAP units and two questionnaires
were mailed to each unit for completion. This meant that a total of 128 questionnaires
were dispatched. It is believed that the targeted population provided a fair representation of EAP teachers on British university pre-sessional English courses.
It is important to acknowledge that a problem of volunteer bias exists in the
sample. It represents only teachers who were suciently interested in the teaching of
grammar to complete and return the questionnaires. This bias could possibly have
been lessened through interviews with non-respondents to allow comparison of

438

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

answers. Interviews with respondents could have also established reasons for the return
of the questionnaire. However, practicalities of time and funding prevented this option
being eected. Thus, the survey is unable to comment on the beliefs of university-based
EAP teachers in general. Nevertheless, the data collected are valuable, indicating the
opinions of a substantial proportion of the population. 48 replies were returned,
representing a 37.5% response rate. This sample size exceeds the number (30) which
Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 77) describe as the minimum for useful statistical analysis.
3.4. The research instrument
The questionnaire used for the collection of data is included in the Appendix.
Development of the questionnaire took place in several stages. First, background
reading led to the identication of certain dichotomies and continua within the
teaching of language and of grammar in particular. These were incorporated into a
framework for a consideration of grammar teaching. Key characteristics of each
were identied as shown in Fig. 1. These characteristics were used as the basis for a
set of open-ended questions concerning the teaching of grammar and these were
subsequently completed by 12 MEd TESOL students (all experienced ESOL teachers) at Manchester Universitys Centre for English Language Studies in Education. Their responses were analysed for signicant themes. This element of
qualitative research before embarkation on quantitative, and necessarily broader,
work allowed for the generation of feelings, beliefs and ideas about grammar which the
lone researcher may not have thought to include. As a result of this stage statements

Fig. 1. Dichotomies and continua in language teaching (adapted from Ellis, 1994; Stern, 1992).

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

439

Fig. 2. The typical respondent to the questionnaire.

about classroom implementation of grammar teaching principles were included in

the nal questionnaire. This process also enabled the researcher to discover problematic terms which were then altered or omitted in the nal questionnaire. Both help
to strengthen the validity of the research.
The nal questionnaire took the form of a Likert-type attitude scale (cf. KaravasDoukas, 1996) with responses to statements made on a 15 scale of agreement.
There was also some provision made for qualitative responses: teachers were
encouraged to provide additional comments about their grammar teaching in a nal
open-ended question. The questionnaire was piloted with teachers from The English
Language Teaching Unit of Manchester University and further alterations made
accordingly.
3.5. Results and discussion
From the data collected, it is possible to establish a picture of a typical respondent
(Fig. 2). In the data concerning teacher attitudes, areas where some conclusions can
be drawn are:

the role of grammar in language

explicit grammar teaching, including

the importance of instruction

the role of declarative knowledge

consciousness in the learning of grammar

comparison and contrast of structures

the use of grammatical terminology

problem-solving activities

correction

presentation of grammar through authentic texts

the role of practice
(Other statements either failed to provoke sucient responses to be signicant or
produced no clear trend.)

440

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

A table showing responses to statements concerning these themes is provided in

the Appendix. The data provide insight into attitudes relating to both theoretical
principles and classroom implementation of these principles. As might be expected,
responding teachers showed a great deal of concern about classroom application of
grammar teaching approaches. Implications of the results for both areas are discussed
together with ndings. Qualitative comments often gave further information about
individual teachers beliefs and these are presented with the quantitative data where
appropriate. Other signicant ndings which emerged from the qualitative data are
reported later. (For a fuller report of the research project, see Etherington, 1997.)
3.5.1. The role of grammar in language
Four of the statements in the survey were designed to probe teachers beliefs about
the role of grammar in language. These asked for reaction to dierent views about
grammars role: as a framework for the rest of the language system; as the building
blocks of language; as something which is added later to language prociency; as an
equal pillar supporting language prociency. Of these statements, two provoked a
clear reaction. Over 60% of respondents agreed that grammar could be viewed as a
framework or a basic system for the rest of the language (statement 1.1a). However,
the idea that grammar acts as something which is added on to language prociency,
a renement of more basic language knowledge, was clearly rejected by the teachers in
the survey (over 85% disagreed with this statement, 1.1c). It seems that this group of
teachers view grammatical accuracy as integral to language and communication, not
an optional add-on after basic communication has been achieved. It can be inferred
from these responses that this group of teachers would not feel comfortable with a
syllabus which delayed teaching grammar until later in the learning process. They
may also be more likely to favour an integrated approach to grammar teaching.
3.5.2. Explicit grammar teaching
The explicit/implicit divide is seen by many as an important dierentiation in
teaching styles, and one which is distinct from analytical/experiential approaches
(Ellis, 1994, pp. 362363; Stern, 1992, 327.). The dichotomies of unconscious/conscious learning and inductive/deductive teaching methods are both sometimes equated
with the explicit/implicit teaching division. The statements used here were based on the
unconscious/conscious divide and use Sterns (1992, 327f) characteristics for explicit
and implicit teaching as a guide for individual items. Attitudes to inductive and deductive methods were also investigated through statements concerning explicit presentation by teachers and students nding form-function matches for themselves.
There is a danger in seeing explicit and implicit teaching as opposing methods,
rather than points on a continuum of options. However, it was felt to be useful to
ask teachers where they might place their EAP teaching on such a continuum. The
questions used touched both on how explicit teaching related to the principles of
grammar teaching and on constraints which made teachers more or less likely to use
such methods in the classroom.
The strongest indication of agreement in the survey came on Question 2.3, (My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly). This produced a mean score

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

441

of 4.17 and over 90% of responses were of agreement or strong agreement. This is not a
particularly surprising result. Student expectations of traditional, explicit grammar
teaching are familiar to many teachers (cf Borg, 1999a,b), and the popularity of
grammar practice books for self-study purposes seems to conrm this view. The
responses here indicate that even with advanced, relatively sophisticated learners of
the kind EAP teachers in universities tend to deal with, teachers believe that this
expectation remains.
Responses to Question 2.13 (A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure) support the view that students prefer explicit grammar teaching. Here just under 70% of responses were in categories 4 or 5, indicating
agreement or strong agreement. A useful comparison can also be made with the
responses to Question 1.20, which also deals with the explicit treatment of grammar
(Explicit discussion of grammar rules is helpful for students). Here responses were in a
similar pattern, with the number of replies in category 4, agreement, (43.8%) and category 5, strong agreement, (25%) indicating a favourable reaction to the statement.
From these results it may be reasonable to conclude that while these teachers may
feel that explicit teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because of
expectations and feelings of security, the teachers also seem to support this approach
for pedagogical reasons of their own.
Further light is shed on this issue by the written additions made to the questionnaires by several teachers. Analysis of this qualitative data seems to show that
teachers belief in the need for an explicit focus on grammar stems from something
more than the wish to please students or from teachers own learning experiences.
Teachers wrote of explicit, separate, analytical methods and specic focus on
form having a place in the teaching of grammar.
However, it is important to note that these views were also qualied in some way in
added comments to the questionnaire: teachers stated that a separate focus was only
appropriate at certain stages of learning, either moving on from communicative tasks;
at intervals; or when students were already familiar with the form. For example, one
teacher indicated dierent treatment for students on dierent types of course:
For most of our pre-sessional students (especially on a four-week course) we
focus more on structuring essays, presentations etc. . . for longer courses, and
especially for weaker students, we focus more on grammar and language at
sentence level. (T36)
A follow-up interview with teachers may have produced more specic information
about what teachers mean by explicit methods and teaching of grammar. However,
teachers responses to other questionnaire items which are concerned with aspects of
the implicitexplicit continuum provide some further detail about their understanding of, and orientation towards, this issue. These are explored later.
3.5.3. Instruction vs. Exposure
The question of specic instruction is an important one in the implicitexplicit
debate. Teachers feelings on this issue (is formal instruction necessary or is exposure to

442

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

input sucient?) provide a good indication of their orientation. Findings indicate that
most of the respondents agree that it is possible to learn grammar through natural
exposure to language (over 50% of teachers responded positively to the statement:
Students can learn grammar through exposure to language in natural use). However,
there appears to be greater agreement with the view that instruction helps learners to
produce grammatically correct language (over 70% of respondents agreed with the
statement Formal instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language.)
These two results do not necessarily indicate a contradiction of opinion. One
possible interpretation is that these teachers believe in the possibility of learning
grammar through input alone, but feel that learning is helped by instruction. One
comment expressing this view was:
Most students at our university increase their oral communication competence
but not their linguistic competence during 1, 2 or even 3 years at the university.
Their writing is as bad when they nish as when they started, unless they have
had formal language instruction. I.e. they do not pick up grammar from
meaningful exposure to the language during their sojourn in Britain. (I stress
most. Some do pick it up.) (T27)
Replies here are linked to those concerning the relationship between declarative
and procedural knowledge and the role of consciousness in learning.
3.5.4. Declarative and procedural knowledge
Statement 2.1 (My students nd it dicult to transfer their grammatical knowledge
into communicative language use) was designed to identify teachers beliefs concerning
the possible transference of knowledge about grammar (declarative knowledge) into
actual use of that knowledge in communication (procedural knowledge). Replies here
indicate teachers recognition of this process as a problem for many of their students: there is no evidence of strong disagreement and over 52% of replies are of
agreement or strong agreement (responses 45). A teacher comment which supports this view is:
There is some disparity between knowledge of grammar and use of grammari.e. because a student does not use grammatically correct English in a
specic context does not mean that he or she lacks formal knowledge of that
structure. If you point out that there is an error, students can often self-correct. (T10)
Teachers understanding of this gap in students grammatical ability is perhaps
not surprising for anyone who has taught at this level. Most teachers are able to
relate many examples of students who can recite grammatical rules perfectly, but
have diculty putting them into practice. It would be interesting to discover if teachers who recognise these shortcomings in their students are more likely to use an
integrated approach to grammar as a way of combating such problems; this is a
possible direction for future research.

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

443

3.5.5. The importance of conscious knowledge

Three statements attempted to ask teachers about their beliefs about the role of
conscious knowledge
1. in learners language use (Question 1.4: Student use of language does not
involve conscious knowledge of the grammatical system and how it works);
2. in the improvement of their grammatical accuracy (Question 1.6: Students
need a conscious knowledge of grammar in order to improve their language); and
3. about consciousness of form/function matches (Question 1.9: Students need
to be consciously aware of a structures form and its function before they can
use it prociently).
The responses recorded here suggest that teachers feel that conscious knowledge
of the grammar system has a part to play in students use of language (47.9% rank
Statement 1.4 as 1 or 2 indicating Disagreement). However, it is not clear exactly what
role teachers believe that this knowledge plays in language use. It may be that they
understand its function as a monitor of output, but see no other role for it. The need
for conscious noticing as part of the learning process (Schmidt, 1990) is not necessarily
understood by teachers. Indeed, statements 1.6 and 1.9 did not produce conclusive
results. Additionally, the apparent belief of some respondents that learning of grammar
can take place simply through exposure to input seems to corroborate this interpretation. Further research is required to investigate this area of belief in more detail.
3.5.6. Comparison and contrast of structures
Comparison of dierent structures is used as a method for presenting dierences of
meaning in many textbooks (Murphy, 1985; Soars and Soars, 1986; see also Imssalem,
1997 for evaluation of textbooks). The use of this technique is often associated with
more explicit, focused-on-forms approaches to grammar teaching. Teachers were asked
about the use of such techniques for the teaching of grammar (Question 1.17: Comparison and contrast of individual structures is helpful for students learning grammar).
Responses indicate agreement among these teachers that such practices are helpful for
students (61% of replies agreed with the statement, with only 4.2% indicating disagreement). Given the arguments against it (Etherington, 1997, p. 110), it may be surprising
that such numbers of teachers seem to agree that this is a useful technique. However, the
statement does not specify at what stage of learning comparison and contrast of structures is used. Hence, although teachers may feel that later practice of dierent forms in
this way is satisfactory, they may not be so enthusiastic about endorsing this method of
initial grammar presentation. Again, follow-up interviews with respondents might have
established this dierence. Nevertheless, a preference for this method may be interpreted as an indication of a focus on formS approach no matter where it occurs in a
lesson.
3.5.7. The use of grammatical terminology
The use of grammatical terminology in the classroom could be understood as a
necessary part of an explicit approach to grammar teaching: when teachers and

444

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

students talk about grammar they need terminology. Indeed, metalinguistic discussion is seen by Stern (1992, p. 327) as one of the characteristics of explicit language
teaching.
Questions here sought to explore teachers perceptions of their students feelings
about the use of grammatical terms. For both questions 2.14, My students nd
grammatical terminology useful and 2.19, My students nd it dicult to use grammatical terminology, there was a clear trend in responses. The ndings indicate that
these teachers believe their students see grammatical terminology as useful (57% of
replies showed agreement with statement 2.14). Similarly, there is some feeling that
its use does not present a particular diculty for students (47% showed their disagreement with statement 2.19, with only 21% indicating agreement of any kind).
This seems to link to students preferences for explicit grammar teaching. It may also
be related to students previous language learning experiences: if these are based in the
grammar-translation method, students will feel at home with this use of terminology.
3.5.8. Problem solving
Problem-solving approaches to grammar are often used at this level. These frequently take the form of inductive techniques which challenge learners to nd formfunction matches for themselves (e.g. Hall and Shepheard, 1991). Many other consciousness-raising techniques use similar problem-solving approaches (e.g. Fotos,
1994). The use of problem-solving techniques in consciousness raising tasks is seen
as one of the characteristics of explicit grammar teaching (Stern, 1992, p. 327; Ellis,
1997, p. 84).
There is clear agreement among these teachers that EAP students nd a problemsolving approach motivating: positive responses to statement 2.2 (My students are
motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) totalled more than
60% of replies. Negative responses to Question 2.20 (My students are frustrated by
problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) conrm this (57.8% of responses
ranked this 1 or 2), showing that teachers generally feel that problem-solving
approaches at this level do not produce frustration in the learners. These answers
can be seen to link to responses concerning real-life tasks as practice of language.
One possible interpretation is that teachers feel that students have a preference for
the use of language to perform a well-dened task, rather than work without a
practical outcome.
Indeed, EAP learners appear to be particularly suited to a problem-solving approach,
since they tend to be relatively sophisticated, intelligent and experienced learners.
Moreover, comments from two of the teachers in the survey suggested that some language teaching techniques are particularly inappropriate for this sort of learner:
Students at this level are often de-motivated by the silly games which are
often used in the ESOL classroom. These students need more serious approaches to language learning. (T48)
Many games and activities are too silly for the serious pre-sessional student.
(T34)

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

445

It would be interesting to compare answers here with those of a group of teachers

in another ESOL sector, for example, ESL teaching in secondary schools, where
typical learner characteristics may be dierent.
3.5.9. Correction of errors
Questions 1.16, 1.18, 2.15 and 2.16 produced signicant results. Teachers tended
to disagree with statement 1.16 (Teachers should only correct student errors of form
which interfere with communication), with only 19% of respondents showing positive
replies. This nding is supported by result for Statement 1.18 (Form-focused correction helps students to improve their grammatical performance). Here 56% of the teachers indicated their agreement with the statement.
From the earlier results, it might be inferred that teachers believe that errors of
form should be corrected, even where communicative goals are attained. This need
for correction of form may indicate an awareness of the particular need of EAP
students for accuracy and clarity. It may also show a concern about fossilisation of
errors in learners interlanguage. A concentration on errors of form within an overall communicative setting can help to avoid such fossilisation.
Questions in the second part of the questionnaire tackled the dierence between correction of written and spoken communication. Replies to question 2.15 (Teachers nd it
dicult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context)
showed that the majority of teachers do not seem to have diculty in correcting errors
within written communication. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents disagreed with the
statement. It is interesting to compare responses to Question 2.15 with those to Question
2.16 (Teachers nd it dicult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context). Here, although the mean response (2.7) suggests that teachers felt
that correction of spoken errors presented little diculty, a fairly large number felt that
this was a problem (almost 30% of respondents). It is interesting to note that this
number is signicantly higher than those who felt that correction represented a
problem in the written mode (just over 6%). It could be concluded that teachers
experience more diculty in correction during students spoken rather than written
communication.
Other questions in the survey focused on aspects of classroom practice more
closely associated with implicit grammar teaching and learning. Of these, responses
to items concerning the role of practice and the use of authentic texts were of
interest.
3.5.10. Presentation in authentic, complete texts
The choice of vehicle for presentation of grammar was focused on in statements
connected with the use of authentic text for grammar work. Authentic texts are
understood as texts which are not produced for the purpose of language teaching,
but arise for some other purpose in the real world.
Connected to the idea of authentic text is the implication that these texts are
complete and fully contextualised. The antithesis of such vehicles for grammar presentation are the one sentence, context-free illustrations of grammar used in many
text and practice books. These decontextualised examples of language have been

446

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

associated with a more analytical and explicit approach to language teaching. Fuller,
context-rich texts are typically present in an experiential approach, concentrating on
doing things with language (authentic communication) rather than focusing on the
language itself (Stern, 1990, p. 106 1992, p. 307 and 313). Recognition of these tensions led to the development of questions concerning the use of complete and
authentic texts by teachers and student problems with them.
The teachers surveyed appear to feel that complete texts are a successful way of
presenting grammar (56% of responses agreed or strongly agreed with Statement 1.15
Students learn grammar more successfully if it is presented within a complete text).
Other questions concerning authentic texts asked about student problems with
their use, focusing on possible diculties of vocabulary, variety of structures, culture and the nding of form-function matches. Teacher problems with authentic
texts were also touched on: the diculty of producing suitable tasks from such texts
and the amount of time taken in using them were surveyed. Responses clearly
showed that these teachers do not believe that the grammar in authentic texts is too
dicult for students (53% of responses disagreed with Statement 2.6). In fact, it is
the existence of specialised vocabulary within authentic texts which is more likely to
be a problem for students and teachers: 52% of respondents agreed that vocabulary
in authentic texts caused problems for their students (Statement 2.9). Responses to a
statement about the amount of time needed for authentic texts (Question 2.11) seem
to indicate no general feeling that authentic texts take too much time in the classroom or in preparation. Such results can be interpreted in two ways: teachers do not
nd the use of such texts particularly time-consuming, or they consider any extra
time needed to be well-spent. In conclusion, it is apparent that teachers are enthusiastic about the use of authentic texts in the classroom, with only dicult vocabulary appearing to present any real problems for learners.
3.5.11. The role of practice
Teachers were asked to comment on statements concerning both the role of practice and the types of practice which might prove more benecial for learners.
Responses to Questions 1.5 (Students can improve their grammatical accuracy
through frequent practice of structures) and 1.12 (Productive practice of structures is a
necessary part of the learning process) provide some evidence for teachers belief that
practice of structures is important for learning grammar and improving grammatical
accuracy. Seventy-ve per cent of replies indicated agreement with the rst of these
statements, and 74% showed agreement with the second.
The important issue here concerns the type of practice used. The recognised problems with the P-P-P model mean that these teachers perception of the phrase
Productive practice is crucial to understanding results here. Do they mean production of the P-P-P kind or productive practice within a true communicative context? The phrase practice of structures within both statements could suggest an
analytical approach to the learning of grammar, building up information about
individual grammatical structures into an eventual knowledge of language as a whole.
Further light may be shed on this area by responses to Question 1.14 (Participating in
real-life tasks with language is the best way for students to develop their grammatical

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

447

knowledge). Although the data here are not as clear-cut as in Questions 1.5 and 1.12, it
seems that these teachers have some preference for real-life tasks for the development of
grammatical structures: just over 50% of replies agree with the statement.. It could be
argued that there is possible confusion here about the meaning of real-life tasks (again
follow-up interviews with respondents may have reduced this uncertainty). Nevertheless, the data seem to indicate that teachers understand the value of practising
language as real communication. The smaller numbers of positive responses to this
statement may reect some concern within this group of teachers about the lack of
sucient focus on form for development of grammatical knowledge, something
which may be associated with purely communicative tasks (Batstone, 1994b, p. 229;
Johnson, 1992).
3.5.12. Further qualitative comments
The qualitative data collected in the nal part of the survey generally support the
conclusions drawn earlier and have, for the most part, been discussed along with the
quantitative data. However, two powerful impressions made by teachers comments
are better considered separately. One supports the general conclusions drawn earlier;
the other adds to the ideas presented there.
3.5.12.1. Grammar work arises most naturally from skills work.. Four teachers wrote
at length about their beliefs in this area, arguing that the best place for treatment of
grammar was in the course of skills work, particularly writing. For example, one
teacher wrote:
For me. . .grammar comes out of and feeds back into academic writing. It is
academic writing and discourse functions which form the core of a pre-sessional
EAP course. Not the other way around. (T48)
Comments from other teachers also indicated favour for an integrated approach
to grammar teaching:
Generally I see grammar as a tool for communication and prefer to approach it
in the context of a communicative task (usually reading/writing). (T25)
I teach a great deal of academic writing but my classes are not grammar based but
process and skills based. I deal with grammar as the need arises from analysing my
students work. (T1)
We tend to treat grammar as something which arises naturally from communicative language activities. . . (T47)
These comments suggest a reactive approach to grammar, responding to errors in
student work in the course of a writing or reading task and as such appear to
represent the occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features which constitutes a Focus on Form approach for Long and Robinson (1998, p. 23).

448

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

3.5.12.2. Student characteristics play a large part in determining student wishes and
what kind of grammar teaching is most appropriate for students. Almost a quarter of
the teachers mentioned that students backgrounds and previous learning experiences had a large impact on their present learning preferences. For example,
What students want by way of grammar also depends on personal background
and experiences of English learning context. (T5)
Students often ask for more grammar. They are usually over 35 or from a
country whose own education system relies heavily on grammar-translation
method. (T47)
(in response to item 2.5 My students prefer to nd matches between meaning
and structure for themselves) This is cultural- Asian students tend to resist this
type of learning activity. (T19)
Additionally, for some teachers it appears that student expectations and preferences may be a factor in their choice of grammar teaching approach. For example,
Within the language centre our courses cater for a large number of Asian students particularly from Japan and Korea and student expectations regarding
grammar teaching obviously aect teaching. More traditional methods tend to
be more readily accepted: although we can but try! (T17)
Many students still want explicit grammar teaching isolated from other
work and I run a 10 week course which is largely input due to class size.
(T 29)
This interpretation accords with Borgs ndings (1998) concerning the inuence of
student preferences on teachers pedagogic decisions.
Several teachers identied other individual dierences as important when deciding
on their approach to grammar: these included student level, subject area, age, culture and mother tongue. For example, comments included:
Students are all dierentso techniques depend on their levels, nationalities
etc. It also depends on whether theyre EFL, EAP, Business students etc. (T32)
Students from dierent language learning backgrounds and L10 s have dierent
problems. (T2)
The approach is determined by dierent needs/interests/level of ability of English in the students. My own approach varies enormously. (T7)
Such comments reect Celce-Murcia and Hilles (1988) discussion of the learner
variables which may inuence choices of teaching approaches. They also serve to

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

449

emphasise the importance of placing any study of teaching beliefs and practice within
as specic a context as possible. Although the research design attempted to restrict the
context as much as possible, any future research may do well to take note of the factors mentioned here in addition to that of classroom context. However, it should also
be noted that too great a consideration of student dierences may lead to a study of
individuals only, with no power to generalise.
3.6. Limitations of this research
The survey was not limited to questions about only one approach to grammar
teaching. It covered a wide range of options within dierent methodologies. Therefore, it was impossible to construct a questionnaire conforming to strict Likert-scale
methodology, allowing no opportunity to use the split half method in order to
check reliability (Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Cohen and Manion, 1994). However, certain statements were paired to provide some possibility of checking the consistency
of teachers replies in some areas. Where paired statements existed replies were seen
to be consistent. The inclusion of dierent approaches to grammar teaching within
one questionnaire does, however, provide a reasonably realistic view of teacher
beliefs. These are complex and dynamic entities, with many factors inuencing
themnot static, one-dimensional objects which can be judged through one viewpoint alone.
The study does not include any observation of teachers actual classroom behaviour. This could have provided valuable triangulation for the attitudes expressed
within responses (Pajares, 1992, p. 316). However, it was hoped that questions about
practice included in the second section of the questionnaire would cover this area.
The lack of follow-up interviews is a major limitation to the study. This would
have given greater reliability to results. In addition, interviews with some of the
teachers who chose not to return questionnaires would have shown how typical the
respondents were among EAP teachers as a whole.
There is a strong possibility of a response eect here, with teachers giving replies
which are not accurate representations of their actual attitudes, but are calculated to
present a favourable impression to the researcher. However, it has been argued that
such data are nevertheless useful, since they reect feelings and beliefs about an ideal
professional, in this case teaching, situation (Davies, 1997, p. 154). Similarly, Block
(1998, pp. 151152) argues that such replies may indicate the type of discourse which
is permitted within one discourse community and as such are representative of the
community as a whole.
The context used for the research may not have been specic enough: many teachers intimated that they made judgements concerning teaching approaches based
on each particular class which they teach. Moreover, classes which can be described
as pre-sessional EAP vary a great deal across and within dierent institutions.
Further research within a tighter context may be desirable.
Despite these limitations, it is felt that this work represents a step towards a better
understanding of teachers thoughts and feelings about grammar teaching in the
EAP context.

450

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

3.7. Discussion of results

From the results it seems possible to make some claims about the beliefs of this
group of EAP teachers concerning grammar and grammar teaching. The majority of
teachers represented here appear to see grammatical knowledge as important for
their students and to have a sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues
involved in its teaching. The importance placed on grammatical issues may be surprising in light of research reported earlier which suggests that grammar may not
hold so much weight for teachers.
Indeed, there does not appear to be a bias towards decontextualised presentation
of grammar for these teachers, but instead they seem to favour more discoursebased approaches. Their concern for grammar in connection with an apparent
inclination towards the use of authentic, full texts and real-life tasks for practice may
indicate that these teachers are well-disposed to a Focus-on-Form approach. Qualitative comments appear to reinforce this view, particularly those suggesting that
teachers prefer explicit teaching of grammar within communicative or skills-based
work.
It can be argued that Focus on Form teaching has only emerged fairly recently
within the research and methodological literature (see Ellis, 2001; Doughty and
Williams, 1998a) and thus it is interesting to speculate about the origins of this
group of teachers preferences. Are they the result of an inuence of research on
practice, or do they stem from teachers personal intuitions about what works best
in their classrooms? Without a much more in-depth study, it is dicult to determine
the factors which inuence teachers thinking in this area. However, reference to
student characteristics, needs and wishes in several answers indicate that teachers
classroom actions are not determined by theoretical beliefs alone, but that student
reaction to dierent approaches is taken into account.
3.8. Conclusion
The research reported here has attempted to discover something about the state of
grammar teaching in EAP courses in British universities, both in relation to theoretical issues and concerning problems of implementation of principles. The results
paint a picture of the approaches to grammar teaching taken in EAP courses across
the UK which may be encouraging to those who advocate a Focus on Form
approach.
The EAP context demands high levels of grammatical accuracy and communicative eectiveness from learners and thus is an area in which a Focus on Form
approach would appear to be particularly appropriate. Student preferences for
grammar work may not accord with a Focus on Form approach (they may stem
from more traditional grammar treatments) but teachers may be able to utilise these
feelings to include more integrated, skills-based grammar work in their courses.
Teachers may however, also need to be explicit in indicating to students the grammar-orientation of these sorts of activities in order that they are appreciated as fullling student wishes.

451

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

Appendix A. Questionnaire for course tutors

SECTION ONE: APPROACHES TO THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR.
Please indicate how far you agree with the following statements about the role and
teaching of grammar on a typical pre-sessional EAP course. If you agree strongly
mark a5 on the scale, if you strongly disagree mark a 1 on the scale. Please feel free
to add any comments you wish to make.

Disagree
1.
a)
b)
c)

d)

The role of grammar in language is as: (please

a framework for the rest of the language
a basic system to build everything else on.
the building blocks of language which are
combined to form a whole.
something which is added on to language
prociency: a renement of more basic
language knowledge.
an equal pillar in supporting language
prociency. (Other pillars could be
knowledge about pronunciation,
appropriacy or culture etc.)

Agree

answer for each option)

1
2
3
4
5
1

2.

Students can learn grammar through

exposure to language in natural use.

3.

Formal instruction helps learners to produce

grammatically correct language.

4.

Student use of language does not involve

conscious knowledge of the grammatical
system and how it works.

5.

Students can improve their grammatical

accuracy through frequent practice of
structures.

6.

Students need a conscious knowledge of

grammar in order to improve their language.

7.

Practice of structures must always be within

a full, communicative context.

452

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

8.

Separate treatment of grammar fails to

produce language knowledge which students
can use in natural communication.

9.

Students need to be consciously aware of

a structures form and its function before
they can use it prociently.

10. The separation of work with a grammar

focus from the rest of the language syllabus
is useful for students.

11. Decontextualised practice of structures has

a place in language learning.

12. Productive practice of structures is a

necessary part of the learning process.

13. Grammar is best taught through work

which focuses on message.

14. Participating in real-life tasks with language

is the best way for students to develop their
grammatical knowledge.

15. Students learn grammar more successfully

if it is presented within a complete text.

16. Teachers should only correct student

errors of form which interfere with
communication.

17. Comparison and contrast of individual

structures is helpful for students learning
grammar.

18. Form-focused correction helps students

to improve their grammatical performance.

19. Grammar is best taught through a focus

on individual structures.

20. Explicit discussion of grammar rules is

helpful for students.

453

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

SECTION TWO: STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITH

GRAMMAR.
These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in the
classroom. Again please indicate your agreement or disagreement with these statements as above.
Disagree

Agree

1.

My students nd it dicult 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 onesentence examples.

5.

My students prefer to nd matches between meaning

and structure for themselves.

6.

My students nd it dicult to handle grammar

presented within authentic texts.

7.

My students nd authentic texts dicult because of

the wide variety of structures which appear.

8.

My students nd authentic texts dicult because they

are too culture bound.

9.

My students nd authentic texts dicult because of

the vocabulary used.

10. My students cannot nd form-function matches in

authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers.

11. Teachers nd the use of authentic material too

time-consuming.

12. Teachers nd it dicult to produce tasks of a

suitable level from authentic texts.

454

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

13. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my

students feeling insecure.

14. My students nd grammatical terminology useful.

15. Teachers nd it dicult to correct student errors

of grammar within a written communicative
context.

16. Teachers nd it dicult to correct student errors

of grammar within a spoken communicative context.

17. My students nd it dicult to improve the accuracy

of their grammatical language within a totally
communicative writing activity.

18. My students nd it dicult to improve the

accuracy of their grammatical language within
a totally communicative speaking activity.

19. My students nd it dicult to use grammatical

terminology.

20. My students are frustrated by problem-solving

techniques for learning grammar.

Please add any further comments which you have about your approach to the
teaching of grammar and any problems with grammar which occur in the classroom.

SECTION THREE: INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR TEACHING

SITUATION.

Name of department:
Name of course you are teaching at present:
Number of students in class:
Do you teach general or subject-specic EAP? If you specialise in one area,
please indicate what this is (e.g. Science, Economics, Law, Social Science etc.)

455

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

How long have you taught academic English?(please tick one)

less than one year

13 years

35 years

more than 5 years
Are you a full-time EAP teacher?

yes/no

What other types of teaching do you do? (please tick as appropriate)

General English

Business English

English for Science and Technology

ESL support in schools

Other (please specify)
Please add any other information about your teaching situation which you feel may
be of interest to this survey.

MANY THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.

TABLE OF RESULTS
Item
number

1.1a
1.1c
1.12
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.20

Frequency of responses
(1=Strongly disagree;
5=strongly agree)

Valid percentages
(1=Strongly disagree;
5=strongly agree)

0
missing
value

4
24
2
3
0
9
0
1
12
1
0
5
0
1
1

5
17
2
9
4
13
1
11
11
6
6
17
2
9
2

9
6
8
11
7
18
11
14
8
16
15
16
16
11
12

21
0
24
15
25
4
30
17
10
14
19
7
23
24
21

7
0
11
10
12
2
6
5
7
10
8
2
7
3
12

2
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0

8.7
51.1
4.3
6.3
0
19.6
0
2.1
25.0
2.1
0
10.6
0
2.1
2.1

10.9
36.2
4.3
18.8
8.3
28.3
2.1
22.9
22.9
12.8
12.5
36.2
4.2
18.8
4.2

19.6
12.8
17.0
22.9
14.6
39.1
22.9
29.2
16.7
34.0
31.3
34.0
33.3
22.9
25.0

45.7
0
51.1
31.3
52.1
8.7
62.5
35.4
20.8
29.8
39.6
14.9
47.9
50.0
43.8

15.2
0
23.4
20.8
25.0
4.3
12.5
10.4
14.6
21.3
16.7
4.3
14.6
6.3
25.0

456

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.9
2.11
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.19
2.20

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

0
1
1
3
0
10
1
0
9
5
6
3

3
3
1
21
7
18
5
1
27
20
16
23

19
12
2
14
15
11
8
19
7
8
14
17

18
26
28
6
18
7
25
23
3
12
9
1

6
5
15
1
7
0
6
4
0
2
1
1

2
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3

0
2.1
2.1
6.7
0
21.7
2.2
0
19.6
10.6
13.0
6.7

6.5
6.4
2.1
46.7
14.9
39.1
11.1
2.1
58.7
42.6
34.8
51.1

41.3
25.5
4.3
31.1
31.9
23.9
17.8
40.4
15.2
17.0
30.4
37.8

39.1
55.3
59.6
13.3
38.3
15.2
55.6
48.9
6.5
25.5
19.6
2.2

13.0
10.6
31.9
2.2
14.9
0
13.3
8.5
0
4.3
2.2
2.2

References
Batstone, R., 1994a. Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Batstone, R., 1994b. Product and process: grammar in the second language classroom. In: Bygate, M.,
Tonkyn, A., Williams, E. (Eds.). Grammar and the Language Teacher. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
pp. 224236.
Block, D., 1998. Tale of a language learner. Language Teaching Research 2.2., 148176.
Blue, G.M., 1993. Noting succeeds like linguistic competence: the role of language in academic success. In:
Blue, G.M. (Ed.), Language Learning and Success: Studying through English. Review of English Language Teaching 3/1. MET/British Council.
Borg, S., 1998. Teachers pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1).
Borg, S., 1999a. The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: a qualitative
study of teachers practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics 20 (1), 95126.
Borg, S., 1999b. Teachers theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal 53 (3), 157167.
Borg, S., 1999c. Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. System 27 (1), 1931.
Brindley, G., 1984. Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. NSW
Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., Thurrell, S., 1997. Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in
communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly 31 (1), 141152.
Celce-Murcia, M., Hilles, S., 1988. Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Cohen, L., Manion, L.C., 1994. Research Methods in Education. Routledge, London.
Davies, L., 1997. Interviews and the study of management. In: Crossley, Vulliamy (Eds.), Qualitative
Educational Research in Developing Countries. Garland, London.
Doughty, C., Varela, J., 1998. Communicative focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus
on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.
114138.
Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), 1998a. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Doughty, C., Williams, J., 1998b. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J.
(Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 197262.
Ellis, R., 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

457

Ellis, R., 1997. SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ellis, R., 1998. Teaching and research: options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 3960.
Ellis, R., 2001. Introduction: Investigating Form-Focused Instruction. Language Learning. Supplement 1:
Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning 51, 146.
Etherington, S., 1997. Teachers Attitudes to the Teaching of Grammar within the Context of English for
Academic Purposes. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Manchester.
Fortune, A., 1992. Self-study grammar practice: learners views and preferences. English Language
Teaching Journal 46 (2), 160171.
Fotos, S., 1994. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar
consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly 28, 323351.
Grundy, P., 1993. Student and Supervisor Perceptions of the role of English in Academic Success. In:
Blue, G.M. (Ed.), Language Learning and Success: Studying through English. Review of English Language Teaching 3/1. MET/British Council.
Hall, N., Shepheard, J., 1991. The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. Longman, London.
Imssalem, N., 1997. Communicative Pedagogic Grammar for Learning Another Language. Unpublished
PhD Thesis, University of Manchester.
Johnson, K., 1992. The relationship between teachers beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for
non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behaviour 24 (1), 83108.
Jordan, R., 1997. English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Karavas-Doukas, E., 1996. Using attitude scales to investigate teachers attitudes to the communicative
approach. ELT Journal 50 (3), 187198.
Krashen, S., Terrell, T., 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Pergamon, Oxford.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 1991. Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT
Journal 45 (2), 98107.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 1994. The post-method condition: emerging strategies for second/foreign language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28 (1), 2748.
Leki, I., Carson, J., 1994. Student perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the
disciplines. TESOL Quarterly 28 (1).
Leki, I., 1995. Good writing: I know it when I see it. In: Belcher, D., Braine, G. (Eds.), Academic Writing
in a Second Language. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ.
Long, M.H., 1991. Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, K.,
Ginsberg, R., Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 3952.
Long, M.H., Robinson, P., 1998. Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.). pp. 1541.
Macrory, G., 2000. Learning to Teach Grammar in the MFL classroom and some implications for Initial
Teacher Education. Research In Education 64, 111.
Murphy, R., 1985. English Grammar in Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pajares, F. (1992) Teachers beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research 62(3), 307332.
Robinson, P.C., 1991. ESP Today: A Practitioners Guide. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Schmidt, R., 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 10, 209
231.
Schultz, R., 1996. Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students and teachers views on error
correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals 29 (3), 343364.
Schultz, R., 2001. Cultural dierences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar
instruction and corrective feedback: USAColombia. The Modern Lang Journal 85 (ii), 244258.
Soars, J., Soars, L., 1986. Headway Intermediate. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Spratt, M., 1999. How good are we at knowing what learners like? System 27, 141155.
Stern, H.H., 1990. Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In: Harley, B.,
Allen, P., Cummins, J., Swain, M. (Eds.), The Development of Second Language Prociency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 93109.

458

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458

Stern, H.H., 1992. Issues and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Swain, M., 1998. Focus on form through conscious reection. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on
Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 6481.
Thornbury, S., 1997. Grammar, power and bottled water. IATEFL Newsletter 140.
Thornbury, S., 1998. Comments on Marianne Celce-Murcia, Zoltan Dornyei and Sarah Thurrells
Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in communicative language teaching? A reader
reacts. . .. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 109119.
Tonkyn, A., Locke, C., Robinson, P., Furneaux, C., 1993. The EAP teacher: prophet of doom or eternal
optimist? EAP teachers predictions of students success. In: Blue, G.M. (Ed.), Language Learning and
Success: Studying through English. Review of English Language Teaching 3/1. MET/British Council.