ramesh photo

English Grammar and the Views of M.Ed. Students

                                                                                                 Ramesh Prasad Ghimire*

  Abstract

This research explores  the M.Ed.(Masters in Education) level students’ perception of English grammar and grammar syllabus for M.Ed. level in Nepal. It also investigates their knowledge of and attitude towards grammar teaching. The researcher used a set of questionnaire as a tool for data collection. The data were collected from  a total of one hundred M.Ed. level students who were studying at University Campus, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, and  then analyzed  quantitatively as well as qualitatively. The overall findings of the survey revealed that M.Ed. level students in Nepal consider grammar as an unavoidable component of M. Ed. course. Majority of them argued in favour of explicit grammatical knowledge, and displayed positive attitude towards grammar teaching. But they are still in confusion regarding the goal of teaching grammar and level of language that need to be emphasized during grammar instruction. Their pedagogical knowledge in relation to grammar teaching is inadequate.

Key words: Simplification, Fluency, Restructuring, Grammar, Fossilisation,

Consciousness raising

Introduction

Grammar is one of the most controversial aspects of language teaching. Among many issues surrounding the teaching of grammar, perhaps the most controversial is whether to teach it or not. Different approaches, methods, teachers, theorists and learners have different attitudes to the role of grammar. Thornbury (1999, p. 14) says, ” In fact, no other issue has so preoccupied theorists and practitioners as the grammar debate, and the history of language teaching is essentially the history of the claims and counterclaims for and against the teaching of grammar.” The history of language teaching shows that grammar occupied the prominent position within the centuries- old tradition of language learning dominated by Latin and Greek. In the oldest method of language teaching (i.e. Grammar Translation Method) the study of language meant primarily the study of grammar . In this regard, Richards and Renandya (2002) write:

In the early part of the twentieth century, grammar formed an essential part of language instruction, so much so that other aspects of language learning were either ignored or downplayed. The argument was that if you knew the grammatical rules of the language, you would be able to use it for communication (p. 145).

With the advent of Communicative Language Teaching(CLT), such an emphasis on grammar was strongly challenged in the early 1970s. It was argued that grammatical competence is only one part of communicative competence. By the early 1980s grammar had lost the original supremacy it had once held in mother tongue and foreign language teaching , especially in Britain and the United States. A number of factors were responsible for the decline of grammar. Some of them include:

  • the rejection of prescriptivism by the structural linguists;
  • the questioning of the pre- eminent status of standard dialects and forms of pronunciation and of the written language by the sociolinguists;
  • the questioning of the notion of correctness by the sociolinguists;
  • the rejection of the form- focused instruction by the second language acquisition researchers , especially by Krashen;
  • the emergence of the Communicative Language Teaching Movement;
  • the emphasis on the learner’s internalized (or I) language by Chomsky.

In recent years, educationists, theorists, researchers and practitioners have shown their interest in teaching grammar. In fact, this is considered to be the era of rediscovery of grammar, or the revival of interest in grammar. Today, grammar enjoys a key role in English language classrooms despite some arguments against its explicit teaching.

Many SLA researchers have argued that some attention to form in the form of error correction or consciousness -raising (CR) is vital for successful language acquisition (Ellis 2003). They have also pointed out that in the absence of formal instruction learners run the risk of premature fossilization. Therefore,  we are not in a position to reject the teaching of grammar. In this context, it is worth quoting Celce- Murcia and Hilles (1988). They say: “In any case, it is clear that no one should dismiss grammar instruction altogether because there is no empirical evidence that to do so is ultimately more beneficial to second language learning (p. 14).It seems that the debate regarding the role of grammar in language teaching never stops. Therefore, it seems more plausible to see the arguments for the teaching of grammar.

The Case for Teaching Grammar

There are several arguments put forward in favor of putting grammar in second language teaching. Ur (1996) argues that ability to communicate effectively is probably not attained most quickly or efficiently through the pure communicative practice in the classroom.”There is no doubt that a knowledge – implicit or explicit of grammatical rule is essential for the mastery of a language” (Ur as cited in Thornbury 1999, p.14). Similarly, Hutchison argues that a sound knowledge of grammar is essential if pupils are going to use English creatively. Thornbury (1999) provides the following seven arguments for putting grammar in language teaching.

The sentence machine argument: According to this argument, grammar works as a kind of sentence- making machine for the learners. It means that grammar has limited rules which help the learners to generate infinite numbers of new sentences. Learning the complex system of language is impossible only by learning individual items through memorization.

The fine- tuning argument: According to this argument, knowledge of grammar helps the learners to express meaning clearly or explicitly. In other words, knowledge of grammar is required to increase intelligibility as well as appropriacy in the use of language, and to avoid ambiguity. In the absence of grammar, individual words cannot express a wide range of meanings.

The fossilisation argument: This argument suggests that the teaching of grammar counters the risks of fossilization. Fossilization is a process in which a learner’s second language system stops at some more or less deviant stage. Research suggests that learners who do not receive grammar instruction (either formal or self-directed) are at risk of fossilizing their linguistic competence.

The advance- organiser argument: According to this argument, grammar instruction might have a delayed effect on the acquisition of language. Although grammar instruction may not help the  learners to produce language immediately, it certainly helps them to notice the forms or certain features of the target language in future. Schmidt (1990) from his own experience of learning Portuguese in Brazil concluded this fact. He also concluded that noticing is a prerequisite for acquisition.

The discrete item argument: According to this argument, grammar enables us to cut language into different learnable and teachable units. It is possible to make language digestible by organizing it into neat categories, i.e. discrete items because of grammar. Grammar helps us to reduce the complexity of language learning task because it consists of finite set of rules. Each discrete item can be isolated from the language that normally involves it.

The rule of law argument: According to this argument, grammar offers the teacher a structured system that can be taught and tested in methodical steps. Grammar is a system of learnable rules which can be transferred from those who have the knowledge to those who do not have. In this way grammar lends itself to a transmission view of teaching and learning. Such a view is typically associated with the kind of institutionalized learning where rules, order and discipline are highly valued.

The learner expectations argument (1): According to this argument, grammar is put in language teaching because of learners’ expectation to learn grammar. May learners expect  that learning grammar makes their language learning more efficient and systematic. Many learners come to language classes with fairy fixed expectations as to what they will do there. If the students have come from the educational tradition which encourages transmission view of learning, they may expect grammar focused lesson.

Grammar Requirements for Teachers

 According to Leech, a language teacher has to have some other requirements in addition to grammatical competence. He argues that the teacher needs a ‘mature communicative knowledge’ of grammar, and the teachers’ understanding of grammar should be strongly meaning- and communication- related. Leech perceives grammar teacher as the learner, mediator, knower of grammar and the grammarian (i.e. teacher-as grammarian). Teachers should be aware of awkward reality of language. It is not sufficient for them to know some over-simplified prescriptive rules. Grammar requirements for teachers as discussed by Leech are explained below:

Grammar as a communicative system : A language teacher should be able to put across a sense of how grammar interacts with the lexicon as a communicative system. It means that s/he should be able to relate syntax and morphology to semantics and pragmatics. To put even simply, a language teacher should know the relationship between grammatical form, its meaning and function in various contexts. In the context of foreign language teaching and learning, communicative ability appears to be very important goal. For effective communication both systematicness and communicativeness are essential.

Analysing learners’ grammatical difficulties : A model teacher of language should be able to analyse the grammatical problems that learners encounter. A mature communicative knowledge of grammar enables the teacher to maintain a balance between productive and receptive learning. The productive side of grammar learning is more controllable than receptive one. In reading and listening  to a foreign language, learners will encounter a wide range of grammatical phenomena than their explicit knowledge can deal with. So, they need help with the problems they encounter. While responding to the learners’ problems, the teachers need to use their own mature knowledge of grammar.

Evaluating the use of grammar: A model teacher of language should be able to evaluate the learners’ use of grammar, against the criteria of accuracy, appropriateness and expressiveness. Mature communicative knowledge of grammar helps the teachers to evaluate the learners’ spoken and written productions (i.e. the productive side of grammar), and to give appropriate guidance, especially for developing writing skills. With that knowledge the teachers should be able to judge the likely sources of errors, the best strategies for responding to errors and ways of restructuring the learners’ developing grammar system where necessary.

Contrastive grammar: A language teacher should be aware of the contrastive relations between the learners’ native language and foreign language they are learning. It means that the teachers should be sensitive to L1/L2 contrast because they benefit greatly if they have a knowledge of, and sensitivity to, the ways in which the two languages differ. The knowledge of contrastive grammar helps them to identify problem areas for the learners and to make effective grammar explanation while giving feedback to the learners on their speaking and writing.

Processes of simplification: A teacher, with mature communicative knowledge of grammar, should be aware of the need for simplicity. Simplification of the target language is essential for presenting overt knowledge of grammar to learners at different stages of learning. There is a difference between teachers’ grammar and learners’ grammar. Ideally, the teacher has a mature grammatical knowledge, whereas the learner has only a developing proto- system, an immature competence necessarily incomplete and oversimplified. The learners will have difficulty in understanding grammatical explanation made by the teacher due to several factors such as grammatical terminology, abstract rules, quasi-mathematical symbols and so on. Hence the need for simplification.

The Current Status of Grammar

The present situation is considered to be the period of rediscovery of grammar. There is a widespread belief that, with the introduction of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), attention to grammar was abandoned, and the emphasis was on  experiential learning and purely communicative goals. However, this belief is only partially true. Syllabuses which appeared in the 1970s  seemed to marginalize grammar in favor of communicative  functions. But a closer look at these syllabuses shows that they often had a strong grammatical basis. Thornbury (1999) clearly states that we are experiencing a grammar revival and puts forward paying attention to form argument. This argument underlies the following two influential theoretical concepts:

Focus on form

This  concept is a reaction to Krashen’s claim that classroom learning is a waste of time. Krashen makes a distinction between acquisition and learning, and says that grammar teaching; i.e. attention to the forms of language lies in the domain of learning, and it has no influence on language acquisition. But more recently scholars like McLaughlin and Schmidt have questioned Krashen’s idea that what had been formally learned could not pass into the acquired  system and be available for spontaneous use. The recent research suggests that without some attention to form, learners run the risk of fossilization, i.e. their linguistic system stops to develop further. Therefore, we need to direct the learner’s attention to form.

Consciousness raising

This concept goes against Krashen’s claim that acquisition is a largely unconscious process. He says that what is required for acquisition is comprehensible input. But other theorists argue that acquisition involves conscious process, of which the most fundamental is attention. Helping learners attend to language items may help them acquire those items. Consciousness raising involves pointing out the features of grammatical system. The scholars who have argued for an approach to grammar teaching based on consciousness- raising (e.g. Rutherford, 1987) have speculated that consciousness raising may be particularly valuable in helping learners to ‘reset’ their L1 parameters to the form required by the L2.

Thus, today we are  in a position to argue in favor  of teaching grammar. The teacher’s energies should be directed towards providing opportunities to the learners for authentic language  use, using grammar as a resource rather than an end in itself.

The Study

The study aims to address the following issues: (i) How do M. Ed. students in Nepal perceive English grammar and the  grammar syllabus for M.Ed. level? (ii) What is their knowledge about, and  attitude towards grammar teaching?  The population of this study was M.Ed. level students who had got some grammar instruction. The sample size consisted of 100 M. Ed. level students studying in University Campus, Kirtipur, Kathmandu. The sample was taken through purposive non-random sampling procedure. I believe that this selection strategy for the respondents extends the possibility of generalization of the study. To collect primary data, one structured questionnaire was developed containing 8 closed ended and 2 open-ended questions. The respondents were requested to show their response by ticking the alternatives given, and by writing something in case of open-ended questions. The data was analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Results and Discussion

Grammar as a Necessary Component of M.Ed. Course

Grammar has become an unavoidable component of different language courses  from school  to university level in Nepal. In each and every English course there is some  room for grammar. I was interested to find out whether the M.Ed. level students in Nepal perceive grammar as a necessary component of English course or not. Therefore, the respondents were inquired whether grammar needs to be incorporated as a necessary component of M. Ed. course. The  result shows that a vast majority (i.e. 98%) of the respondents opined that it is necessary to keep grammar as an integral part of M.Ed. course. But the responses varied regarding why it should be kept in a course. The majority of the respondents argued that it is necessary for effective teaching of language (here English). Some of them opined that grammar helps learners to address the learners’ grammatical problems. While analyzing all the responses the reasons for teaching grammar as perceived by M.Ed. students can be categorized into the following four types:

Grammar for effective teaching: As mentioned already the majority of the respondents opined that grammar is necessary for effective teaching. They opined that grammar helps the teachers to develop confidence as well as competence in teaching language. Similarly, grammar is essential for addressing the learners’ grammatical problems, and  for providing necessary feedback and correction. Teaching and learning of a foreign language is almost impossible in the absence of adequate grammatical knowledge.

Grammar for linguistic competence: Some of the respondents in my survey argued that  teaching grammar helps our learners  develop linguistic competence. It develops accuracy in the learners’ language. Grammar teaching is instrumental in developing the learners’ ability to produce grammatically correct sentences. grammar instruction makes the learners language more systematic.

Grammar for effective communication: Some of the respondents in the survey said that grammar is necessary for effective communication. Grammar helps the learners to bring clarity in their language. It is essential for intelligibility in communication. Grammar makes the learners language more meaningful, fluent and clear. So far is the written communication is concerned, the value of grammar is even more.

Grammar for academic purpose: Grammar is also important for different academic activities including linguistic research, language standardization process, testing language ability, material development, curriculum development, and course design. Some of the respondents argued that grammar is necessary in M. Ed. in order  to complement the bachelor level course, which is not complete in itself.

Two percent of the total respondents argued that it is not necessary to keep grammar  as a necessary part of M.Ed. course. One of them opined,”… because it is time consuming and hampers communication due to the upcoming errors.

Thus it seems that the issue of whether grammar has to be taught or not is over now. The issue is not whether  to teach it or not but how to teach it in an effective way.

Grammar Requirements for the Teachers

Knowing a grammar mean different thing for different people. For effective teaching of grammar or language the teacher needs to have different kinds of grammatical knowledge, abilities and skills. One question was intended to find out the type of grammatical knowledge, abilities and skills that the students feel important for them. The majority of the respondents argued for explicit knowledge for grammar. For most of the respondents knowing a grammar meant having explicit knowledge about the formal system of language. The necessary grammatical abilities and skills as perceived by the learners are given below:

Knowledge about grammatical system: Majority of the respondents in the survey opined that knowing a grammar means knowing the formal system of language, i.e. the knowledge of grammatical rules. For them having the knowledge of morphology, phonology, syntax and semantics makes one a perfect grammar teacher. The teachers must have the ability to produce and understand grammatically correct sentences. They must have not only the ability to speak correct and fluent English but also the ability to write grammatically correct language for various purposes. Some of them even argued that knowledge about different grammatical concepts and categories, grammatical terminologies, fluent speaking capacity is vital for a grammar teacher. This is in fact a narrow view about grammar.

Ability to use grammar for communication: Some of the respondents said that the teachers need to have the ability to use grammar for communicative purposes. They opined that having the formal, structural knowledge of grammar is not sufficient for the language teacher. The teacher need to have the ability to communicate effectively with a good command over the spoken English. They must possess the updated knowledge and ability to take part in real communicative context with other speakers of English.

Methodological knowledge and skills for grammar teaching: A great number of respondents argued that the teachers need to have the knowledge and skill of teaching grammar effectively. They need to have the knowledge of methods and techniques associated with teaching grammar. Knowledge about different theories of  teaching grammar is also vital for them. They should know how to teach grammar through rules, through examples and through texts.

Pedagogical knowledge and skills for teaching grammar: For some of the respondents, knowing a grammar goes beyond the domain of language and incorporates the abilities and skills related to teaching grammar effectively. It includes the things like the ability to choose and use appropriate resources for teaching, ability to maximize learner participation in the  activities, knowledge regarding how much to teach at what level, knowledge of classroom management and classroom dynamics, ability to motivate students, ability to handle difficult situation in the classroom, ability to adjust the level of own speech according to the level of the learners and many more, ability to address diversity in the classroom, knowledge about the learner psychology and many more.

The Ultimate Goal in Teaching Grammar

The aim of teaching grammar can be different. It is affected by several factors like the need of the learners, learners language proficiency, level at which we are teaching and many more. It depends also  on the type of syllabus we are following. The respondents were asked to decide the ultimate goal in teaching grammar by choosing the give options, plus giving their own responses. The table below represents the responses obtained:

Table1: The Ultimate Goal in Teaching Grammar

S.N. Options Responses (in percentage)
1. To enable learners to produce correct sentences. 29
2. To make learners perfect in grammatical concepts and  categories. 23
3.  Other 48
a. To develop communicative competence. 17
b. To develop fluency, accuracy and appropriacy. 13
c. To develop linguistic competence. 5
d. To enable learners to teach grammar. 4
e. To develop confidence in the teacher. 3
f. To develop native like proficiency. 3
g. To develop writing skill. 2
h. To develop the ability to analyze language. 1

As the table above shows twenty nine percent to the total respondents argued that the ultimate goal of teaching grammar is to enable the learners to  produce correct sentences. Twenty three percent of them argued that making the learners perfect in grammatical concepts and categories should be the important aim in teaching grammar. Likewise, seventeen percent of them argued that the final goal should be the development of communicative competence. Similarly, some other respondents have chosen their own proffered goals in teaching grammar. For instance,  two percent of the total respondents said that the development of the writing skill should be the significant goal in teaching grammar. The conclusion that we can draw from the data is that M. Ed. level students are not clear in themselves so far as the question of the goal of teaching grammar is concerned.

The Need for Simplification

The simplification of grammatical concepts and rules is one of the important features of any pedagogical grammar as well as that of a grammar teacher. The respondents were asked whether it is necessary to simplify the grammatical concepts and categories while teaching. A vast majority of the respondents (i.e.,97%) argued in favour of simplification, and only three percent of them were against simplification. The  reasons they have given for the necessity of such simplification varied considerably, however. Some of the reasons are given below:

  • To facilitate the learners’ understanding process.
  • To make teaching effective.
  • To reduce teaching time and hence increase efficiency in teaching.
  • To increase ease in learning.
  • To address learner differences in the classroom.
  • To bring clarity in grammar explanation.
  • To address learners’ expectation of simplification.
  • To make grammar lesson interesting by avoiding complexity and ambiguity.

The respondents argued that  simplification is necessary because the rules of the target language are difficult to understand. The learners  are not as qualified as teachers. So, they need some simple rules to understand the grammatical concepts. Moreover, the grammatical terminologies are a prerequisite to understanding of different concepts. The simplification is more important for the beginners than for intermediate and advanced learners.

The three percent respondents who were against simplification argued that over simplification may distort the reality of language. At the advanced level, they opined, grammar rules should not be simplified.

 The most Effective Method of Teaching Grammar

There are different methods of teaching grammar which are used in different contexts by different teachers. The respondents were asked which method of teaching grammar, in their view, was the most effective. The following table represents the  responses obtained:

Table 2: The  most Effective Method of Teaching Grammar

S.N. Options Responses (in percentage)
1. Inductive 68
2. Text- based 31
3. Deductive 15
4. Other: Songs, TBLT approach, drills, story, native speakers’ speech, classroom context 6

Note: The respondents were allowed to indicate more than one response, so column totals exceed 100%.

As the above table displays the majority of the total respondents(i.e., 68%) opined that inductive approach is the most effective approach to teaching grammar. Only thirty one percent of them thought that text-based approach is the effective one, and fifteen percent of them argued that deductive is more useful. Six percent of the respondents of the idea that other approaches and  classroom techniques such as TBLT and songs are more useful for this purpose. What can be inferred from the data is that the majority of the respondents prefer to use inductive approach to teaching grammar. A very few respondents argued that no  single method can be the most effective one in all situations. According to  the level of the learners, their interest,    need and other situational contexts we have to use more than one approach.

The Prime Focus while Teaching Grammar

While teaching grammar the  focus can be  on any aspect of language. It can be accuracy, fluency or restructuring. Accuracy is concerned with grammatical correctness, fluency with the ease and fast use of language with the features of natural communication, and restructuring with making the system of language  more advanced by the learners. One question was given to  find out the respondents’ idea regarding the major aspect  that need to be focused while teaching grammar. The table below represents the responses obtained.

Table 3: The Prime Focus while Teaching Grammar

S.N. Options Responses (in percentage)
1. Accuracy 20
2. Fluency 10
3. Restructuring 14
4. All of the above 68
5. Other: Communicative competence 1

Note: The respondents were allowed to indicate more than one response, so column totals exceed 100%.

As it is shown in the above table majority of the respondents (i.e., 68%) were of the opinion that the development of all accuracy, fluency and restructuring should be the main focus in teaching grammar. Only twenty percent of them indicated accuracy, ten percent fluency and fourteen percent restructuring. One percent of the respondents argued that development of the communicative competence should be the main goal in teaching grammar. The data shows that most of the M.Ed. level students focus on three competing aims of accuracy, fluency and restructuring. Similarly, the students focus more on accuracy than on fluency.

The Level of Language that Need to be Emphasized

The recent realization is that there is grammar not only at sentence level but also at word level and the text level, and therefore the learners need to know more than how to form grammatically correct sentences in a language. They also need to know how language is used in the text and discourse level for the expression of wide range of meanings. The respondents were asked to indicate the level of language that need to be focused while teaching grammar. The following table shows the responses regarding this:

Table 4: The Level of Language that Need to be Emphasized

S.N. Options Responses (in percentage)
1. Sentence 57
2. Text/discourse 40
3. Word 12
4. All levels (depending on situation) 15

Note: The respondents were allowed to indicate more than one response, so column totals exceed 100%.

The above table displays that majority of the respondents (i.e.,57%) opined that the focus of grammar instruction should be the sentence. Similarly, forty percent of them argued that it is good to give examples at text or discourse level, twelve percent argued for word level and fifteen percent argued that the level of the learners determines which level of language we prioritize while giving examples. The data shows that still the majority of the M.Ed. level students emphasize on the sentence level grammar while teaching language. A good percentage of them (i.e.,40) have realized the value of text or discourse level grammar. However, whether they use the texts while teaching grammar is  still questionable.

The Issues that Need to be Focused on in M.Ed. Course

There are different areas of grammar that can be focused on  in grammar course for M. Ed level. One question was intended to find out the respondents opinion regarding this. The following table summarizes the responses obtained:

S.N. Options Responses (in percentage)
1. How to teach grammar 59
2. Grammatical terminology 26
3. The description of English grammar 17
4. All of the above 18
5. Othera. How to handle grammatical problems

b. Grammatical competence

c. Communicative competence

3

Table 5: The Issues that Need to be Focused on in M.Ed. Course

Note: The respondents were allowed to indicate more than one response, so column totals exceed 100%.

The above table clearly displays that the majority of the total respondents (i.e.59%) are of the opinion that how to teach grammar should be the main issue in M.Ed. course. Similarly, twenty six percent of them consider grammatical terminology as the major issue. Three percent of the respondents, however, think that there  are some other issues like handling the learners’ grammatical errors, grammatical competence and communicative competence that require major priority in M. Ed. course. The data indicates that methodology of teaching grammar is considered as the main issue that need to be focused by the M. Ed. students.

Conclusion

The research reveals that M.Ed. level students in Nepal consider grammar as an unavoidable component of M. Ed. course though they are not in agreement so far as the need of grammar for this level is concerned. Majority of the respondents argued in favour of explicit grammatical knowledge. For them, knowing a grammar means having the knowledge of formal grammatical system, being able to use grammar for communication, having methodological skill for grammar teaching and so on. The study shows that M. Ed. level students in Nepal are not clear about the ultimate goal in teaching grammar. The majority of the respondents are in favour of the need for  simplification. For them simplification of grammatical concepts and terminologies is crucial in helping the learners understand the grammatical concepts. Most of the respondents consider inductive approach as the best approach. The text-based approach is not well accepted by the teachers though it is a recent approach which came as an improvement to both deductive and inductive approaches to teaching grammar. Many of them still focus on sentence level grammar. Majority of the respondents are of the idea that how to teach grammar should be the main issue in teaching grammar. Overall, M.Ed. level students have positive attitude towards English grammar and the grammar course. But so far as teaching and learning of grammar is concerned they lack uniform view. They are in still in confusion regarding the goal of teaching grammar and level of language that need to be emphasized during grammar teaching. Their pedagogical knowledge in relation to grammar teaching is inadequate.

The Author

Ramesh Prasad Ghimire is a trainer of English at Educational Training Center, Surkhet. A life member of NELT (Nepal English Teachers Association), Mr. Ghimire is also the editor of the academic journal The Profession. His area of interest includes classroom diversity, English grammar, teacher education and critical pedagogy.

References

Andrews, S. (1994). The grammatical knowledge/awareness of native-speaker EFL teachers: What the trainers say. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A., & Williams, E. (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 69-89). New York: Printice Hall.

Bygate, M., Tonkyan, A. & Williams, E. (Eds.) (1994). Grammar and the language teacher. New York: Printice Hall.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching grammar. Oxford : OUP.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen – Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Chalker, S. (1994). Pedagogical grammar: Principles and problems. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 31-44). New York: Printice Hall.

Cowan, R. (2009). The teachers’ grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.

Cross, D. (2003). A practical handbook of language teaching. London: Prentice Hall.

Leech, G. (1994). Students’ grammar-Teachers’ grammar-Learners’ grammar. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 17-30). New York: Printice Hall.

Mitchell, R. (1994). Foreign language teachers and the teaching of grammar. In Bygate, M. Tonkyn, A., & Williams, E. (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 215-223). New York: Printice Hall.

Richards, J.C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (Eds.) (1999). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.

Richards, J. C. (2002). Addressing the grammar gap in task work. In Richards, J.C. & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.) Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 153-166). Cambridge : CUP.

Richards, J.C. & Renandya, W.A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.

Swan, M. (1994). Design Criteria for pedagogic language rules. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 45-55). New York: Prentice Hall.

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. London: Longman.

Williams, E. (1994). English grammar and the views of English teachers. In Bygate, M. Tonkyn, A., & Williams, E. (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 105-118). New York

 Appendix- I

Questionnaire to the Students

Dear students,                                                

This questionnaire is a research tool for gathering information for my research entitled “English Grammar and the Views of M.Ed. Students” The correct information provided by you will be of great help for the successful completion of this research. All the information collected through the questionnaire will be kept highly confidential and used only for research purpose. I would be grateful if you could kindly spare some time to complete the questionnaire below.

Name:Teaching experience:

Year:  Please tick ( M. Ed 1st        M. Ed 2nd )

  1. Is it necessary to keep grammar as a necessary part of M.Ed. course?

YES  □    No  □   Please mention the reason.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

  1. Is it necessary for an EFL/ESL teacher to have an adequate grammatical knowledge for effective teaching?

YES  □  No  □    Why? Please give reason.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

  1. What kinds of grammatical knowledge, abilities and skills do you feel are essential for a good EFL/ESL teacher? Please mention them.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

  1. What should be our ultimate goal in teaching grammar?
  2. to make our learners perfect in grammatical concepts and categories
  3. to enable the learners to produce correct sentences.
  4. other(specify)
  5. Is it necessary to simplify the grammatical concepts while teaching?

YES   □   No  □      Why? Please give reason.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

  1. What do you feel are the most effective methods for EFL teachers to teach grammar?
  2. teaching grammar from rules
  3. teaching grammar from examples
  4. teaching grammar through texts
  5. other(specify)
  6. While teaching grammar, our prime attention should be on:
  7. helping learners to develop accuracy
  8. helping learners to develop fluency
  9. helping learners to restructure their grammatical knowledge
  10. all of the above
  11. other(specify)
  12. While teaching grammar, it is better to give examples at:
  13. at word level
  14. at sentence level
  15. at text/discourse level
  16. other(specify)
  17. What issues related to grammar should be focused in M.Ed./M.A. English courses?
  18. the description of English grammar
  19. grammatical terminology
  20. how to teach grammar
  21. other(specify)
  22. Other comments

(*Mr. Ramesh Prasad Ghimire is Trainer of English, ETC, Surkhet. Mr. Ghimire completed his M. Ed. from the Central Department of English Education, Kirtipur. He taught in the same department for about two years before joining public service as a trainer of English. There are some articles and books in his credit. )

Advertisements

One response

  1. Scdcgopal Argha | Reply

    Hi Good morning Thank for it. Warm regards. Gopal Prasad Panthi SCDC/Arghakhanchi/Nepal Mobile 0977 9857028103 Email : scdcgopal@gmail.com Email: scdcgopal@yahoo.com Skype: gopalprasadpanthi23 http://www.scdc.org.np

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: