Focus on Grammar form - explicit or implicit

More recently, Schultz’s1996, 2001 papers both delineate differences between teachers and students intwo different language teaching contexts the USA and Colombia, with studentsmore favour

Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit?

John Burgess, Siaˆn Etherington

#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 nised for what it has always been (Thornbury, 1997, 1998): an essential, inescapablecomponent of language use and language learning Few would dispute nowadaysthat teaching and learning with a focus on form is valuable, if not indispensable.What perhaps are still the subject of debate are two points:

recog-1 the degree of explicitness such teaching and learning should display, and

2 the relationship of grammar-focused learning to learning activities with otherfoci

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

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 beenthe 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 andmethodologies The organisation of the discussion about the treatment of grammarhas been centred on comparison of teaching methodologies (e.g Grammar-Trans-lation vs Audio-Lingual) and on different classifications of approach (e.g Product

or Process teaching as described by Batstone, 1994a,b; the Analytical or Experientialdistinction proposed by Stern 1992) However, work over recent years has led to theadoption of new (or at least re-ordered) taxonomies for grammar instruction, basedaround the distinction, originally made by Long (1991), between Focus on FormS,Focus on Form and Focus on Meaning approaches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 tion in the use and definitions of these terms However, it appears to be generallyaccepted that Focus on FormS is characterised by a structuralist, synthetic approach

differentia-to language, where the primary focus of classroom activity is on language formsrather than the meanings they convey Focus on Form, in contrast, ‘consists of anoccasional shift of attention to linguistic code features—by the teacher or one ormore students’ (Long and Robinson, 1998, p 23) Doughty and Williams (1998a,

p 3) indicate that the Focus on Form approach provides learners an advantage overFocus on FormS teaching through the ‘cognitive processing support provided by theoverriding focus on meaning or communication’ They continue, ‘to state thisadvantage rather simply, the learners’ attention is drawn precisely to a linguisticfeature as necessitated by a communicative demand’

A third option is Focus on Meaning, an approach where classroom work iswholly concerned with communication of meaning but with no attention given tothe 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 conflate Focus on FormS and Focus on Meaning approaches withthe analytical and experiential options proposed by Stern (1992) However, Focus

on Meaning does not now feature as strongly in discussion concerning grammarteaching as it once did: cumulated evidence from research in grammar learning andSLA suggests that some conscious attention to form is necessary for languagelearning to take place (see Ellis, 2001 for summary of research to date) It is ques-tions around the nature of that attention which currently occupy researchers andcommentators in the field (e.g Swain, 1998; Doughty and Varela, 1998) with a great

deal of work concerned with the production of taxonomies of options for focused teaching.

form-For example, Ellis’ (2001, 14f) taxonomy of approaches within what he termsForm Focused Instruction covers Focus on FormS, Planned Focus on Form, andIncidental 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 interactionwith the forms (intensive interaction with one form in the case of planned focus andextensive interaction covering several forms for incidental focus)

Similarly, Doughty and Williams (1998b) have produced an extensive, detaileddiscussion of options within a Focus on Form approach along with an analysis ofclassroom tasks in terms of those options They too see choice between planned orincidental approach as significant (framed around a choice between proactive orreactive approaches) but also discuss the options concerning the choice of linguisticform for focus, the extent of explicitness of focus on form, how focus on formshould be incorporated into a lesson (sequential or integrated) and its place withinthe curriculum as a whole

Developments of this kind have produced a varied set of options for teachers tofollow in relation to pedagogical grammar The research described in this paperattempts to establish some of the choices favoured by one group of teachers within aparticular sector of the profession

2.2 Teacher attitudes to pedagogical grammar

Previous work on attitudes and perceptions within language learning suggests thatthere is often a disparity between students and teachers (e.g Kumaravadivelu, 1991;Spratt, 1999) Such mismatches are often found around the area of grammarteaching For example, Brindley’s (1984) research within Adult Migrant Education

in Australia found teachers more in favour of communicative activities, while dents preferred more formal, explicit grammar teaching More recently, Schultz’s(1996, 2001) papers both delineate differences between teachers and students intwo different language teaching contexts (the USA and Colombia, with studentsmore favourable than teachers towards formal teaching of grammar and explicitcorrection

stu-However, despite this lack of correspondence between teacher and student views,research evidence also suggests that teachers may take learner wishes and preferencesinto 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 ofexplicit grammar teaching fulfils several classroom management needs Theseinclude appeasing student concerns about lack of grammar, contributing to the pace

of lessons, and making fluency work more relevant to students (Borg, 1998) Thesesorts of issues weigh heavily enough with teachers to influence their decisions,despite personal reservations about the pedagogical effectiveness of such gramma-tical treatment Indeed, Borg (1998, pp 25–26) indicates the complexity of the deci-sion-making process for pedagogical grammar: he shows how conflicts occurbetween teacher cognitions in different areas (language, language learning, L2

learning, grammar teaching, students and teacher’s self) and how principles becomeblurred in the course of practice.

Within the EAP sector, surveys have indicated that language problems andgrammatical considerations are ranked fairly highly by students (e.g Blue, 1993;Grundy, 1993; Jordan, 1997, pp 46–47) Research also shows that academic tutorswithin universities feel that linguistic proficiency (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 otherareas of ELT, there is likely to be a mismatch between their attitudes and expecta-tions (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 EAPteachers specifically concerning grammar and grammar teaching, despite indicationsthat 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 inthe EAP sector feel about grammar teaching and their students’ problems withgrammar It could be argued that this group of teachers represent some of the mostsophisticated within the TESOL profession; certainly they tend to be well-qualifiedand teachers of long-standing Thus, their views may provide something of abenchmark for the profession Additionally, the learners within this sector tend to bemore advanced than those in other sectors, and, as decisions about grammar teach-ing may depend on proficiency level, it is of interest to see what choices these tea-chers make for these learners

3 The research

The earlier discussion indicates something of the ‘interesting times’ in whichgrammar teaching currently finds itself The wealth of research findings and accom-panying protracted discussion about grammar and its teaching (Thornbury, 1997,1998; Celce-Murcia et al., 1997; among others) mean that teachers are faced with apotentially 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 notoverlooked As Ellis (1998, p 58) points out, very little is known about how teacherstransform their technical knowledge about the teaching of grammar through theiractions 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 individualcontexts which play a large part in determining the kind of teaching which takesplace Thus, the beliefs and attitudes which influence teacher classroom decisions areimportant areas of study The research reported here aimed to fill some of the gaps

in this area by providing a picture of one group of teachers’ beliefs concerninggrammar and its teaching

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 byEAP teachers?

Is there a bias towards decontextualised presentation of grammar and awayfrom discourse-based, unified approaches?

3.2 Methods and materials

The research was mainly quantitative in design, using a questionnaire to surveyattitudes across a large group of teachers The questionnaire took the form of a five-point, Likert-type attitude scale, which was completed by EAP teachers in Britishuniversities Lengthier comments made by some of the teachers formed a body ofqualitative data Finally, background information provided by the respondentsallowed for the creation of a teacher profile

The context chosen was that of pre-sessional English for Academic Purposesclasses in British universities These are typically summer classes of between 8 and 12weeks attended by overseas students who are about to begin studies in the uni-versity It was hoped that teachers in this context would prove to be a readily iden-tifiable group Moreover, the specific nature of EAP classes would allow for as littlevariation as possible between class types Additionally, the presumed sophisticationand experience of teachers within this area permitted the inclusion of specialisedvocabulary within certain questions The choice of such a population also increasedthe possibility that subjects had some understanding/experience of the differentapproaches 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 questionnaireswere mailed to each unit for completion This meant that a total of 128 questionnaireswere dispatched It is believed that the targeted population provided a fair representa-tion of EAP teachers on British university pre-sessional English courses

It is important to acknowledge that a problem of ‘volunteer bias’ exists in thesample It represents only teachers who were sufficiently interested in the teaching ofgrammar to complete and return the questionnaires This bias could possibly havebeen lessened through interviews with non-respondents to allow comparison of

answers Interviews with respondents could have also established reasons for the return

of the questionnaire However, practicalities of time and funding prevented this optionbeing effected Thus, the survey is unable to comment on the beliefs of university-basedEAP teachers in general Nevertheless, the data collected are valuable, indicating theopinions of a substantial proportion of the population 48 replies were returned,representing a 37.5% response rate This sample size exceeds the number (30) whichCohen 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, backgroundreading led to the identification of certain dichotomies and continua within theteaching of language and of grammar in particular These were incorporated into aframework for a consideration of grammar teaching Key characteristics of eachwere identified as shown in Fig 1 These characteristics were used as the basis for aset of open-ended questions concerning the teaching of grammar and these weresubsequently completed by 12 MEd TESOL students (all experienced ESOL tea-chers) at Manchester University’s Centre for English Language Studies in Educa-tion Their responses were analysed for significant themes This element ofqualitative research before embarkation on quantitative, and necessarily broader,work allowed for the generation of feelings, beliefs and ideas about grammar which thelone 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).

about classroom implementation of grammar teaching principles were included inthe final questionnaire This process also enabled the researcher to discover proble-matic terms which were then altered or omitted in the final questionnaire Both help

to strengthen the validity of the research

The final questionnaire took the form of a Likert-type attitude scale (cf Doukas, 1996) with responses to statements made on a 1–5 scale of agreement.There was also some provision made for qualitative responses: teachers wereencouraged to provide additional comments about their grammar teaching in a finalopen-ended question The questionnaire was piloted with teachers from The EnglishLanguage Teaching Unit of Manchester University and further alterations madeaccordingly

Karavas-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 sufficient responses to be significant orproduced no clear trend.)

Fig 2 The typical respondent to the questionnaire.

A table showing responses to statements concerning these themes is provided inthe Appendix The data provide insight into attitudes relating to both theoreticalprinciples and classroom implementation of these principles As might be expected,responding teachers showed a great deal of concern about classroom application ofgrammar teaching approaches Implications of the results for both areas are discussedtogether with findings Qualitative comments often gave further information aboutindividual teachers’ beliefs and these are presented with the quantitative data whereappropriate Other significant findings which emerged from the qualitative data arereported 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 aboutthe role of grammar in language These asked for reaction to different views aboutgrammar’s role: as a framework for the rest of the language system; as the buildingblocks of language; as something which is added later to language proficiency; as anequal pillar supporting language proficiency Of these statements, two provoked aclear reaction Over 60% of respondents agreed that grammar could be viewed as aframework or a basic systemfor the rest of the language (statement 1.1a) However,the idea that grammar acts as something which is added on to language proficiency,

a refinement of more basic language knowledge, was clearly rejected by the teachers inthe survey (over 85% disagreed with this statement, 1.1c) It seems that this group ofteachers view grammatical accuracy as integral to language and communication, not

an optional add-on after basic communication has been achieved It can be inferredfrom these responses that this group of teachers would not feel comfortable with asyllabus which delayed teaching grammar until later in the learning process Theymay 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 differentiation inteaching styles, and one which is distinct from analytical/experiential approaches(Ellis, 1994, pp 362–363; Stern, 1992, 327ff.) The dichotomies of unconscious/con-scious learning and inductive/deductive teaching methods are both sometimes equatedwith the explicit/implicit teaching division The statements used here were based on theunconscious/conscious divide and use Stern’s (1992, 327f) characteristics for explicitand implicit teaching as a guide for individual items Attitudes to inductive and deduc-tive methods were also investigated through statements concerning explicit presenta-tion by teachers and students finding 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 toask teachers where they might place their EAP teaching on such a continuum Thequestions used touched both on how explicit teaching related to the principles ofgrammar teaching and on constraints which made teachers more or less likely to usesuch methods in the classroom

The strongest indication of agreement in the survey came on Question 2.3, (My dents expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly) This produced a mean score

stu-of 4.17 and over 90% stu-of responses were stu-of agreement or strong agreement This is not aparticularly surprising result Student expectations of traditional, explicit grammarteaching are familiar to many teachers (cf Borg, 1999a,b), and the popularity ofgrammar practice books for self-study purposes seems to confirm this view Theresponses here indicate that even with advanced, relatively sophisticated learners ofthe kind EAP teachers in universities tend to deal with, teachers believe that thisexpectation remains.

Responses to Question 2.13 (A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my dents feeling insecure) support the view that students prefer explicit grammar teach-ing Here just under 70% of responses were in categories 4 or 5, indicatingagreement or strong agreement A useful comparison can also be made with theresponses 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 asimilar pattern, with the number of replies in category 4, agreement, (43.8%) and cate-gory 5, strong agreement, (25%) indicating a favourable reaction to the statement.From these results it may be reasonable to conclude that while these teachers mayfeel that explicit teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because ofexpectations and feelings of security, the teachers also seem to support this approachfor pedagogical reasons of their own

stu-Further light is shed on this issue by the written additions made to the tionnaires by several teachers Analysis of this qualitative data seems to show thatteachers’ belief in the need for an explicit focus on grammar stems from somethingmore than the wish to please students or from teachers’ own learning experiences.Teachers wrote of ‘explicit’, ‘separate’, ‘analytical’ methods and ‘specific focus onform’ having a place in the teaching of grammar

ques-However, it is important to note that these views were also qualified in some way inadded comments to the questionnaire: teachers stated that a separate focus was onlyappropriate at certain stages of learning, either moving on from communicative tasks;

at intervals; or when students were already familiar with the form For example, oneteacher indicated different treatment for students on different types of course:

For most of our pre-sessional students (especially on a four-week course) wefocus more on structuring essays, presentations etc for longer courses, andespecially for weaker students, we focus more on grammar and language atsentence level’ (T36)

A follow-up interview with teachers may have produced more specific informationabout what teachers mean by explicit methods and teaching of grammar However,teachers’ responses to other questionnaire items which are concerned with aspects ofthe implicit–explicit continuum provide some further detail about their under-standing of, and orientation towards, this issue These are explored later

3.5.3 Instruction vs Exposure

The question of specific instruction is an important one in the implicit–explicitdebate Teachers’ feelings on this issue (is formal instruction necessary or is exposure to

input sufficient?) provide a good indication of their orientation Findings indicate thatmost of the respondents agree that it is possible to learn grammar through naturalexposure 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 toproduce grammatically correct language (over 70% of respondents agreed with thestatement Formal instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language.)These two results do not necessarily indicate a contradiction of opinion Onepossible interpretation is that these teachers believe in the possibility of learninggrammar through input alone, but feel that learning is helped by instruction Onecomment expressing this view was:

Moststudents at our university increase their oral communication competencebut not their linguistic competence during 1, 2 or even 3 years at the university.Their writing is as bad when they finish as when they started, unless they havehad formal language instruction I.e they do not ‘pick up’ grammar frommeaningful exposure to the language during their sojourn in Britain (I stressmost Some do pick it up.) (T27)

Replies here are linked to those concerning the relationship between declarativeand procedural knowledge and the role of consciousness in learning

3.5.4 Declarative and procedural knowledge

Statement 2.1 (My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledgeinto communicative language use)was designed to identify teachers’ beliefs concerningthe possible transference of knowledge about grammar (declarative knowledge) intoactual use of that knowledge in communication (procedural knowledge) Replies hereindicate teachers’ recognition of this process as a problem for many of their stu-dents: there is no evidence of strong disagreement and over 52% of replies are ofagreement or strong agreement (responses 4–5) A teacher comment which sup-ports this view is:

There is some disparity between knowledge of grammar and use of mar—i.e because a student does not use grammatically correct English in aspecific context does not mean that he or she lacks formal knowledge of thatstructure If you point out that there is an error, students can often self-cor-rect (T10)

gram-Teachers’ understanding of this gap in students’ grammatical ability is perhapsnot surprising for anyone who has taught at this level Most teachers are able torelate many examples of students who can recite grammatical rules perfectly, buthave difficulty putting them into practice It would be interesting to discover if tea-chers who recognise these shortcomings in their students are more likely to use anintegrated approach to grammar as a way of combating such problems; this is apossible direction for future research

3.5.5 The importance of conscious knowledge

Three statements attempted to ask teachers about their beliefs about the role ofconscious knowledge

1 in learners’ language use (Question 1.4: Student use of language does notinvolve conscious knowledge of the grammatical system and how it works);

2 in the improvement of their grammatical accuracy (Question 1.6: Studentsneed 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 structure’s form and its function before they canuse it proficiently)

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% rankStatement 1.4 as 1 or 2 indicating Disagreement) However, it is not clear exactly whatrole teachers believe that this knowledge plays in language use It may be that theyunderstand its function as a monitor of output, but see no other role for it The needfor conscious noticing as part of the learning process (Schmidt, 1990) is not necessarilyunderstood by teachers Indeed, statements 1.6 and 1.9 did not produce conclusiveresults Additionally, the apparent belief of some respondents that learning of grammarcan take place simply through exposure to input seems to corroborate this interpreta-tion Further research is required to investigate this area of belief in more detail.3.5.6 Comparison and contrast of structures

Comparison of different structures is used as a method for presenting differences ofmeaning 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 withmore explicit, focused-on-forms approaches to grammar teaching Teachers were askedabout the use of such techniques for the teaching of grammar (Question 1.17: Compar-ison and contrast of individual structures is helpful for students learning grammar).Responses indicate agreement among these teachers that such practices are helpful forstudents (61% of replies agreed with the statement, with only 4.2% indicating disagree-ment) Given the arguments against it (Etherington, 1997, p 110), it may be surprisingthat such numbers of teachers seem to agree that this is a useful technique However, thestatement does not specify at what stage of learning comparison and contrast of struc-tures is used Hence, although teachers may feel that later practice of different forms inthis way is satisfactory, they may not be so enthusiastic about endorsing this method ofinitialgrammar presentation Again, follow-up interviews with respondents might haveestablished this difference Nevertheless, a preference for this method may be inter-preted as an indication of a focus on formS approach no matter where it occurs in alesson

3.5.7 The use of grammatical terminology

The use of grammatical terminology in the classroom could be understood as anecessary part of an explicit approach to grammar teaching: when teachers and

students talk about grammar they need terminology Indeed, metalinguistic sion is seen by Stern (1992, p 327) as one of the characteristics of explicit languageteaching.

discus-Questions here sought to explore teachers’ perceptions of their students’ feelingsabout the use of grammatical terms For both questions 2.14, My students findgrammatical terminology useful and 2.19, My students find it difficult to use gram-matical terminology, there was a clear trend in responses The findings indicate thatthese teachers believe their students see grammatical terminology as useful (57% ofreplies showed agreement with statement 2.14) Similarly, there is some feeling thatits use does not present a particular difficulty for students (47% showed their dis-agreement 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 thegrammar-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 quently take the form of inductive techniques which challenge learners to find form-function matches for themselves (e.g Hall and Shepheard, 1991) Many other con-sciousness-raising techniques use similar problem-solving approaches (e.g Fotos,1994) The use of problem-solving techniques in consciousness raising tasks is seen

fre-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 find a solving approach motivating: positive responses to statement 2.2 (My students aremotivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) totalled more than60% of replies Negative responses to Question 2.20 (My students are frustrated byproblem-solving techniques for learning grammar) confirm this (57.8% of responsesranked this 1 or 2), showing that teachers generally feel that problem-solvingapproaches at this level do not produce frustration in the learners These answerscan 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 forthe use of language to perform a well-defined task, rather than work without apractical outcome

problem-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 lan-guage teaching techniques are particularly inappropriate for this sort of learner:Students at this level are often de-motivated by the ‘‘silly games’’ which areoften used in the ESOL classroom These students need more serious approa-ches to language learning (T48)

Many games and activities are too silly for the serious pre-sessional student.(T34)

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, wheretypical learner characteristics may be different

3.5.9 Correction of errors

Questions 1.16, 1.18, 2.15 and 2.16 produced significant results Teachers tended

to disagree with statement 1.16 (Teachers should only correct student errors of formwhich interfere with communication), with only 19% of respondents showing positivereplies This finding is supported by result for Statement 1.18 (Form-focused correc-tion helps students to improve their grammatical performance) Here 56% of the tea-chers indicated their agreement with the statement

From the earlier results, it might be inferred that teachers believe that errors ofform should be corrected, even where communicative goals are attained This needfor correction of form may indicate an awareness of the particular need of EAPstudents for accuracy and clarity It may also show a concern about fossilisation oferrors in learners’ interlanguage A concentration on errors of form within an over-all communicative setting can help to avoid such fossilisation

Questions in the second part of the questionnaire tackled the difference between rection of written and spoken communication Replies to question 2.15 (Teachers find itdifficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context)showed that the majority of teachers do not seem to have difficulty in correcting errorswithin written communication Seventy-eight per cent of respondents disagreed with thestatement It is interesting to compare responses to Question 2.15 with those to Question2.16 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken com-municative context) Here, although the mean response (2.7) suggests that teachers feltthat correction of spoken errors presented little difficulty, a fairly large number felt thatthis was a problem (almost 30% of respondents) It is interesting to note that thisnumber is significantly higher than those who felt that correction represented aproblem in the written mode (just over 6%) It could be concluded that teachersexperience more difficulty in correction during students’ spoken rather than writtencommunication

cor-Other questions in the survey focused on aspects of classroom practice moreclosely associated with implicit grammar teaching and learning Of these, responses

to items concerning the role of practice and the use of authentic texts were ofinterest

3.5.10 Presentation in authentic, complete texts

The choice of vehicle for presentation of grammar was focused on in statementsconnected with the use of authentic text for grammar work Authentic texts areunderstood 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 arecomplete and fully contextualised The antithesis of such vehicles for grammar pre-sentation are the one sentence, context-free illustrations of grammar used in manytext and practice books These decontextualised examples of language have been