Teaching Grammar in an ESL setting: Teachers’ beliefs and practices

(1)

Degree project in the major subject:

English Studies in Education

15 Credits, Second Cycle

Teaching Grammar in an ESL setting:

Teachers’ beliefs and practices

Grammatikundervisning i en ESL kontext: Lärares övertygelser och

utövande

Fredrika Hallonsten

Johannes Kleiman

Master of Arts/Science in Upper Secondary Education, 270/300 Credits

Advance level degree project in the major subject

Date for Opposition Seminar 2 June 2020

Examiner: Björn Sundmark Supervisor: Damon Tutunjian

Faculty of Education and Society Department of culture, languages

(2)

2

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge our supervisor Damon Tutunjian who has supported us

through this magnificent process. We would also like to acknowledge Covid-19 as it provided us with the opportunity to write this entire paper in our pyjamas.

(3)

3

Individual contributions

Fredrika Hallonsten and Johannes Kleiman have equally contributed to the following study. We decided on the research questions together, searched for information together, discussed all parts of the project actively throughout the entire process and have frequently given each other peer reviews on each other’s writing. Both authors took an active part in all the

interviews and the majority of the writing was conducted together. The entire paper was written in google docs to facilitate each other's insight into the different written parts.

The above statement is hereby authenticated by our signatures below:

(4)

4

Abstract

Grammar constitutes one of the core components of a language. It is thus problematic that a gap can be found between steering documents and teacher practices in Sweden. The steering documents provide minimal guidance for teachers regarding grammar instruction, which leads to teachers instead relying on their own beliefs to determine their practices. This qualitative study uses semi-structured interviews to examine to what degree the beliefs and practices in relation to English grammar instruction of four teachers in the southern part of Sweden align with three theoretical approaches to grammar teaching from the reviewed research: focus on formS (FonFs), focus on meaning and focus on form (FonF). The results are characterized by individuality in both teachers’ beliefs and practices, but can also be seen to be fundamentally similar in that, for each teacher, the steering documents provide minimal guidance, and factors such as context and the centrality of the learner in grammar instruction are important. All teachers show tendencies toward the three theoretical approaches, but their actual alignment shifts and varies depending on context. We conclude that the absence of direction from the steering documents has the potential to result in disparate and fractured grammar instruction that can negatively impact the learner. This is therefore an important area that should be further researched to ensure that teachers receive sufficient guidance for providing English grammar instruction.

(5)

5

1. Introduction

“Grammar is fundamental to language. Without grammar, language does not exist” (Fotos & Nassaji, 2011, p.1). Historically, one of the primary methods of English grammar teaching within the context of English as a second language (ESL) has been learning grammar through translating into one’s native language and memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules.

However, this method has proven to be highly ineffective in certain contexts with regard to students developing a communicative competence in English, as students can recount

grammar rules but not use English to communicate in these contexts (Fotos & Hinkel, 2008).

In the Swedish education context, the centrality and importance of communicative competence is visible in the National Agency for Education’s (Skolverket) steering documents. There, communicative skills comprise the main aim of learning the English language. For example, in the overall aim for English, it is stated that “students should be given the opportunity (…) to develop all-round communicative skills” (Skolverket, 2017a, p.1). In regard to which approach to grammar instruction should be taken given this overall focus on communicative competence, the steering documents do not provide an explicit directive within the scope of the subject. However, further explanation can be found in the commentary material for the documents, where “all-round communicative skills” are said to encompass students’ linguistic security, entailing the inclusion of grammar (Skolverket, 2017b, p. 2). On the other hand, it is stated that it is not mandatory to teach any specific approach; it is up to the teacher to instruct what they deem necessary to enhance students’ communication skills.

Long (1991) presents three main approaches to teaching grammar: focus on formS (FonFs), focus on meaning and focus on form (FonF). FonFs is characterized by dividing language, meaning grammar, into isolated units, which are taught in a sequential manner (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014; Laufer, 2006). The common teaching methodology practiced with FonFs is based on PPP: presenting the grammatical structure, practicing it in controlled exercises and lastly students’ ability to produce it naturally (Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2002). The focus on meaning approach is based on Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis as well as Krashen and Tyrrell’s (1983) natural approach to L2 acquisition. This approach aims to acquire

grammatical knowledge by “going for meaning” (Krashen, 1982, p. 21) and holds that through exposure to comprehensible input, students will be able to naturally acquire

(8)

8 grammatical structures. Lastly, the FonF approach stems from criticism against the

previously mentioned approaches (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014; Laufer, 2006; Mitchell, 2000; Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2002; Morrissey & Young, 2005), thus aiming for explicit grammar instruction, but with a heavy emphasis placed on acquiring grammar within a meaningful context.

The absence of a specific Skolverket directive with regard to which of these approaches should be taken results in a critical void in which teachers' own beliefs and interpretations have the ability to inform their practices of grammar instruction. Without proper guidance, teachers are left to their own beliefs when instructing grammar, leading to disparate and fractured approaches in classroom practices. Ultimately, this impedes the overall goals of the educational system: to provide equal education for all students (Skolverket, 2017a). The reviewed research shows that there is a dynamic relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices (Borg, 2001; Borg, 2003; Gulakjani & Sabouri, 2017; Hos & Kekec, 2015). Beliefs have the ability of deeply impacting teachers’ practices in the classroom and play a vital role in determining and forming, amongst other things, a teacher’s pedagogical choices and attitudes in the classroom and therefore also learners’ beliefs (Gulakjani & Sabouri, 2017). Researchers have been unable to reach a consensus regarding a definition of these beliefs and, as Johnson (1994) states, this is due to the fact that one cannot observe them directly. According to Borg (2003), teachers’ beliefs are founded in areas ascertaining to previous experiences, school practices and the individual’s personality. These beliefs, in turn, are central in forming a set of teacher’s principals that are instrumental in guiding teachers’ decision-making (Graham, 2011). As Gilakjani and Sabouri (2017) write, in reference to Williams and Burden (1997), that “teachers’ beliefs about learning languages will have more impact on their class activities than a specific methodology they are told to follow'' (p.79).

This study investigates teachers’ beliefs and practices in regard to English grammar instruction. In addition, it is investigated if these beliefs and practices align with the three main approaches advocated for by research, which are FonFs, focus on meaning and FonF.

(9)

9

2. Aim and Research questions

2.1 Aim

The backdrop of this study is the lack of guidance for teachers regarding grammar instruction in the steering documents, which in combination with teacher beliefs may result in disparate and fractured grammar teaching. Thus, the aim of this project is to study teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to grammar teaching in the subject of English on upper secondary level in Sweden, with a focus on the grammar approaches of FonFs, focus on meaning and FonF, as well as the steering documents for upper secondary level. With these factors in place, how teachers can avoid fractured grammar instruction can be discussed.

2.2 Research questions

· What do English teachers in southern Sweden believe is the most effective and

appropriate way of approaching grammar instruction and how does this relate to their perception of directives in the steering documents?

· What characteristics and features can be identified in each teacher's approach to grammar

teaching?

· To what degree can each teacher’s approach be seen to align with the three approaches of

focus on formS, focus on meaning and focus on form?

(10)

10

3. Theoretical background

This section provides relevant theory and research that serves as the backdrop for this study. This includes the Swedish steering documents, theories of grammar acquisition and learning, including three major approaches to grammar instruction, and lastly research conducted on teachers’ beliefs and practices.

3.1 Steering documents

The national steering documents, curriculum and syllabi for the upper secondary level English courses English 5, 6 and 7 advocate for students’ development of “all-round

communicative skills” (Skolverket, 2017a, 2017b). Communicative skills are central to these steering documents, as the main objective is for students to learn how to use the language independently and freely. Skills within reception, production and interaction are vital for students to master in order to develop the skills necessary so that they can “develop knowledge of language and the surrounding world so that they have the ability, desire and confidence to use English in different situations and for different purposes” (Skolverket, 2017a, p.1). According to Skolverket (2017b) these skills include social, intercultural and linguistic aspects. The social and intercultural aspects pertain to having the ability to adjust one's language in accordance with various situations, purposes and recipients (Skolverket, 2017b). In practical terms, this concerns linguistic markers, including politeness and ability to communicate and express oneself in both formal and informal settings (Skolverket, 2017b).

The final component of communicative skills presented by Skolverket (2017b) comprises linguistic aspects. According to the commentary materials for the curriculum, linguistic aspects include linguistic security and confidence in one’s language use (Skolverket, 2017b). In turn, this means to master the form of the language, which includes vocabulary,

phraseology, pronunciation, prosody, spelling and grammar (Skolverket, 2017b). With regard to grammar, the commentary materials state that there is no obligatory or compulsory

grammatical content that must be taught. Grammatical structures should only be incorporated in teaching when they serve a functional purpose, in order to enhance and enrich

communication (Skolverket, 2017b). Skolverket (2017b) does specify in their guidelines for assessment that grammatical structures should be assessed, but, not which ones. In the main curricula for the English courses on upper secondary level, grammar is not singled out as one

(11)

11 of the main objectives of teaching (Skolverket, 2017a). What is specified is that students should learn the structure of English. This shows that grammar is included in the descriptions of the subject, but not in the actual steering documents, which focus solely on communicative abilities.

3.2 Grammar acquisition and learning

Over the past decades, grammar has had a central but changing role within the ESL classroom (Graham, 2011; Morrissey & Young, 2005). As Morrissey and Young (2005) show, the explicit and out of context teaching of grammatical form was seen and used as the main way to teach language around the 1970’s. Within the Swedish context, contrastive grammar teaching in combination with an explicit focus saw popularity during this time (Lundahl, 2012). Through such contrastive grammar teaching, the systematic comparison made between first and second language would lead to increased knowledge regarding grammatical structures in the second language (Lundahl, 2012). Basically, the grammatical rules of the first language were considered to be applicable on the second, regardless of language. These views were then challenged and explicit grammar was scorned until it reappeared in the early 1990’s. This revived grammatical focus came with a shift in

methodology, instead of teaching grammar explicitly and out of context, the focus now lay on aiding students’ understanding of language in meaningful ways (Morrissey & Young, 2005). However, the most efficient way of teaching grammar is still up for debate, where some advocate for the traditional, explicit view and others favour the opposite (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014). Moreover, Hu (2012) states in the article Should grammar be taught? that grammar has a pivotal role in learning a language and that through grammar instruction conducted in a meaningful way, students are given the tools to develop their communicative skills.

To find meaningful ways of teaching grammar, Morrissey and Young (2005) present several points to be aware of when teaching in an ESL setting, which include student age, proficiency level and educational background. Firstly, student age is relevant when it comes to what level of grammar instruction students require, as an adolescent or adult student usually demands rules to be able to decode the language while a child would not. Secondly, teacher awareness of student proficiency level and educational background is of high importance when planning grammar teaching. Beginner level students usually engage with the target language on a holistic level, whereas the intermediate or academically advanced student might require form

(12)

12 focused feedback to progress (Celce-Murcia, 1991; Morrissey & Young, 2005). Generally, students within ESL teaching are not on an equal level of learning even if they are taking the same courses, therefore teachers must be prepared to teach using different methods and adapt to the multitude of levels that can exist within the same class. In addition, the learner’s and/or class’s learning style can provide guidance in which methods to opt for. According to

Morrissey and Young (2005), “learning styles as defined by auditory, visual, kinaesthetic and mixed learning styles could be addressed by introducing grammatical structures through written exercises, dictation, oral drill and elicited spontaneous production” (p.44).

In regard to the teacher selecting an appropriate method of grammar instruction, Mitchell (2000) explains that this has to be done within the student-teacher interaction and specific context, as there is no method that will work universally. Larsen-Freeman (1991) asserts that through viewing language as being comprised of three interacting dimensions, which are form, meaning and function, the teacher can choose the dimension that students find most challenging and thus act with appropriate instruction. Therefore, this engages with the multitude of existing levels and provides concrete guidance to methods (Larsen-Freeman, 1991). Furthermore, according to Mitchell (2000) there have to be some guidelines of grammar instruction in place in order to guide the teachers toward ensuring successful grammar teaching. Moreover, Borg and Burns (2008) state that it is accepted that grammar can have a beneficial impact on ESL learners. To achieve this impact, grammar must be taught in context, so that it results in meaningful practice for the students. To ensure meaningful practice, three forms of grammar instruction are advocated for by the reviewed research: focus on formS (FonFs), focus on meaning, and focus on form (FonF) (Long, 1991; Bardakci & Uysal, 2014).

The focus on formS-approach (FonFs) is characterised by dividing language into isolated units, which are then taught in a sequential manner (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014; Laufer, 2006). Further characteristics include explicitly explaining rules of grammar and immediately correcting student errors. The reasoning behind this approach is that by teaching grammar rules explicitly, students will develop this knowledge subconsciously, given enough practice (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014). A common teaching methodology practised with FonFs is based on PPP, which according to Ellis, Basturkmen and Loewen (2002) is a “three stage lesson involving the presentation of a grammatical structure, its practice in controlled exercises and the provision of opportunities to produce it freely” (p.420). Much of the criticism surrounding

(13)

13 FonFs stems from it being very traditional in its approach to grammar and being teacher-centric with minor focus on communication and interaction (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014). From the student perspective, in FonFs they are learners of the language but not users of the language (Laufer, 2006).

The focus on meaning-approach is based on Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis, which suggests that we acquire language and structure by “going for meaning” first (p.21).

Essentially, this means that through extensive exposure to a language, language and grammar are automatically and implicitly learned. Moreover, the input hypothesis states that linguistic skills, or proficiency, emerges over time as a result of the learner being exposed to

comprehensible input (Krashen, 1982). Furthermore, Krashen and Terrell’s (1983) natural approach to L2 acquisition has also played an instrumental part in forming the focus on meaning-approach. This approach promotes naturalistic language learning where the role of communication is central. Students’ language output should emerge naturally and

spontaneously, without force, after students receive a lot of language input (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Factors that characterize the focus on meaning-approach include no focus on directly instructing grammar and no error correction or any form of attention put to errors. In addition, explicit knowledge of grammar is highly unnecessary because it interferes with the natural process of language acquisition. This natural process refers to students subconsciously analyzing forms and learning the grammatical rules through exposure to the target language (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014).

The focus on form-approach (FonF) is characterized by using communicative tasks in order to teach linguistic form (Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2002). Ellis (2001) defines FonF as “any planned or incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic forms” (p.1-2). According to research, this approach has emerged from criticism against the previously mentioned approaches, FonFs and focus on meaning (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014; Laufer, 2006; Mitchell, 2000; Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2002; Morrissey & Young, 2005). Where FonFs teaches grammar explicitly and sequentially, FonF can still include explicit grammar instruction however places the

instruction in a context deemed as meaningful for communication (Long, 1991). Moreover, while the focal point lies on the targeted form when using FonFs, FonF places its focus on meaning instead (Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2002). In comparison to focus on meaning, FonF uses consciousness-raising activities in order to enhance students' attention to the target

(14)

14 grammar structures whereas the latter approach does not actively target any grammatical structures (Long, 1991). FonF is a combination between the aforementioned approaches, thus combining explicit grammar instruction with learning within a meaningful context.

3.3 Teachers’ beliefs and practices

A dynamic relationship exists between teachers’ beliefs and practices; beliefs have the ability to deeply impact practices of the classroom (Borg, 2001; Borg, 2003; Gulakjani & Sabouri, 2017;Hos & Kekec, 2015). Research suggests that beliefs play a crucial role in determining and impacting teachers’ practices in the classroom, attitudes and therefore also learners’ beliefs (Gilakjani & Sabouri, 2017). There has however been much discussion in establishing what these beliefs mean and encompass, researchers have thus been unable to reach a

consensus (Borg, 2001). Moreover, as Johnson (1994) states, it is difficult to define and study teachers’ beliefs as one cannot observe them directly. Borg (2001) defines beliefs as follows: “A proposition which may be consciously or unconsciously held, as evaluative in that it is accepted as true by the individual, and is therefore imbued with emotive commitment; further, it serves as a guide to thought and behaviour” (p.186). Borg then applies this conceptualization to teachers’ pedagogical beliefs: those beliefs which have particular relevance to an individual’s teaching.

Farrell and Lim (2005) contend that educational studies today view teaching as a complex cognitive activity, and it is argued that the impact of teachers’ beliefs on, amongst else, instructional decisions is great. Borg (2003) describes teachers as active thinkers whose decision-making is directed by “complex practically-oriented, personalized and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts and beliefs” (p.81). This complex array of teacher’s beliefs is in turn central in forming a set of the teacher’s principles. These are founded in areas ascertaining to previous experience, school practices as well as the

individual’s personality (Borg, 2003). In addition, Gilakjani and Sabouri (2017) conclude that one’s teaching program, courses, learning experiences, teaching experiences and practices, both negative and positive, are imperative in forming principles and beliefs. Furthermore, these beliefs are thereafter instrumental in guiding teacher’s decision-making and

pedagogical choices, both in regard to student and classroom issues. Therefore, beliefs affect teachers’ aims, choice of strategies, procedures and approaches taken to language learning and teaching (Graham, 2011).

(15)

15 Gilakjani and Sabouri (2017) write, in reference to Williams and Burden (1997), that

“teachers’ beliefs about learning languages will have more impact on their class activities than a specific methodology they are told to follow” (p.79). In regard to grammar instruction and methodology, teachers’ beliefs have long been a vital area of research (Borg, 2003). This is due to that even though research advocates for the importance of grammar instruction in language teaching, and ESL teaching, the teaching of grammar is ultimately dependent on the specific teacher and their individual beliefs. According to Hos and Kekec (2015), it is not uncommon that the different instructional practices applied by teachers when teaching grammar are under the influence of factors ascertaining to cognitive and contextual dimensions. Moreover, the way that teachers approach grammar is also shaped by their students and contextual circumstances and not just beliefs about language learning (Farrell & Lim, 2005). This ultimately places learners’ beliefs about grammar as one of the deciding factors in teachers’ grammar teaching. In order to avoid the possibility that student beliefs will negatively influence teachers’ grammar instruction, Celce-Murcia (1991) urge teachers to stay away from presenting grammar as an end in itself, but as serving a higher-order object and with consistent references to e.g. meaning and social factors.

A number of studies have been conducted on teachers’ beliefs and practices of grammar instruction, showing an array of various results. Jones and Fong (2007) conducted interviews with 30 pre-service and 27 in-service teachers and found that an individual’s previous

experiences are vital in forming their beliefs. The teacher’s pedagogical education was found to strongly influence their beliefs. The teachers’ beliefs connected to teaching were found to be centered around the teacher, being based in textbooks and grammar oriented (Jones & Fong, 2007). Moreover, a further finding was that the majority of teachers do not change their beliefs even if they may receive extensive exposure to other and various methodology.

Furthermore, Johnson (1994) investigated the connections between prior experiences and classroom practices. The author finds that the instructional decisions that pre-service teachers make are based on what they have experienced as L2 learners, and relate to images of e.g. teachers, activities and materials. Thus, these factors form the teacher’s “dominant model of action during the practicum teaching experience” (Johnson, 1994, p. 450).

Nunan (1992) finds that experienced teachers' decision-making reflects more emphasis placed on language issues while teachers with less experience spend more time with factors

(16)

16 ascertaining to classroom management (as cited in Borg, 2003). Specifically, for the

inexperienced teachers, the author found that when commenting on their teaching decisions these do not reflect language dimensions, as they are centred around the timing of lessons, amount of talking by the teacher and how good their explanations and instructions were (Nunan, 1992). Borg (2003) suggests that Nunan’s (1992) findings demonstrate that experienced teachers focus more on language dimensions or content issues as they have automatized routines that concern classroom management. Moreover, Borg (2003) finds that experienced teachers believe that opting for an explicit grammar instruction is more effective, whilst less experienced teachers more often believe in teaching grammar implicitly. In

addition, Borg (2003) ascertains that a central issue that must be taken into account when studying teachers’ beliefs and practices is the role that context plays. Increased understanding of contextual factors that effectively shape language teachers are vital to gaining deeper knowledge and understanding of this area. Borg (2003) includes institutional, social, instructional and physical factors as being important to consider in relation to context. As Borg (2003) contends, “the study of cognition and practice without an awareness of the contexts in which these occur will inevitably provide partial, if not flawed, characterizations of teachers and teaching” (p. 106).

Johnston and Goettsch’s (2000) study show that teachers believe that learners should have knowledge and understanding of various grammatical points and terminology, as this is deemed essential and useful. In addition, this knowledge should be conscious and active. In two studies, Schulz (1996 & 2001) studies both teachers and students and their attitudes, or beliefs, in regard to explicit grammar instruction and error correction. In the first study, the attitudes toward grammar and corrective feedback is compared between foreign language teachers and language learners at an American university. The second study was replicated and conducted in Colombia, where the results were similar to the first one. The first study shows substantial mismatches between the attitudes of teachers and students, an example includes 94% of students disagreed with that teachers should not correct students’ errors in class, whilst 48% of teachers did. In addition, Schulz (1996 & 2001) studied the participants’ views on foreign language learning, where both studies showed significant differences in opinions. The American study found that 80% of students and 64% of teachers believed that formally studying grammar is important in order to master a language. The Colombian study showed even more pronounced differences, as 76% of students agreed that they like grammar

(17)

17 while 30% of the teachers believed that students did. With such important differences, Schulz concluded that “the pedagogical face of validity” could be reduced (p. 349).

As previously mentioned, it has been found that discrepancies most probably exist between teachers’ beliefs and practices (Hos & Kekec, 2015). Hos and Kekec (2015) conclude, after having analysed and reviewed several studies, that there are clear discrepancies and

mismatches between teachers’ classroom practices and their beliefs on what is the most beneficial in regard to student learning whilst teaching grammar. An example of this is Richards, Gallo and Renandya’s (2001) study which discovered that although teachers stated that they follow a communicative approach to teaching, “many of the respondents still hold firmly to the belief that grammar is central to language learning and direct grammar teaching is needed by their ESL students” (p.54).

(18)

18

4. Method

To be able to collect results regarding teachers’ beliefs and practices, we chose a qualitative method, which focuses on how people feel, experience and interact with different events or phenomena at a certain time and context (Croker & Heigham, 2009, p.7). In our case, the phenomenon is grammar teaching and the context is upper secondary English education in Sweden. Furthermore, to ensure relevance of the results, the participants analysed in this study are licensed teachers in English at upper secondary level. Moreover, to reach the goals of this study, we have decided that semi-structured interviews would be the most efficient form of qualitative method to use. This allows for an interactive format where the

interviewees can express feelings and we as the interviewers can add follow-up questions if deemed necessary (Croker & Heigham, 2009, p.32). The following section introduces the different participants and how they were selected, our choice of method to gather data, how the interviews were structured, the ethical considerations that informed the interviews and finally how the interviews were conducted.

4.1 Participants

The participants of this study consist of four English teachers from two different upper secondary schools. All selected interviewees were licensed teachers of English and were currently teaching at upper-secondary level. Teacher 1, 2 and 4 all belong to school A, whereas Teacher 3 belongs to school B. At a first glance the results might be biased with so many teachers from the same school, but this school has only been in service for a year and a half, so the teachers come from different teaching backgrounds. Both schools are located within the same municipality, where school A is a public school and school B is a private school. Although, the participants and schools do not present much diversity to this study, the steering documents allow for such a high degree of individual interpretation that the results will represent a fair presentation of teachers’ beliefs and practices. All teachers in this study will be anonymized along with their gender which is why they are referred to as “they” or “their”.

(19)

19 Table 1

Participants in the study

Teacher School Work experience (years) Current teaching

1 A Approx. 22 _{English 5, 6}

2 A Approx. 30 _{English 5, 6}

3 B Approx. 10 _{English 5, 6, 7}

4 A Approx. 19 English 5, 6

4.2 Materials

We have chosen a semi-structured approach to our interviews (Kvale, 2007). This was done to make sure that we are able to get information about the participants’ feelings, thoughts and practices regarding the different themes of our interviews (Kvale, 2007). We thus opted to use open-ended questions within controlled themes, which provides the opportunity for the interviewees to thoroughly answer with what they believe (Kvale, 2007). On the other hand, this might lead to some ambiguity in the answers that we receive. However, ambiguous answers can help us in seeing how teachers deal with the problematic area (Kvale, 2007).

Four themes were used to inform the interview questions (see Appendix 1), which were constructed in line with the research questions and thus impacted the structure of the interviews. The interviews were structured in the following order: questions adhering to teachers’ background, beliefs in regard to steering documents and thereafter grammar

teaching, and lastly practices in regard to grammar teaching. Firstly, the questions connected to teacher background were used in order to examine whether background plays a part in forming beliefs and practices. Secondly, teachers’ beliefs in regard to grammar in the steering documents were explored to specifytheir individual interpretations of the steering

documents. This led to questions specifically tied to teachers’ beliefs connected to their grammar teaching. Finally, the last section of the interview focused on teachers’ practices: how teachers practically put these beliefs to use within their classrooms. The aim of this structure was to facilitate a coherent structure of the study from the research questions through to the discussion and conclusion.

For the fourth theme and final section of the interview, we used scenarios constructed by Bardakci and Uysal (2014) to encourage our interviewees to identify how they teach grammar. These different scenarios revolved around the three types of grammar teaching,

(20)

20 FonFs, focus on meaning and FonF. The aim was for the interviewee to identify which

scenarios they believe suit their teaching best. It was not clarified to the interviewee which form of grammar teaching each scenario was connected to. This was to ensure that the answers were as honest as possible. The scenarios from Bardakci and Uysal are as follows:

· “Explain the grammar structure; make students participate; and then practise by using the structure. (FonFs)

· Explain the grammar structure; and do drilling/exercises and repetition to practice the new structure. (FonFs)

· Do not explain any grammar rules, but do a lot of communicative activities for students to use and learn the phrases and grammar structures naturally. (Meaning) · Do not explain any grammar rules; take attention of students to the target grammar

structures while they are using the language in communicative activities.” (FonF) (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014, p.7)

Bardakci and Uysal connect each scenario exclusively to the different types of grammar instruction that we have mentioned above. The scenarios ensure that we are guided toward FonFs, focus on meaning and FonF without explicitly mentioning these terms when asking what teachers believe of their own teaching. The first and second scenarios both relate to FonFs, providing two different perspectives of the approach. The third scenario relates to focus on meaning, and the final scenario relates to FonF. The four scenarios are part of Bardakci and Uysal’s (2014) results, as a key component of identifying teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning grammar instruction.

4.3 Ethical considerations

Research-ethical principles that are in effect in Sweden are vital to consider for this study. According to The Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002) there are four main principles that must be followed: information, consent, confidentiality and usage. Firstly, we have to inform the participants that they are taking part in an interview and what the purpose of said interview is and additionally that they can always abort the interview. Secondly, we need the interviewees’ consent to collect and use the information that they give, and they always have the right to withdraw. Furthermore, regarding confidentiality, we have to make sure that all information given is handled with the utmost care and that the results are

(21)

21 anonymized to protect the interviewees’ integrity. Finally, we as interviewers are not allowed to pass on the collected information to anyone besides researchers who follow the same principles as we do (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002, p.5-17). By combining these principles and qualitative interviews, the chances for receiving detailed responses regarding teachers’ beliefs should be possible. This information was presented to the interviewees in written form before the interviews took place (see Appendix 2) and verbally before the interviews started.

4.4 Procedure

The interviews were all conducted in April, 2020. The same procedure was used systematically during all interviews. Each interview began by presenting ethical

considerations and then continued with the interview questions. The teacher interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes, whereas three of them were conducted and recorded through Google Meet which allows for recordings that meet the criteria demanded by GDPR. Access to Google Meet was given through the municipality of Lund, via one of the authors of this paper. The fourth interview was conducted at a location chosen by the interviewee and was recorded through the Windows voice recorder and was thereafter stored locally on an external hard drive. All the interviews were conducted in English. After each interview was finished, we shortly discussed the interview topic and explained the scientific background informing our interview questions. Finally, we then discussed the different sections of the interview and explained how we had structured the questions asked in order for them to see the teaching approaches that we utilised.

(22)

22

5. Results

This section presents the results of the study. The section is structured through a presentation of the results from each interviewee, or teacher, separately. This is to ensure clarity of the teacher’s answers, thus adding transparency to the results. The sub-headings are based on the themes presented in the method section, which are: teacher background, teacher’s beliefs connected to the steering documents, teacher’s beliefs connected to their grammar teaching, and lastly teacher practices. Finally, teachers’ practices in regard to Bardakci and Uysal’s (2014) four scenarios are also presented.

5.1 Teacher 1

5.1.1 Teacher background

Teacher 1 has English as their first subject, and has been working for approximately 22 years. The teacher is an educated upper secondary teacher and has worked at two schools, however, on different levels that include elementary, secondary, upper secondary and adult education. Currently the teacher teaches English on upper secondary level through courses 5 and 6. The teacher is a non-native English speaker.

5.1.2 Teacher’s beliefs connected to the steering documents

Teacher 1 believes that, as a teacher, one does not know how much grammar should be taught on the different levels of English. The teacher does however believe that the national tests provide some direction as to what should be included in teaching grammar. Accordingly, Teacher 1 mainly uses the national tests and other unspecified materials linked to the tests to inform and plan the grammar teaching. In addition, the teacher relies on discussions with colleagues, however, according to Teacher 1 these discussions highlight how individual the interpretations are and how different each teacher works and views grammar instruction.

5.1.3 Teacher’s beliefs connected to their grammar teaching

Teacher 1 defines grammar as focusingon functions of the language, such as word classes and the functions of words in diverse contexts. For this teacher, grammar is very contextual and knowledge of particulars such as word classes is deemed to be very beneficial for students to know. Teacher 1 continues by stating that idioms and idiomatic expressions are

(23)

23 also a part of grammar. However, the teacher believes that grammar comprises mainly

functions, word classes and tenses. On the role of grammar in the ESL classroom, Teacher 1 believes that grammar plays a central role, but adds that it is imperative that grammar is placed in context. The teacher explains that many students have knowledge of grammatical rules and functions, but do not have the ability to use them as they have not experienced them in a context. Furthermore, Teacher 1 says that they enjoy teaching grammar but does not recollect being taught how to teach it. Therefore, the teacher explains that it has involved a lot of trial and error to identify the right way to teach grammar.

Teacher 1 explains that the main challenge in teaching grammar is that students come from various teaching backgrounds with different traditions of grammar instruction. For example, while some favour gap-fill exercises, others favour context-based teaching. Further

challenges include that students find grammar boring, which means that you have to work with their preconceptions of grammar and also find ways to teach grammar to make it relevant for each individual.

When the teacher learned grammar, it was taught mostly in contrast to Swedish. For example, English grammar was learned through translating sentences to Swedish; and vice versa. This approach is not viewed by Teacher 1 as beneficial today, as not all students speak Swedish or have Swedish as their L1. Therefore, the translations would rather confuse than aid learning. The teacher does say that using Swedish can aid students who have Swedish as their L1, however, this is only used as a last resort.

5.1.4 Teacher practices

A summary of the features and characteristics of Teacher 1’s grammar practices can be found in Table 2. Teacher 1 states that they actively teach grammar and that they try to actively incorporate grammar into lessons plans. The teacher describes that they mainly teach

grammar on English levels 5 and 6, but if the teacher was also teaching on level 7 they would teach grammar if deemed necessary:“you have to work with what you have”. Furthermore, Teacher 1 explains that the grammar taught on each level must be different as there should be a progression between the courses. However, this is not always applicable in a practical sense, according to the teacher, as students come from different backgrounds with different knowledge.

(24)

24 Table 2

Features and characteristics of Teacher 1’s grammar practices.

Statement Response

Focus on creating relevant discussions and settings in the classroom so that the student’s

communicative skills can develop? (Meaning)

Yes, would want to pair students up and work with e.g. tag

questions. Focus solely on grammar for an entire lesson?

(FonFs)

No

Lift out pieces of grammar from the texts that you/your students use/create? (FonF)

Yes

Do you take a central role in the classroom when teaching grammar? (FonFs)

Yes and no, depending on the class

Do you teach grammar in isolated units? (FonFs) Rarely, depending on the context, e.g. focusing on a passive voice while writing a news report. Correct student’s mistakes directly? (FonFs) No, if something is wrong then it

is marked, however, it is up to the student to fix.

Use gap-fill exercises? (FonFs) Yes Let students acquire grammar naturally while using

the language? (Meaning)

Yes, the teacher explains that they want to improve in this area. Allow the students to ask questions themselves

about grammar they don’t understand? (FonF)

Yes, the students seldom reflect over their own grammatical mistakes.

Lastly, Teacher 1 was presented with four scenarios, each adhering to one of the three grammar approaches of FonFs, focus on meaning and FonF (see 4.2 Materials). The teacher was unable to choose one statement that described them best, and so the first and third statements were chosen. The first statement was as follows: “Explain the grammar structure; make students participate; and then practise by using the structure” (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014, p.7). The third statement was as follows: “Do not explain any grammar rules, but do a lot of communicative activities for students to use and learn the phrases and grammar structures naturally” (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014, p.7).

(25)

25

5.2 Teacher 2

5.2.1 Teacher background

Teacher 2 has English as their first subject and has been teaching for approximately 25 years. The teacher was unsure about the amount of schools that they had worked at, but estimated the number to five or six. They are teaching at upper secondary level and is a non-native speaker of English.

5.2.2 Teacher’s beliefs connected to the steering documents

Teacher 2 believes that the level of importance assigned to grammar in the steering

documents is dependent on one's individual interpretation of the documents. The teacher says that there are some comments and suggestions of what should constitute the instruction of grammar on upper secondary level, however, this is limited to a “little bit” of form, linking words and time aspects. Furthermore, it is focused on a communicative type of teaching approach, which means that the focal point should lie on correctness.

5.2.3 Teacher’s beliefs connected to their grammar teaching

Teacher 2 defines grammar as part of communicative methodology, and explains that grammar has a very wide definition that is more than focusing on forms such as endings. According to the teacher, grammar is about language use, e.g. choosing the right words within the correct context. Furthermore, within the ESL context, the teacher contends that there should be a focus on grammar, however, this focus must be clearly linked to

communication and context. The teacher enjoys teaching grammar a lot, however, they recognize that this passion of theirs has to be reasonably presented to the students so as to not scare them off. To avoid this from happening, the teacher uses their passion in their

explanations, but presents grammar not as a passion of theirs, but as something that is beneficial for the students to learn.

The teacher believes that a challenge in teaching grammar is that students come with different experiences and preconceptions of grammar, usually in the negative sense, which means that the students’ attitudes are usually the greatest challenge. Another challenge with the students is that they base their knowledge on the “conversational Swenglish type of English” most commonly found within digital games. Therefore, it does not make any sense, according to

(26)

26 the teacher, to focus much on grammar as it is perceived as an adult version of English. However, Teacher 2 also believes that the English language is not a good language to teach grammar in, as it has so many different aspects and is very complex.

The teacher explains that there was a minor focus on grammar during their own teacher education, as the focus was on communication, which included, for example, speech acts and conversation. The most common methodology used was that they were given a model to follow, such as asking your partner for directions to the nearest restaurant. Today however, there is a larger focus on the form of language and student feedback, specifically on verbal error correction. This was deemed as a taboo subject before, according to the teacher.

5.2.4 Teacher practices

A summary of the features and characteristics of Teacher 2’s grammar practices is presented in Table 3. The teacher states that they actively teach grammar, but that it is mostly “text grammar”. Teacher 2 explains that the steering documents advocate for a communicative approach where grammar is taught based on what the students need to know. This means that the teacher does not focus on grammar when introducing assignments, but instead focuses grammar instruction on reoccurring mistakes in student production. Moreover, the teacher’s inclusion of grammar instruction in lesson planning is need-based and dependent on students and classes. Student background plays a major role in this as it determines how much

grammar they need to learn.

Teacher 2 has experience teaching grammar in all upper secondary courses, but only teaches levels 5 and 6 at the moment. In regard to teaching grammar on the upper secondary level, the teacher asserts that each course requires different degrees of grammar and also different approaches to grammar instruction. On the English 5 course, the focus lies on the basic errors that students make, as the teacher wants to “do away with them”. During the English 6 course, Teacher 2’s focal point was on developing written skills in regard to sentence structures at a more advanced level. The English 7 course is more focused on being able to adapt the language to the right purposes and contexts. A good deal of emphasis is given to developing one’s formal English.

(27)

27 Table 3

Statement Response

Focus on creating relevant discussions and settings in the classroom so that the student’s communicative skills can develop? (Meaning)

Yes.

Focus solely on grammar for an entire lesson? (FonFs) No Lift out pieces of grammar from the texts that you/your

students use/create? (FonF)

Yes, shows anonymous mistakes in class. Do you take a central role in the classroom when teaching

grammar? (FonFs)

Yes.

Do you teach grammar in isolated units? (FonFs) Yes, when it is needed, but mostly within feedback

Correct student’s mistakes directly? (FonFs) Dependent on student, mistake and context. Use gap-fill exercises? (FonFs) Yes

Let students acquire grammar naturally while using the language? (Meaning)

No, teacher does not believe that this approach works.

Allow the students to ask questions themselves about grammar they don’t understand? (FonF)

Yes, “When they do you’re smiling”

Finally, Teacher 2 was presented with four scenarios (see 4.2 Materials), adhering to the three grammar approaches of FonFs, focus on meaning and FonF. The teacher expressed that it was difficult to choose, since all four scenarios can be relevant in different situations. The teacher opted for the fourth statement, which was as follows: “Do not explain any grammar rules; take attention of students to the target grammar structures while they are using the language in communicative activities” (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014, p.7).

(28)

28

5.3 Teacher 3

5.3.1 Teacher background

Teacher 3 has English as their first subject and has been teaching for approximately eight years at three different schools. The teacher currently teaches at upper secondary level and is a native speaker of English.

5.3.2 Teacher’s beliefs connected to the steering documents

According to Teacher 3, grammar is not given a high level of importance in the steering documents because importance is placed on clarity and correctness. The teacher explains that grammar is not mentioned in the steering documents, however, is briefly discussed in the commentary materials.

5.3.3 Teacher’s beliefs connected to their grammar teaching

Teacher 3 defines grammar as the written rules behind the language, and believes that

grammar should only play “a supportive role”. Teacher 3 expresses uncertainty on whether or not they enjoy teaching grammar as this is dependent on the method used when teaching it. On the challenges of teaching grammar, the teacher states that the main issue is connected to students’ preconceived notions and aversions toward learning grammar. In addition, it is not described as a good idea to explicitly state that the students are going to work with grammar as this leads to severe uninterest, according to the teacher.

Teacher 3 was taught to teach grammar, but cannot remember the name of the methods used. The teacher states that communicative language teaching was presented as important, whilst gap-filling exercises and similar activities were also used. The teacher does not believe that grammar teaching and practices have evolved since their teacher education, however, admits that it may have evolved since their own time on upper secondary level.

5.3.4 Teacher practices

A summary of Features and characteristics of Teacher 3’s grammar practices is presented in Table 4. The teacher states that they actively teach grammar, but not in an explicit manner, and regularly incorporates grammar into lesson planning. Teacher 3 has taught grammar on

(29)

29 all upper secondary courses, and states that the most important thing is to use grammar in a context. In regard to the different levels, each course requires a different degree and approach to grammar instruction. A clear progression exists between the courses, that facilitates

explicit grammar instruction in the higher levels where a linguistic focus is possible. Teacher 3 explains that their grammar teaching is centered on the academically based programs, whereas the vocational programs do not have as high a focus.

Table 4

Statement Response

Yes.

Focus solely on grammar for an entire lesson? (FonFs) Rarely. Lift out pieces of grammar from the texts that you/your students

use/create? (FonF)

Yes.

Do you teach grammar in isolated units? (FonFs) Yes.

Correct student’s mistakes directly? (FonFs) Yes, dependent on student and mistake. Use gap-fill exercises? (FonFs) Ye.

Let students acquire grammar naturally while using the language? (Meaning)

Yes.

Teacher 3 was lastly presented with four scenarios (see 4.2 Materials), adhering to the three grammar approaches of FonFs, focus on meaning and FonF. The teacher had a hard time choosing one statement that described them best, but opted for the first and fourth one. The first was as follows: “Explain the grammar structure; make students participate; and then practise by using the structure” (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014, p. 7). The fourth was as follows: “Do not explain any grammar rules; take attention of students to the target grammar

(30)

30 2014, p. 7). Furthermore, the teacher commented on the third statement that they can let their students acquire grammar naturally, however, that it is their role as a teacher to explain the rules and structures.

5.4 Teacher 4

5.4.1 Teacher background

Teacher 4 has English as their first subject and has been teaching for 19 years. The teacher has worked at five schools and currently teaches at upper secondary level. The teacher is a non-native speaker of English.

5.4.2 Teacher’s beliefs connected to the steering documents

According to the teacher, not much importance is assigned to grammar in the steering documents as they are more focused on social sciences and communication. By social sciences, the teacher means sociolinguistics and gives the example of the role of the English language in society.Furthermore, the teacher believes that you still need grammar when communicating, so the exclusion of grammar from the steering documents does not make much sense. On the subject of the steering documents providing guidance for grammar teaching, the teacher explains that no guidance is provided as grammar is not stated anywhere.

5.4.3 Teacher’s beliefs connected to their grammar teaching

The teacher defines grammar as a tool that you need to be able to work with language. Grammar holds an important role in the ESL classroom, however, Teacher 4 believes that having traditional grammar lessons is unimportant as the aim is only to see how a language is constructed. Students need knowledge of grammatical terms to guide their use of language, e.g. knowing the difference between singular and plural.

Teacher 4 enjoys teaching grammar but was not taught to teach grammar. The teacher explains that a common challenge on upper secondary level is that students' knowledge of grammar is highly varied. This means that it is difficult to find the correct level to start and make the grammar useful for everyone. According to the teacher, grammar instruction has

(31)

31 not evolved that much since they themselves went to school. Today, there is less focus on grammar, in comparison to a heavier focus on form that the teacher experienced during their own education. It is described that students today do not have the same grammatical

foundation to stand on. However, as there is such a central focus on communication, students are much better at speaking today, but not at writing.

5.4.4 Teacher practices

A summary of features and characteristics of Teacher 4’s grammar practices is presented in Table 5. The teacher does not actively teach grammar and does not regularly incorporate it into their lesson plans. According to the teacher, there is not enough time to incorporate much grammar into a course, because the amount of course hours is limited and other content is prioritized. This is something that the teacher finds challenging and is still something that they are trying to achieve. The teacher currently teaches English 5 and 6, and will have English 7 starting the next school year. It is described that it is easier to have explicit

grammar lessons and talk about language from a linguistic point of view on English 7 than in 5 or 6.

Table 5

Statement Response

Tries to, however, difficulties arise as each class has around thirty students.

Focus solely on grammar for an entire lesson? (FonFs) No. Lift out pieces of grammar from the texts that you/your

students use/create? (FonF)

Yes, done on an individual basis.

Yes, the teacher is the one who can provide the students with tools.

Do you teach grammar in isolated units? (FonFs) Yes, when needed and dependent on class. Correct student’s mistakes directly? (FonFs) No.

(32)

32 Let students acquire grammar naturally while using the

language? (Meaning)

Yes.

Yes, but most students do not know how to ask such

questions.

Teacher 4 was lastly presented with four scenarios (see 4.2 Materials), adhering to the three grammar approaches of FonFs, focus on meaning and FonF. The teacher had a hard time choosing one statement that described them best, but opted for the third one. The third one was as follows: “Do not explain any grammar rules, but do a lot of communicative activities for students to use and learn the phrases and grammar structures naturally” (Bardakci & Uysal, 2014, p. 7). In addition, the teacher added that they do explain rules when needed, but they want the language learning to come as naturally as possible.

(33)

33

6. Discussion

Through the results and its data, two patternswere identified. These patterns include teachers’ beliefs in regard to steering documents and grammar instruction and if teachers’ practices align with what is advocated for by the reviewed research. These patterns effectively synthesize the four themes, as seen in the results, and the three posed research questions with the problematic issues presented in the introduction. The problematic issues concern the lack of guidance of grammar instruction for upper secondary teachers and how this has the possibility of resulting in disparate and fractured approaches to grammar instruction. Thus, negatively impacting learners’ opportunities of receiving a holistic and well-rounded education. Therefore, the structure of this section is in accordance with the patternsidentified.

The national steering documents, in combination with its commentary materials, provide the foundation for ESL teaching in Sweden. Within the context of grammar instruction, all interviewed teachers concur in their belief that little to no emphasis is placed on grammar in these documents. Instead, emphasis is placed on communicative aspects, such as clarity and correctness, described by Teacher 2 and 3, as well as the social aspects of English, as stated by Teacher 4. This consequently correlates with the general goals of the steering documents that advocate for students’ development of “all-round communicative skills” (Skolverket, 2017a & 2017b). On the other hand, according to Teachers 1 and 2, the steering documents do not instruct how and what to teach of grammar, which means that it is up to individual interpretation. Moreover, Teacher 1 states that discussions with colleagues highlight how individual these interpretations are. This corresponds to the commentary materials where it is stated that the teaching of grammar is not obligatory but can be taught when deemed

necessary by the teacher in order to enhance and enrich communication (Skolverket, 2017b). Furthermore, Teacher 1 finds that national tests, which are produced by Skolverket, provide some guidance as to what to teach. Therefore, the interviewed teachers hold very similar opinions that there is not one effective and appropriate way of grammar instruction presented by the steering documents.

Mitchell (2000) states that there must be guidelines present in order for teachers to be guided toward ensuring successful grammar teaching. The participants of our study do not believe that the present guidelines provide guidance for grammar teaching. Thus, the teachers are

(34)

34 guided by their individual notions of what they believe students need to receive in the way of grammar in order to achieve Skolverket’s overall goal of attaining “all-round communicative skills” (Skolverket, 2017b). Furthermore, a definition of grammar by Skolverket is not presented in the steering documents, which ultimately leaves it to the teachers to apply their own definition. This definition shows the teachers’ beliefs as to what grammar teaching is and will ultimately have implications on their teaching practices. Not one definition is similar to the other as all interviewed teachers provide their own view and definition of grammar. The teachers define grammar in a variety of different ways, ranging from knowledge of word endings to the written rules behind the language. Research shows that teachers’ complex beliefs effectively form a set of teachers’ principles (Graham, 2011; Borg, 2003; Farrell & Lim, 2005), and in this regard the teachers’ definitions of grammar guide their beliefs of what grammar entails, which in turn essentially decide their practices.

The individuality of the teachers’ beliefs is further highlighted through what they believe constitutes the most effective and appropriate way of grammar instruction. This spans from controlled exercises, such as gap-fill exercises, to context-based teaching, to focusing on the form of the language. Moreover, there are factors that are capable of significantly affecting these beliefs of what constitutes the most effective and appropriate approach to grammar, and these factors are what the teachers believe to be main challenges. The various forms of methodology outlined above are highly dependent on context and cognitive dimensions, as these dimensions characterize the main challenges outlined by the teachers. This is not uncommon according to Hos and Kekec (2015), as they assert that instructional practices used by teachers are often under the influence of such factors. Moreover, Farrell and Lim (2005) describe that the teachers’ students have the ability to influence the teachers’ choices of methodology. And while examining the results, it is visible that the outlined challenges are connected to factors ascertaining to context, cognitive and student.

One of the major challenges, as presented by Teacher 1, 2 and 4, is that students come from various teaching backgrounds. Due to this variety, teachers find that in one class the

knowledge of grammar can differ drastically making planning and teaching difficult. Celce-Murcia (1991) asserts that this is not uncommon, as students within ESL teaching are often not on an equal level, even in the same course. As Teacher 1 and 4 state, one must find ways of teaching grammar to make it relevant and useful for each individual. On this subject, Morrissey and Young (2005) state that teachers should be prepared to adapt to different levels

(35)

35 and also opt for different methods. The levels that the teacher will need to adapt to and the methods that will prove most useful is context based. As Mitchell (2000) ascertains, when making these choices the teacher must do it in accordance with the student-teacher interaction and within that specific context. This is because no method will work universally (Mitchell, 2000). However, Larsen-Freeman (1991) asserts that through viewing language as being comprised of three interacting dimensions, which are form, meaning and function, the teacher can choose the dimension that students find most challenging and thus act with appropriate instruction.Furthermore, in order to make grammar relevant and useful for everyone, Morrissey and Young (2005) emphasize the learner as the central variable, in particular the learner’s age, proficiency level and educational background. In addition, the learner’s and/or class’s learning style can provide guidance in which methods to opt for. According to

Morrissey and Young (2005), “learning styles as defined by auditory, visual, kinaesthetic and mixed learning styles could be addressed by introducing grammatical structures through written exercises, dictation, oral drill and elicited spontaneous production” (p.44).

An additional challenge connected to student background is students’ preconceptions of grammar. According to Teachers 1, 2 and 3, students usually have negative preconceived notions and aversions to grammar. Attitude is therefore a major challenge, influencing teachers’ beliefs as to what constitutes effective and appropriate ways of grammar

instruction. And such negative preconceived notions have the ability of negatively impacting students’ beliefs of grammar. As shown by the reviewed research, an individuals’ previous learning experiences, whether negative or positive, can form one’s beliefs (Borg, 2003). In turn, students’ beliefs have been found to have the ability of prompting teachers’ beliefs (Farrell & Lim, 2005). In order to challenge such preconceived notions, Celce-Murcia (1991) urge teachers to stay away from presenting grammar as an end in itself, but as serving a higher-order object and with consistent references to e.g. meaning and social factors. To further challenge negative beliefs, Teacher 2 contends that they believe in presenting grammar as something beneficial for students to learn. Teacher 3 describes that they do not focus explicitly on grammar as this would be demotivating. This is problematic, as it shows that the teachers adapt to the beliefs of grammar held by the students, letting their beliefs decide over their own beliefs and practices.

To summarize, this pattern shows that teachers’ beliefs have the ability of greatly impacting their stance and interpretation of the steering documents as well as what they deem to be the

(36)

36 most effective and appropriate approach to grammar instruction. The lack of guidance

provided by the steering documents make the teachers’ beliefs the firm force that guides their practices. Thus, this has the possibility of having negative repercussions and leading to fractured approaches to grammar instruction, as teachers usually follow what they believe to be the best way of teaching.

The individuality that dictates teachers’ beliefs shines through the second identified pattern as well, namely the teachers’ practices and their alignment with what research advocates for in regard to grammar instruction. Each teacher describes a different approach to grammar teaching, where some of the identified characteristics and features are similar amongst the teachers. Essentially, the reviewed research advocates for the three approaches of FonFs, focus on meaning and FonF as they assist in ensuring meaningful practice for students (Long, 1991; Bardakci & Uysal, 2014). On this note, characteristics of the teachers’ practices are examined in regard to the reviewed research advocating for the three approaches. The core characteristics include actively teaching grammar, context based teaching and explicit grammar instruction.

Teachers 1, 2 and 3 state that they actively teach grammar by actively incorporating grammar into their lesson planning. This connects to both FonFs and FonF as the active integration of grammar into lessons constitutes a central feature of these approaches (Long, 1991).

However, it does not connect to focus on meaning, as the acquisition of knowledge should occur naturally and spontaneously without any direct focus on grammar (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Teacher 4, on the other hand, states that they do not actively teach grammar and does not regularly incorporate it into their lesson planning because they prioritize other content. This is problematic because, as Hu (2012) states, grammar holds a pivotal role in language learning and it provides students with the tools to develop their communicative skills, amongst else. Grammar constitutes one of the core components of a language and so

necessarily it must be taught. In addition, this further highlights the problematic issue of the lack of guidance in the steering documents, as it does not only have the ability of resulting in disparate and fractured approaches, but also in avoiding grammar instruction.

All four teachers state that grammar should be taught in context. Essentially, as previously mentioned, the reviewed research promotes adapting one’s choices of e.g. strategies, methodology and form of exercises, to the context in question. On this note, different

Teaching Grammar in an ESL setting: Teachers’ beliefs and practices

Degree project in the major subject:

English Studies in Education

Teaching Grammar in an ESL setting:

Teachers’ beliefs and practices

Grammatikundervisning i en ESL kontext: Lärares övertygelser och

utövande

Fredrika Hallonsten

Johannes Kleiman

Acknowledgements

Individual contributions

Abstract

Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Aim and Research questions

2.1 Aim

2.2 Research questions

3. Theoretical background

3.1 Steering documents

3.2 Grammar acquisition and learning

3.3 Teachers’ beliefs and practices

4. Method

4.1 Participants

4.2 Materials

4.3 Ethical considerations

4.4 Procedure

5. Results

5.1 Teacher 1

5.1.1 Teacher background

5.1.2 Teacher’s beliefs connected to the steering documents

5.1.3 Teacher’s beliefs connected to their grammar teaching

5.1.4 Teacher practices

5.2 Teacher 2

5.2.1 Teacher background

5.2.2 Teacher’s beliefs connected to the steering documents

5.2.3 Teacher’s beliefs connected to their grammar teaching

5.2.4 Teacher practices

5.3 Teacher 3

5.3.1 Teacher background

5.3.2 Teacher’s beliefs connected to the steering documents

5.3.3 Teacher’s beliefs connected to their grammar teaching

5.3.4 Teacher practices

5.4 Teacher 4

5.4.1 Teacher background

5.4.2 Teacher’s beliefs connected to the steering documents

5.4.3 Teacher’s beliefs connected to their grammar teaching

5.4.4 Teacher practices

6. Discussion