Perception Differences of EFL Teachers and Students in Grammar

Instruction and Error Correction

高中教師與學生對於文法教學及錯誤修正之認知差異

doi:10.6330/ETL.2009.33.1.04
英語教學期刊, 33(1), 2009
English Teaching & Learning, 33(1), 2009
作者/Author： 廖明珠(Ming-Chu Liao);王宏均(Hung-Chun Wang)

頁數/Page： 101-146
出版日期/Publication Date：2009/03
引用本篇文獻時，請提供DOI資訊，並透過DOI永久網址取得最正確的書目資訊。
To cite this Article, please include the DOI name in your reference data.

請使用本篇文獻DOI永久網址進行連結:
To link to this Article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2009.33.1.04

DOI是數位物件識別碼（Digital Object Identifier, DOI）的簡稱，

是這篇文章在網路上的唯一識別碼，
用於永久連結及引用該篇文章。

若想得知更多DOI使用資訊，
請參考 http://doi.airiti.com

For more information,

Please see: http://doi.airiti.com
 英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009): 101-146

Perception Differences of EFL Teachers and Students

in Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

Ming-chu Liao Hung-chun Wang

National Changhua Hsin Sheng College of
University of Education Medical Care and Management
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract
This comprehensive study investigates differences in EFL teacher
and student perceptions regarding the role of grammar instruction
and error correction in improving English language competency.
The participants were 41 high school teachers and 371 high
school students, recruited from five schools in Taiwan. Data were
collected from questionnaires and telephone interviews. Based on
Schulz (2001) and Borg (1998) and modified by the researchers,
the questionnaires for students and teachers consisted of seven
focal categories, including error analysis, reference to students’
L1, grammatical terminology, grammar and communicative
ability, grammar rules, grammar practice, and error correction.
Results indicated that the perspectives high school students and
teachers had towards various aspects of grammar instruction and
error correction diverged on several points, most markedly in
instructional language, grammar practice activities, and the
necessity of error correction. Subsequent telephone interviews
with 15 teachers and 32 students were conducted to elicit further
information resulting in the perceptual differences. Based on the
findings, pedagogical implications are provided to bridge the gaps
between EFL students and teachers in grammar instruction and
error correction. Finally, the idea of a focus-on-form approach in
EFL classrooms is suggested.

Key Words: perception difference, grammar instruction, error

correction
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

INTRODUCTION

Foreign and second language pedagogy has witnessed a debate

over the past 30 years regarding the effectiveness of explicit grammar
teaching and corrective feedback in language classrooms. In line with
the changing pedagogical shifts from grammar translation and
audiolingualism to communicative language teaching, discussion of
these issues has led to presentation of research both supporting and
undermining the importance of grammar instruction and error
correction. Questions like Can or should grammar be taught? and Is
error correction really helpful? compel researchers to rate the value
of grammar teaching and error correction (see, for example, Krashen,
1985; Leki, 1990; Lyster, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; Truscott, 1996,
1999; VanPatten, 1986a, 1986b).
With increased concern for learners’ communicative ability, the
role of grammar teaching has declined. As a focus on linguistic form,
grammar teaching is often identified as being the opposite of the
meaning-based approach. Since “attention to form in the input
competes with attention to meaning” (VanPatten, 1990, p. 296),
grammar instruction is often regarded as a block hampering learners’
communicative ability, while meaning-based instruction develops
communicative skills. In Krashen’s (1981, 1994) Input Hypothesis, he
argued that it is comprehensible input and the affective filter that
determine the outcome of second language acquisition. He contended
having an appropriate learning environment that contains sufficient
comprehensible input and results in low learning anxiety facilitates
language acquisition more effectively than formal instruction. In

102
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

addition, other criticisms of formal grammar teaching point to it being

“unhelpful” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 2) and “limited” (Krashen, 1982, p. 112).
Objections to direct grammar correction have been debated in
the past, particularly in relation to its ineffectiveness and possible
harmful side effects. Strong opponents of the effectiveness of error
correction include Truscott (1996, 1999) and Krashen (1985).
Truscott (1999, p. 437) contended that “oral [grammar] correction
does not improve learners’ ability to speak grammatically.” His belief
in the problems associated with oral grammar correction and its
harmful effects on teaching and learning led Truscott to suggest the
abandonment of oral grammar correction altogether. Also, based upon
his adherence to the Input Hypothesis, Krashen (1985) concerned
himself with the affective problems caused by corrective feedback.
He claimed that the correction process increased the risk of
heightened learner anxiety and hindered learner performance. Teacher
feedback on errors may also result in “embarrassment, anger,
inhibition, feelings of inferiority, and a generally negative attitude
toward the class” (Truscott, 1999, p. 441). The failure of grammar
correction as evidenced by a large body of research (see Truscott,
1996 for a review) has minimized its role in language classrooms.
Although previous research has shown grammar teaching and
error correction to be ineffective or even harmful, a handful of studies
(e.g., Brandl, 1995; Doughty, 1991; Fotos, 1994; Lyster et al., 1999;
Omaggio, 1993) have stressed the importance and efficacy of
grammar teaching and feedback on errors. Sharwood-Smith (1981)
argued that grammar teaching facilitated the development of
communicative skills by raising learners’ consciousness. Once taught
a set of grammar rules, learners were believed to practice them and
103
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

use rules subconsciously in real-life communication. As for teacher

feedback on errors, Omaggio (1993) argued that it allows a learner to
modify his/her inter-language grammar. In a response to Truscott’s
(1999) work, Lyster et al. (1999) also highlighted the feasibility and
effectiveness of corrective feedback. Citing empirical studies, they
argued not only that “learners benefit only from developmentally
matched instruction and feedback,” (p. 459; also see Lightbown, 1998)
but that feedback on errors is “pragmatically feasible, potentially
effective, and, in some cases, necessary” (p. 457).
As the debate over explicit grammar teaching and error
correction goes on, the practice of grammar instruction and feedback
on errors continues to receive wider recognition in ESL/EFL
pedagogy. Increasing evidence (e.g., Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986;
Schulz, 1996, 2001) has shown that explicit grammar instruction and
error correction are often considered by students to be largely helpful
in language learning. Schulz (1996) examined North American
students’ and teachers’ views regarding grammar instruction and error
correction. Results of the study demonstrated that a focus on form is
largely favored by students. His follow-up study (2001) dealt with
socio-cultural influences on student and teacher perceptions of
grammar instruction and corrective feedback. The primary focus was
whether students and teachers held different beliefs towards the role
of grammar across North American and Colombian cultures. Data
were collected from 122 EFL teachers and 607 EFL learners in
Colombia using a questionnaire, and these data were then compared
with Schulz’s earlier study in 1996. Schulz discovered that, for both
ethnic groups, both teachers and students preferred and had faith in

104
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

formal grammar instruction and error correction. Based upon these

two exploratory studies by Schulz (1996, 2001), grammar instruction
and error correction are now considered common practice in
second/foreign language pedagogy.
More recently, SLA researchers have called for the need to
rethink how grammatical knowledge could be taught in a
communicative classroom (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis,
Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001). Substantial attention has been paid to
conflating a former dichotomy (form-teaching vs. meaning-focused
instruction) into one complementary model that allows grammar to be
taught in a meaningful, communicative way. One of the pioneering
contributors is Long (1991), who recognized the necessity of teaching
form in the language classroom and suggested that it be incorporated
into meaning-based activities. He termed this pedagogical approach
focus-on-form instruction. Following Long, Ellis et al. (2001) used
different labels to draw a distinction between the traditional
focus-on-forms approach and the novel focus-on-form instruction,
arguing for the need to teach grammar in a communicative way. The
focus-on-forms approach teaches pre-selected specific grammatical
rules, while focus-on-form instruction addresses grammatical forms in
a meaning-based communicative task. In addition, the purpose of
focus-on-form instruction is to help learners shape communication,
“achieved through attention to form when learners are performing a
communicative task.” (Ellis et al., 2001, p. 411)
Following the recent trend of focus-on-form instruction in
communicative language teaching (CLT), Brown (2001) also
proposed essential guidelines for grammar instruction, which placed
great emphasis on communicative contexts, communicative purposes,
105
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

and learners’ intrinsic motivation. Another vital notion, as Brown

made clear, is that grammar instruction in CLT should “promote
accuracy within fluent, communicative language.” (p. 363) Grammar
instruction, combined with meaningful, communicative activities,
seems to promise a resolution to the perennial dispute over whether to
teach grammar.

Rationale for the Current Study

The effect of grammar instruction and error correction, still
remains inconclusive; we hypothesized that grammar teaching and
error correction facilitated foreign/second language learning, as
evidenced by a large body of research (e.g., Carroll & Swain, 1993;
Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Sharwood- Smith, 1981; also see
Lyster et al., 1999 for a review of effects of oral grammar correction).
Our belief in the indispensable nature of grammar teaching and error
correction laid the groundwork for the current study. As reflected by
Schulz (1996, 2001), a majority of ESL/EFL students and teachers
consider grammar instruction and error correction to be extremely
valuable. It is therefore important not only to recognize appropriate
grammar teaching techniques that stand on the compromise of
form-focused instruction and the meaning-based approach, but also to
explore how teachers and students perceive grammar teaching and
correction. In Taiwan, little is known about student and teacher views
on grammar instruction and error correction. For this reason, we
borrowed the research frame of Schulz’s two exploratory studies, to
scrutinize how local students and teachers perceived roles of grammar
teaching and correction, in hope of providing pedagogical

106
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

implications for teaching grammar in EFL contexts.

Research on teacher cognition and student perception has
received increasing attention from SLA researchers in recent years.
Teacher cognition can be defined as a teacher’s understanding of how
a language is learned and should be taught, which has a significant
impact on the teacher’s actual instructional practices (Borg, 1999;
Fang, 1996; Kagan, 1990). Burns (1996) and Johnson (1994) also
recognized the importance of studying teacher beliefs, attitudes, and
theoretical knowledge and assumptions in educational research. In
common with teacher perception, student perception has received a
growing interest in SLA research. A handful of exploratory studies
have tied student perception to learner motivation and learning
strategies (e.g., Fox, 1993; Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995). That is, there
is a close bond between students’ beliefs and how students learn and
how well they learn. In this study, the desire to understand teacher and
student perception motivated the researchers to investigate how
differently teacher and students perceived the role of grammar
instruction and error correction.
Discussion of teacher and student perceptions towards grammar
instruction and error correction is not a new idea, yet little attention
has been paid to this issue, particularly in EFL settings. In Taiwan,
some local studies have concluded that grammar teaching is
unavoidable (Lai, 2004; Tse, 2004), but very few researchers (e.g.,
Lee, 2004) have investigated and compared student and teacher views
on these two issues. Most studies have so far focused primarily on
either the teacher or student side. However, any mismatches between
student and teacher perceptions about learning may negatively
influence instructional performance and learning outcomes. The
107
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

raising of bilateral awareness of each other’s perceptions is necessary

in order to achieve a balance that can establish teaching-learning
correspondence. This study, with a direct focus on both teacher and
student views, aimed to uncover any perceptual differences regarding
the role of grammar instruction and error correction.

METHOD

Participants
In order to obtain a more complete picture of EFL senior high
school teachers’ and students’ perceptions of grammar instruction and
error correction, the researchers aimed to include student participants
of high-, mid-, and low-proficiency levels, instead of narrowly
focusing on one specific proficiency level. Following this prerequisite,
we selected five senior high schools based on their students’
performance in the Basic Competence Test (BCT), as well as on
nationwide school rankings. These two factors may be considered as
effective predictors of participants’ proficiency levels. These schools,
of which three are public schools and two are private schools, are
located in the northern, central, southern, eastern, and off-shore
regions of Taiwan. The language proficiency of the students covered
the high-, mid- and low-level range.
With two whole classes selected from each school, a total of 41
English teachers and 371 students were recruited (Table 1). Of the
371 students, 247 participants (66.58%) were in their third-year, 79
(21.29%) were in their first-year, and 45 (12.13%) were in their
second-year. Less than half (44%) held a GEPT certificate at the

108
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

elementary level, whereas 21% of them had earned a GEPT certificate

at the intermediate level, and 35% of them had no certification. Of the
41 teachers, 8 were selected from northern regions and 12 from
central regions, with 7 teachers drawn from each of the southern,
eastern and off-shore regions. Aged between 27 and 48 years, the
English teachers were non-native speakers of English, with an
average of over 5 years of teaching experience in senior high schools.
With respect to their educational background, they were all English
majors. Nearly one third of them (33 %) had obtained a master’s
degree, 30% of them had completed a 40-credit certificate program,
28% had completed a summer TESOL Certificate program, and only
9% held just a bachelor’s degree.

Table 1
Demographic Data of the Respondents

North Central South East Off-Shore Total

Student 87 65 72 72 75 371
Teacher 8 12 7 7 7 41

Instruments
Student and teacher questionnaires. Two survey questionnaires
were designed for students and teachers respectively to elicit their
perceptions of grammar instruction and error correction in the EFL
context. The student questionnaire was written from learner’s perspective,
whereas the teacher questionnaire was phrased from instructor’s
viewpoint. Both questionnaires were initially constructed based upon
Schulz (2001). Schulz investigated cultural influences on teacher and

109
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

student perceptions of grammar instruction and error correction. In his

study, perceptual differences were measured by rating 13 statements
adapted for the student and teacher versions. In addition to the 13
statements taken directly from Schulz’s study (2001), we further
added 17 statements, totaling 30 statements in our questionnaires. The
items on the two questionnaire forms addressed identical concepts,
with the only difference being in the actual wording. Questions on the
student questionnaire (S) were rewritten to reflect a teacher’s
perspective on the teacher questionnaire (T).
Our designs were grounded in Borg’s (1998) study, which
characterized six teacher behaviors concerning grammar teaching:
Error analysis, reference to students’ L1, grammatical terminology,
grammar rules, practicing grammar, and grammar and communicative
ability. One additional dimension, general perceptions towards grammar
teaching and error correction, was also central to this study. Therefore,
all 30 statements investigated these seven constructs. The questionnaires
were constructed on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly
disagree (1), to disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree (4).
Telephone interviews. For data triangulation, post-data collection
telephone interviews were conducted with 15 teachers and 32 students.
Those teacher and student interviewees participated in the interviews
voluntarily, and they were informed that telephone interviews would
be recorded for research purposes. Each interview followed the
format of a semi-structured interview, with questions posed to identify
reasons that determined student and teacher views. The nature of a
semi-structured interview allowed our interviewees to clarify their
views in detail, which may have been ignored in the questionnaire.

110
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected in spring 2008. Aiming at a comprehensive
investigation, the researchers contacted English teachers in five
regions of Taiwan. After giving their consent to participating in the
study, the teachers helped distribute the teacher questionnaires to their
colleagues in their five respective senior high schools. They then
helped distribute the student questionnaires to their students. To
increase the validity of the responses, all the students completed the
questionnaires in class, under the supervision of their English
teachers. The response rate was high for both teacher and student
questionnaires. A total of 50 teacher questionnaires were distributed,
with 41 returned (82%), and 380 student questionnaires were
distributed, with 371 returned (97%). The researchers then began the
task of analyzing the responses. To further investigate the reasons
behind respondents’ differences, one researcher conducted individual
telephone interviews with 15 teachers and 32 students on a voluntary
basis. In analyzing the produced data, the researchers focused not
only on the differences in the students’ and teachers’ views, but also
on the causes behind their perceptual differences.
To evaluate differences between student and teacher perceptions,
the results of both questionnaires were analyzed by running an
Independent Samples t-test. This analysis would highlight any
differences in statements on both questionnaires. Recorded telephone
interviews were transcribed verbatim. Following transcription,
through careful reading of the transcribed data researchers identified
features that could represent teacher and student beliefs towards
grammar instruction and error correction.

111
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

RESULTS

The questionnaire statements which indicated statistically

significant differences between teacher and student perceptions are
discussed in this section. The interview data was cross-checked to
identify factors that influenced their perception differences based upon
seven dimensions that underpinned our questionnaire design: general
perceptions towards grammar teaching and error correction, error
analysis, reference to students’ L1, grammatical terminology, grammar
rules, practicing grammar, and grammar and communicative ability.

Questionnaire Data
Perceptions of grammar instruction. As Table 2 depicts, on the
whole both teachers and students regard the teaching of grammar as
problematic to say the least. Only 38.3% of the students expressed
great interest in learning grammar, and even fewer teachers (17.1%)
believed that students enjoy learning grammar. There is significant
divergence in the perceptions of the students and teachers, with
students being more interested in learning grammar than was assumed
to be the case by their teachers.
In Table 3, less than half of the students and teachers agreed that
more time should be allocated to teaching grammar rules. A mere
43.7% of students and 29.3% of teachers supported spending lots of
class time on the explanation of such rules. Once again, significant
divergence in perception between students and teachers indicated that
students were more supportive of increasing time spent on this area of
study than their teachers.

112
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

Table 2
Interest in Grammar Instruction

#5: (S) I enjoy learning about grammar.

(T) I think students usually enjoy learning about grammar.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 38.3 2.28 .786 5.07**
Teacher 17.1 1.78 .571
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Table 3
Allocation of Time for Teaching Grammar Rules

#6: (S) (T) English classes should allocate plenty of time to teach grammar
rules.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 43.7 2.40 .723 3.94**
Teacher 29.3 2.02 .570
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

As shown in Table 4, students and teachers hold comprehension

of grammar terms in high esteem. Nearly two-thirds of teachers
(65.9%) and the majority of students (80.9%) believed terminology to
be an important aspect of grammar learning. A significant level of
statistical dissimilitude indicates that once again students were more
in agreement with the statement that it is important to understand
grammar terminology than their teachers were.

113
 英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

Table 4
Importance of Terminology in Grammar Instruction

#8: (S) (T) Understanding grammar terminology is very important to the

study of grammar.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 80.9 2.95 .713 2.77**
Teacher 65.9 2.63 .581
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

As for the role of grammar in teaching reading skills, Table 5

outlines the rates of perception difference between students and
teachers. In response to lectures on reading texts given by teachers, a
higher percentage of students (74.1%) and comparatively fewer
teachers (51.2%) perceived the study of grammar structures in the text
as being of most benefit to them. Significant disparity in results also
suggests that it was students rather teachers who considered study of
grammar structures in reading texts to be a much more helpful form
of instruction.
As can be seen in Table 6, the students and teachers
demonstrated a similar trend of perspectives toward the need for
group grammar practice. A large proportion of students (72.5%) and
an even higher percentage of teachers (95.6%) agreed teachers should
design activities to have students practice in groups after the lecture
on grammar rules. A statistically-significant difference in results
between students and teachers illustrates that students favored group
grammar practice after grammar instruction more than teachers.

114
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

Table 5
Role of Grammar in Reading Instruction

#11: (S) (T) When the teacher lectures on a reading text, the study of
grammar structures in the text is most helpful to me/students.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 74.1 2.84 .692 3.62**
Teacher 51.2 2.44 .550
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Table 6
Need for Group Grammar Practice

#18: (S) (T) Teachers should design activities which enable students to
practice in groups after the lecture on grammar rules.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 72.5 2.89 .715 -2.91**
Teacher 95.6 3.22 .475
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

With respect to the need for individual grammar practice, the

salient rating of perception difference between students and teachers
is specified in Table 7. Despite over half of the students (60.7%)
believing teachers should design activities to have students practice
alone after the lecture on grammar rules, the overwhelming majority
of teachers (90.3%) thought they should have students practice
individually. Looking at such a significant statistical difference, it is
clear that compared to their students, the teachers placed greater value
on individual grammar practice after explanation of grammar rules.

115
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

Together, Tables 6 and 7 seem to reveal a tendency of group grammar

practice being favored by both students and teachers over individual
grammar practice.
Table 7
Need for Individual Grammar Practice

#19: (S) (T) Teachers should design activities which allow students time
for solo practice after the lecture on grammar rules.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 60.7 2.70 .754 -3.60**
Teacher 90.3 3.02 .524
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

In Table 8, the apparent differences between students and

teachers regarding how use of a first language can assist grammar
instruction are presented. Slightly over half of the students (55.8%)
considered the use of Chinese instead of English to teach grammar as
being more beneficial to students. However, an overwhelmingly
greater number of teachers (95.1%) believed that using Chinese was

Table 8
The Role of First Language in Assisting Grammar Instruction

#22: (S) (T) It is more useful to teach grammar in Chinese than English.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 55.8 2.59 .795 -5.41**
Teacher 95.1 3.10 .539
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

116
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

more helpful to the study of grammar than not doing so. Significant
dissimilarity in their perceptions evidences that teachers valued the
use of their native language in assisting grammar instruction more
than their students did.
Perceptions of error correction. As Table 9 shows, students
and teachers hold clearly different attitudes towards teacher
correction. More than half of the teachers (68.3%) felt that most
students do not like to be corrected by teachers in class, yet only a
small number of students (22.4%) thought this way. Significant
differences suggest that students, as opposed to teachers, greatly
agreed that they preferred to be corrected by teachers in class.

Table 9
Attitudes Towards Teacher Correction

#23: (S) I don’t like to be corrected by teacher in class.

(T) I think most students prefer not to be corrected by teachers in class.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 22.4 2.05 .761 -5.90**
Teacher 68.3 2.78 .652
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

As can be seen in Table 10, students and teachers differently

perceived the necessity of oral grammar correction on a large scale. Only
a fifth of students (21.0%) agreed that teachers should not correct
students if those errors do not hinder communication. However, based on
the same statement, the majority of teachers (80.5%) chose not to correct
grammar errors made by their students. Significant divergence in results

117
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

evidences that, compared with students, teachers felt that grammar errors
should not be corrected if communication is not obstructed.

Table 10
Need for Grammar Correction in Speaking

#24: (S) (T) When students make grammatical errors in spoken English, as
long as those errors do not hinder communication, teachers should
not correct students.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 21.0 1.99 .787 -9.43**
Teacher 80.5 2.85 .527
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

On the other hand, Table 11 demonstrates the similarity in

perspectives held by students and teachers in terms of the necessity of
grammar correction in writing. Around two thirds of students (68.5%)
felt cheated when their writing errors were not corrected by teachers,
whereas slightly fewer teachers (56.1%) thought students would react
negatively if they avoided correcting grammar errors in writing.

Table 11
Need for Grammar Correction in Writing

#25: (S) I feel cheated when teachers do not correct grammatical errors in
my written work.
(T) I think most students feel cheated if teachers do not correct
grammatical errors in their written work.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 68.5 2.85 .788 3.23**
Teacher 56.1 2.44 .594
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

118
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

As shown in Table 12, there is a great division between students

and teachers in their attitudes toward grammar correction in speaking.
The vast majority of students (90.8%) want teachers to correct their
grammatical errors in speech, whereas only a minority of teachers
(39.0%) supported this approach. This complete lack of correlation
suggests that many more students than teachers assume such
corrections are appropriate.

Table 12
Attitudes for Grammar Correction in Speaking

#26: (S) When I make grammatical errors in spoken English, I wish for
teachers to correct them.
(T) When students make grammatical errors in spoken English, their
errors should be corrected.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 90.8 3.22 .648 9.61**
Teacher 39.0 2.20 .641
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

However, the similarly positive perspectives of students and

teachers towards grammar correction in writing can be seen in Table
13. An overwhelming majority of students (95.7%) and marginally
fewer teachers (90.3%) indicates that both groups believed teachers
should correct students’ grammatical errors in writing. Despite this
similarity, a significant statistical difference between the students and
teachers shows that students held stronger attitudes towards grammar
correction in writing than their teachers.

119
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

Table 13
Attitudes for Grammar Correction in Writing

#27: (S) When I make grammatical errors in written English, I hope that
teachers will correct them.
(T) When students make grammatical errors in written English, their
errors should be corrected.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 95.7 3.34 .596 4.32**
Teacher 90.3 2.95 .545
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

With respect to the preference for peer correction versus teacher

correction, Table 14 presents the response difference between students
and teachers. A majority of students (60.7%) and relatively more
teachers (78.0%) responded in the same way. Significant divergence
in the results demonstrates that, a greater degree, teachers agreed that
students preferred peer correction to teacher correction.

Table 14
Preference for Peer Correction vs. Teacher Correction

#28: (S) I like to be corrected by peers in groups more than being corrected
by the teacher in front of the class.
(T) I think students like to be corrected by peers in groups more than
being corrected by the teacher in front of the class.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 60.7 2.71 .783 -3.26**
Teacher 78.0 2.93 .346
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

120
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

In Table 15, the statement pertains to the influence of grammar

correction on self-learning. Both students and teachers tended to
believe that grammar correction benefited the student being corrected.
A majority of students (96.5%) and slightly more teachers (97.6%)
felt correction was of benefit to the student being corrected.
Significant statistical disparity once again indicates that students
placed more importance on the impact of self-correction in assisting
self-learning than teachers did.

Table 15
Impact of Self-Correction on Assisting Self-Learning

#29: (S) When teachers correct my grammatical errors, it is beneficial to

my learning.
(T) When teachers correct a student’s grammatical errors, it is
beneficial to his/her learning.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 96.5 3.31 .554 6.56**
Teacher 97.6 2.98 .273
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Similarly, as illustrated in Table 16, both the students and the

teachers thought that when teachers correct a student’s grammatical
errors, it is helpful to other students’ learning. A large proportion of
students (94.3%) and slightly fewer teachers (90.2%) felt it helpful to
classmates’ learning to have teachers correct their errors. The difference
between student and teacher ratings reached a significant level,
suggesting that the assistance students gained from error correction of
peers’ work is more highly valued on the part of students than teachers.

121
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

Table 16
Impact of Self-Correction on Assisting Others’ Learning

#30: (S) When teachers correct my grammatical errors, it is helpful to

other classmates’ learning.
(T) When teachers correct a student’s grammatical errors, it is
helpful to other students’ learning.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value
Student 94.3 3.25 .576 4.39**
Teacher 90.2 2.95 .384
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

Interview Data
Interest, time allocation, terminology in grammar instruction.
The followings are representative entries of students’ and teachers’
replies, recorded during interviews in Chinese and translated into
English by the researchers. Most students regarded grammar as an
important component of foreign language learning. For instance,
Student 1 (S1) is a more exam-oriented grammar learner, who saw
the need to learn English to succeed in regular monthly exams. He
said, “I like to study grammar …grammar is useful…Most of the
monthly exams focused on grammar or were based on
grammar…Learning grammar helps improve my English much
faster…The outcome is more instant than memorizing vocabulary.”
Similarly, our interview data showed that a large number of high
school students regarded the need to learn grammar for the purpose of
getting a good grade in exams. A second factor that could account
for learners’ emphasis on grammar instruction is associated with the
difficulty of learning grammar rules. For instance, S19, saying
122
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

“Grammar rules are very complicated and difficult to

understand…teachers should spend at least over half of class time to
explain the grammar rules…explanation of the grammar rules are
more necessary than vocabulary,” expressed that grammar rules are
difficult to learn, so a strong focus on grammar instruction in regular
class meetings is necessary. Lastly, as for the learning of grammar
terminology, several student respondents linked the importance of
grammar terminology to the ability to classify different grammar
patterns. For example, S24 reported “I think grammar terminology is
important…terminology used by teachers makes the grammar rules
look systematical…Without the terminology, the grammar rules are
more confusing…can not tell the differences.” The use of grammar
terminology in grammar instruction could help them systematize the
grammar rules they learn.
The teachers had different perceptions. Influenced deeply by
the notion of teaching based upon learners’ communicative needs, far
fewer teachers thought that grammar instruction should dominate
teaching. They tended to designate less class time to explain grammar
rules, attempting to use less grammar terminology which they
considered might easily disinterest students during instruction. Also,
one of the explanations given for not using grammar terminology is
that it could avoid causing any bad feeling among students about
learning grammar rules.

Grammar is of little importance…the prevalence of the

Communicative Approach focuses on communication purpose
of language learning…I feel it opposes the spirits of
Communicative Approach if I spend too much time on grammar
rules…usually less than ten minutes is sufficient. (T4)

123
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

Another respondent, T9, also pointed out that “Grammar is

boring to students…They hate to memorize the terminology…I try
not to emphasize these terminology when explaining the grammar
rules in class…Their hatred for grammar can be minimized this way.”
Preference for group grammar practice over individual
grammar practice. Students preferred group grammar practice owing
to the potential peer assistance available during group interaction.
They were of the opinion that a more knowledgeable peer would help
them when faced with difficulties in learning. Individual grammar
practice confines students to working alone, which could create
increased insecurity about their performance. Lack of peer assistance
could arouse their learning anxiety to a greater extent. Take S12 and
S20 for instance, they respectively responded that “Practicing
grammar in groups is better…I can ask group members about the
newly-taught grammar to clarify my problems” and “If the teacher
asked us to do the grammar practice alone, I can only depend on
myself…I feel insecure…I don’t know whether what I perceive is
correct or not.”
Teachers agreed that group grammar practice has a stronger
impact on enhancing students’ interest in learning and reinforcing
learned rules than individual practice. But from a teacher’s
perspective, individual practice is indispensable because it allows
teachers to understand each student’s progress in learning. T5, saying
that “After teaching grammar rules, practicing in group activities can
activate their interest…through group interaction, the grammar
patterns can be reinforced and made more of an impression,” and T12,
saying that “Students like group activities, but practicing alone is also

124
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

necessary…teachers can have a better understanding of the whole

class…to know which students in the class didn’t get the grammar
point,” both fully agreed on the importance of group and individual
practices.
Language preference for teaching grammar. A large number
of students expected teachers to use more English in grammar
instruction. They thought grammar rules taught in English could be
more easily memorized and would help them learn to think in English.
In addition, the students believed that since English tests are usually
written in English, teachers should teach grammar by using English,
as it would help them to prepare for English exams. S3 responded that
“I want my English teachers to use English when teaching
grammar…since we are encouraged to think in English, why not learn
the grammar rules taught in English?” S7 similarly reported that
“Grammar rules will make more of an impression if taught in
English…not all the test items are designed in Chinese…students
need to have more exposure to English.”
However, most teachers held the opposite view, believing
Chinese to be more helpful to their students. From their perspective,
using Chinese lowered learner anxiety. In addition, competence in
teaching grammar in English was considered a great challenge to
several teachers. They admitted that they were not able to teach
grammar in English. For instance, T6 pointed out that “Grammar
rules are numerous and difficult…Using Chinese is easier for students
to understand...I don’t have the confidence to teach grammar in
English…I am afraid using English to teach grammar will make me
fall behind the schedule.” T11 also expressed that “English grammar
can be challenging for many students…Using Chinese makes them
125
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

feel relaxed…students feel better if they do not have to deal with the
language and the content simultaneously.”
Preference for peer correction vs. teacher correction. From the
student perspective, teacher correction was more strongly favored.
Students tended to consider teacher correction more professional,
reliable, and trustworthy, with peer corrections often seen as haphazard
and unreliable. However, our teacher respondents preferred peer
correction to teacher correction mainly for affective consideration. S5
said, “I prefer to be corrected by teachers…Teachers are more
professional in grammar…Their corrections are much more
trustworthy.” S30 reported that “Peer correction is usually indirect
and unclear…I feel less secure for peer corrections…they could have
corrected the grammar errors wrongly…kind of wastes time.” T2 also
indicated that “Students dislike being corrected by their English
teachers…teachers tend to eagerly correct the ungrammatical English
of their students…they imperceptibly impose too much pressure on
the students being corrected…ruins the atmosphere in the English
classroom.”

Peer corrections are definitely more welcome by senior high school

students…students during this stage do not like to have their errors
pointed out directly…they feel hurt or face-threatened …peer
correction works much better…High school students are seeking
peer acceptance. (T15)

Needs and attitudes towards error correction in speaking and

writing. A great number of students wished that their errors could be
corrected by teachers, regardless of whether these occurred in English
speaking or writing. They would feel cheated if their errors in

126
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

speaking or writing were not corrected. However, teachers thought

most students would prefer not to be corrected in spoken
communication, so they would avoid correcting students’ speaking
errors. In contrast, teachers agreed that errors in writing should be
corrected. Corresponding replies includes “Even if the grammar
errors do not obstruct communication, I still want to be corrected by
teachers…I hope I can speak correct English…Teacher corrections
make me improve in speaking grammatically.” (S12) and “Based on
the Communicative Approach, grammar errors in speaking should be
treated naturally if they do not hinder communication…I will avoid
correcting the speaking errors lest to cause negative feelings to
students.” (T5) The following are two longer entries of student and
teacher respondents.

I feel cheated if the teachers leave my errors there without

correcting them…I feel they do not look at my writing
seriously…A responsible English teacher should correct my
writing, instead of asking group discussion or my own reflection
to correct the errors. (S20)

Students should be corrected for their grammar errors…they can

score better in future English writing on the JCEE English
test…Peer correction through discussions can be an interesting
way to correct these errors in writing…The errors corrected this
way save more time…good classroom atmosphere. (T12)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Differences in Perceptions of Grammar Instruction

This study investigated the perceptual differences between

127
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

students and teachers regarding the role of grammar instruction and

error correction in high school classrooms. Results showed most
students held a positive view towards these two issues, a greater
interest in learning grammar, and a belief in the need to allocate more
classroom time for grammar instruction and learning essential
grammar terminology. These results echo the observations in several
previous studies (e.g., Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Chenoweth, Day,
Chun, & Luppescu, 1983), that students held generally favorable
attitudes toward a focus on form in foreign language learning. As for
the teachers, they reacted more negatively to grammar instruction
than the students.
Two possible factors, revealed in the interview data, may
account for the discrepancy between students’ and teachers’ views
regarding grammar instruction. Firstly, teachers were deeply
influenced by the emphasis on communicative ability, and they
seemed to conclude that grammar teaching should be minimized to fit
in a more pragmatic pedagogical approach. Secondly, a factor favoring
group practice is that group interaction usually resulted in a more
harmonious atmosphere, and learners would feel less anxious during
interaction. Teachers valued both group and individual grammar
practice, but they showed a stronger belief in group grammar practice
than the students. They believed group practice not only aroused the
students’ interest for learning grammar, but also enhanced the
effectiveness of the overall learning. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions
also differed in terms of the preferred instructional language for
grammar instruction. The students’ key priority was receiving more
English input, even when teachers were explaining grammar rules,

128
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

thinking that more exposure to English would help them not only
think in English, but also prepare them for the listening sections of
English exams. However, for teachers, the concern is helping students
to understand the teaching point, and they therefore preferred to teach
grammar using Chinese, believing that grammar rules are difficult to
teach, and therefore to learn, in English. The students’ and teachers’
preferences thus differ in this respect: students believed that teaching
grammar in English is better for their holistic learning, while teachers
believed that teaching grammar in English is not preferable when it
comes to learning complicated grammatical rules.

Differences in Perceptions Towards Error Correction

When it comes to perceptual differences regarding error
correction, teacher correction was more favored by students, who saw
the teacher as the only authority or knowledgeable person in class and
thus expected teacher corrections to be more reliable and worthy than
peer correction. Still, our teacher respondents felt that teacher correction
could easily hurt students’ feelings and arouse students’ anxiety.
The discrepancy between student and teacher attitudes towards
oral and written grammar correction is another focus of our discussion
on error correction. Students expressed strong positive attitudes that
they want teachers to correct oral grammatical errors, whether it affects
communication or not. They also look for teacher corrections for their
writing errors. They had negative perceptions of teachers who do not
correct the errors in their writing. In contrast, teachers had more
conservative attitudes toward correcting speaking errors that do not
hinder communication. To the teachers, grammar teaching seems to
run counter to teaching via communicative activities; therefore, they
129
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

avoid a direct focus on grammar, which they believe would otherwise

hinder the role of communicative abilities in classrooms. Teachers
tend to think highly of peer correction as it saves time and helps to
maintain a positive atmosphere in class; they thus avoid correcting
errors themselves.

Bridging the Gaps

Based upon the above findings, we have identified four
pedagogical implications that could help bridge the gulf between
student and teacher views on how grammar teaching and error
correction should be integrated into EFL language classrooms.
Embedding grammar instruction in meaningful, communicative
activities. As Long (1991) and Ellis et al. (2001) highlighted, form-
focused instruction should be incorporated in meaningful, communicative
activities. They argued that teaching form in a meaning-based approach
for communicative needs helps to develop learners’ grammar knowledge
and communicative skills. This approach “overtly draws students’
attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons
whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication.” (Long,
1991, pp. 45-46) This study also recognizes the value of embedding
grammar teaching into communicative activities. As cited above, our
students considered the study of grammar to be an essential foundation
to the acquisition of English. They even demonstrated a remarkably
higher interest in communicative activities. We thus suggest that a
focus-on-form approach deserves EFL teachers’ pedagogical
consideration: meaning takes priority, while form is discussed for
maintaining smooth flow of communication. This approach may provide

130
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

a means of developing learners’ grammar knowledge and

communicative skills. Further research must explore implementation
of the focus-on-form approach in not only our local context but also
other EFL countries. More pedagogical attention should be paid to the
questions of what techniques can be used to incorporate grammar
teaching into communicative skills or vice versa, and most
importantly, how EFL teachers can incorporate the focus-on-form
approach in the face of the perennial pedagogical constraints: large
class size, tight teaching schedule, and the backwash effects of exams.
Using appropriate language choice during grammar
teaching/learning. As reflected in the interview data, our students
expressed a stronger need for English input in classrooms. More
specifically, in terms of grammar teaching, they demanded more
English input from their teachers. Their expectation that grammar
teaching be conducted in English instead of Chinese could result from
the misconception that more input enhances results. However, Brown
(2001) advised teachers to use students’ L1 to explain rules or patterns
if students cannot follow explanations in English. Taiwan provides
countless examples of grammar rules being explained in Chinese, yet
students find these rules confusing and difficult to learn. It is perhaps
unnecessary to discuss the difficulties students would further encounter
if grammar instruction were conducted in English.
Learners’ desire for more English input during grammar
instruction may be derived from their expectations of how an English
class should be. In our study, interviews with the students suggest that
most of them expect to obtain more English input in class. However,
the reality is that English input is often limited; therefore they argued
for English input for all the instructional activities. The insufficient
131
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

amount of English input they avail may thus have created a

misconception that all classroom activities should be conducted in
English. Based on these findings, we propose that English teachers
introduce grammar patterns and rules in students’ L1, i.e., Chinese,
to ensure that students attain a high level of comprehensibility.
Follow-up grammar practice must provide sufficient English input to
students, such as reiterating the focal grammar points briefly in
English or conducting grammar activities in English. Subsequent
English of this kind can reinforce students’ grammatical knowledge.
In this vein, this moderate use of both Chinese and English during
grammar instruction will not only make grammar rules more
comprehensible to students, but also ensure the sufficient target
language input they desire.
Appropriate use of grammar terminology in the classroom.
A large number of students tend to favor teachers using more
terminology in explaining grammar, and they believe their grammar
ability will improve if they familiarize themselves with such
terminology. This misconception results from the notion that all
textbooks and lectures are based on special jargon. Also, as reported
in the interview data, some students believed that maintaining that
terminology is the optimal route to a better command of grammar.
Most teachers held an opposing view, showing fewer attempts to use
grammar terminology during grammar instruction. Influenced by the
communicative approach to language teaching and their concern with
the possible intimidating effect of grammar terminology, they believe
grammar should facilitate communication, and that grammar
terminology is little more than a new word for most students. Taking

132
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

these views together, we believe that grammar terminology should be

referred to in grammar instruction; most students observed that
knowing grammar terminology helps them to systematize rules as
they learn, but we feel the use of grammar terminology should be
limited.
Knowing what errors to correct and when to correct them.
Students in this research reflected a stronger need for both oral and
written grammar correction than teachers did. To most students, any
grammar error they make should be “debugged” by their teacher,
whether it occurs in speech or writing. However, most teachers
contend that writing errors need correction, while most speech can be
ignored if it does not obstruct communication flow. A gap between
students and teachers may be the direct result of the fact that teachers
in Taiwan are often regarded as the sole authority dominating
classroom learning. Students are largely dependent on the teacher for
useful linguistic feedback, maintaining a strong belief that error
correction by the teacher is absolutely essential and significant in
language learning.
Our study addressed perceptual differences between students
and teachers in the need for grammar correction. Though students
demonstrated a strong need for both oral and written correction, we
contend that it should be offered cautiously in grammar instruction. It
is hardly surprising to note that most teachers often find themselves in
a pedagogical dilemma as to whether to correct a noticed error or to
let it go uncorrected, for fear of over- and under-correction. On the
one hand, if correction is overdone, the majority of learners may lose
confidence in learning and grow hesitant in attempting their output.
Excessive correction tends to hinder oral and written communication
133
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

flow. On the other hand, teachers’ excessive tolerance for errors may
as well result in the learners’ improper internalization of errors. While
this issue is still an intricate one for SLA teachers and researchers, we
urge that teachers be prudent enough to strike a balance between
letting crucial errors go uncorrected and providing appropriate
corrections to avoid fossilization. In addition, through their
experience in teaching and interacting with students, they will gradually
develop an intuitive sense that helps them determine when errors
should be corrected, to maximize the benefit of grammar correction.
This study revealed grammar instruction as being highly valued
by EFL students and teachers in Taiwan; error correction, by
comparison, was only favored by students. It should be noted that we
made no attempt to jump into a debate for or against grammar
instruction or error correction. Instead, by probing student and
teacher views on these two issues, we have proposed several
pedagogical recommendations that can help English teachers balance
roles of form and meaning in language classrooms. However, this
study does have its limitations. The limited number of participants in
such a wide-ranging study could make it difficult to accurately
generalize the results. For future research, each of the five regions
should incorporate a high-, intermediate-, and a low-proficiency school
in order to further validate the results. Also, the fact that teacher and
student respondents were not randomly selected could have directly
influenced the results of this study. Learner characteristics, such as
their academic performance, their major (be it in social science or
natural science groups), and English proficiency level, may have been
factors in determining how they perceive grammar instruction and

134
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

error correction.
Moreover, this study explored students’ and teachers’ views
regarding grammar instruction from a holistic perspective, instead of
touching upon how both groups might evaluate the study of each
individual grammatical rule. Since some particular grammar patterns
require more attention from both students and teachers alike, it is
recommended that future research focus on grammar patterns that
often cause greater difficulties, such as relative clauses and the past
perfect progressive tense. Future research might also explore the
proficiency level of students as a factor affecting their perception of
grammar instruction and error correction. That is, the perception of
students across different proficiency levels could be compared so
that differences can be identified. On the other hand, with the
accumulation of greater learning experience, students’ perception may
accordingly vary or change. Despite these limitations, this study
hopes to shed some light on revealing students’ needs regarding
grammar instruction and error correction, as well as to provide
evidence favoring a focus-on-form approach in foreign language
teaching pedagogy.

REFERENCES

Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching:

A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 9-38.
Borg, S. (1999). Studying teacher cognition in second language
grammar teaching. System, 27, 19-31.
Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error

135
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

feedback options and responses. Modern Language Journal, 79,

194-211.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach
to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, New York: Addison
Wesley Longman, Inc.
Burns, H. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to
teaching beginners. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher
learning in language teaching (pp. 154-177). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative
feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic
generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15,
357-386.
Cathcart, R. L., & Olsen, J. E. W. B. (1976). Teachers’ and students’
preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In J.
F. Fanselo & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 1976 (pp. 41-53).
Washington, DC: TESOL.
Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1983).
Attitudes and preferences of ESL students to error correction.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 79-87.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a
difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on
form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-431.

136
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices.

Educational Research, 38, 47-65.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative
language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
Fox, C. A. (1993). Communicative competence and beliefs about
language among graduate teaching assistants in French. Modern
Language Journal, 77, 313-324.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning
university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal,
72, 283-294.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language
classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Johnson, K. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices
of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 10, 439-452.
Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences
concerning the Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational
Research, 60, 419-460.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language
learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 71-92.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language
learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language
acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications.
London: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. C. Ellis
137
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

(Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45-77).

London: Academic Press.
Lai, S.-J. (2004). High school English teachers’ beliefs on grammar
instruction in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National
Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Lee, P.-Y. (2004). A study of English grammar instruction in elementary
schools in Taipei. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung
First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response.
In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for
the classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form.
In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit
negative evidence in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and
Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
Long. M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language
teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C.
Kramsche (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural
perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s
‘What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.’ The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 55, 457-467.
Omaggio, H. A. (1993). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Boston:
Heinle.

138
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom:
Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of
grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343-364.
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher
perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and
corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal,
85, 244-258.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second
language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-169.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing
classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437-456.
Tse, K. P. (2004). Pedagogical grammar for EFL teachers. Taipei:
Crane Publishing Company.
VanPatten, B. (1986a). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Implications
for grammatical accuracy in the classroom? Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 8, 56-67.
VanPatten, B. (1986b). Second language acquisition research and the
learning/teaching of Spanish: Some research findings and
implications. Hispania, 69, 202-216.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An
experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12, 287-301.

139
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Ming-chu Liao teaches English at Taichung Home Economics

and Commercial High School. She was a recipient of an Excellent
Teaching Award and authored a series of English textbook. She holds
an MA in TEFL from National Taiwan Normal University. Currently,
she is also a doctoral student on Linguistics and TEFL program and a
part-time English lecturer at National Changhua University of
Education. Her research interests include language testing, writing
instruction, and second language acquisition.
Hung-chun Wang teaches in the Department of Applied
Foreign Languages at Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and
Management. He holds an MA in TEFL from National Kaohsiung
Normal University. Currently, he is also a doctoral student on TEFL
program at National Taiwan Normal University. His research interests
include second language acquisition and discourse analysis.

140
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

APPENDIX

Transcript of Telephone Interviews

Chinese English

Interest, time allocation, terminology in grammar instruction

我喜歡讀文法…文法很有用…大部 I like to study grammar…grammar is
分的月考其實還是著重文法或根據 useful…Most of the monthly exams
文法出題啊…學習文法都嘛會讓我 focused on grammar or based on
的英文進步比較快…嗯，成果比記憶 grammar…Learning grammar helps
單字更看得出來。(S1) improve my English much faster…The
outcome is more instant than memorizing
vocabulary. (S1)

文法規則很複雜又超難懂…老師應 Grammar rules are very complicated and

該至少要花超過一半的上課時間來 difficult to understand…teachers should
解釋那些規則啊…講解文法規則比 spend at least over half of class time to
解說單字更需要吧！(S19) explain the grammar rules…Explanation
of the grammar rules is more necessary
than vocabulary. (S19)

我認為文法的專門用語很重要…老 I think grammar terminologies are

師用專門用語教會讓文法比較有系 important…terminologies used by
統的感覺…沒有專門用語的話，文法 teachers make the grammar rules look
規則會更容易搞不清楚…沒辦法分 systematical…Without the terminologies,
辨差異在哪裡。(S24) the grammar rules are more
confusing…can not tell the differences.
(S24)

141
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

文法不重要啦…溝通式教學法的風 Grammar is of little importance…the

行就是著重在語言學習的溝通目的 prevalence of Communicative Approach
啊…我覺得花太多時間講解文法規 focuses on communication purpose of
則就違反了溝通式教學法的精神 language learning…I feel it opposed the
了…通常一節課不超過十分鐘就很 spirits of Communicative Approach if I
夠了。(T4) spend too much time on grammar
rules…usually less than ten minutes is
sufficient. (T4)

文法對學生來說應該很無聊…他們 Grammar is boring to students…They

討厭記那些文法專門用語…我在課 hate to memorize the terminologies…I
堂上解釋文法規則時都盡量不去強 try not to emphasize these terminologies
調那些專門用語…這樣應該他們對 when explaining the grammar rules in
文法的感冒就會減輕了。(T9) class…Their hatred for grammar can be
minimized this way. (T9)

Preference for group grammar practice to individual grammar practice

分組練習文法比較好啊…這樣剛新 Practicing grammar in groups is better…I

教的文法有問題的地方就可以問同 can ask group members about the
組的同學了。(S12) newly-taught grammar to clarify my
problems. (S12)

如果老師要求我們個別做文法的練 If the teacher asked us to do the grammar

習，我只能靠自己了…我覺得沒安全 practice alone, I can only depend on
感…我不知道自己理解對了沒。(S20) myself…I feel insecure… I don’t know
what I perceive is correct or not. (S20)

教完文法規則後，讓學生分組練習可 After teaching grammar rules, practicing

以激發他們的興趣…透過小組的互 in group activities can activate their
動，文法規則會被強化，印象深刻。 interest…Through group interaction, the
(T5) grammar patterns can be reinforced and
made impressive. (T5)

142
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

學生都是喜歡分組活動，但是個別練 Students like group activities, but practicing

習也有其必要性…老師能更了解整 alone is also necessary…Teachers can have
個班…知道班上哪些學生沒弄懂這 a better understanding of the whole
個文法重點。(T12) class… to know which students in the
class didn’t get the grammar point. (T12)

Language preference for teaching grammar

教英文時，我想要我的英文老師多用 I want my English teachers to use

英文…既然老師都鼓勵我們多用英 English when teaching grammar…Since
文思考，為什麼學文法時不能就用英 we are encouraged to think in English,
文教呢？ (S3) why not learn the grammar rules taught
in English? (S3)

如果用英文教，文法規則會印象更深 Grammar rules will be more impressive

刻…考試題目都嘛不是用中文出 if taught in English…All the test items
的…學生需要沉浸在更多的英文裏 are not designed in Chinese…Students
面。(S7) need to have more exposure to English.
(S7)

文法規則又多又困難…用中文來教 Grammar rules are numerous and

學生應該比較容易懂…我其實也沒 difficult…Using Chinese is easier for
自信用英文教文法…怕用英文教文 students to understand...I don’t have the
法教學進度會落後。(T6) confidence to teach grammar in
English…I am afraid using English to
teach grammar will make me behind the
schedule. (T6)

英文文法對很多學生來說都很有挑 English grammar can be challenging for

戰性…用中文他們會比較輕鬆…學 many students…Using Chinese makes
生如果不必同時處理文法和內容會 them feel relaxed…Students feel better if
覺得比較好吧。(T11) they do not have to deal with the grammar
and the content simultaneously. (T11)

143
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

Preference for peer correction or teacher correction

我比較喜歡被老師指正…老師的文 I prefer to be corrected by teachers…Teachers

法比同學專精多了…他們的指正更 are more professional in grammar…Their
值得信任。(S5) corrections are much more trust-worthy.
(S5)

同學的指正通常不是直接的，不太清 Peer correction is usually indirect and

楚…我對同學的指正沒有安全感… unclear…I feel less secure for peer
他們很可能會亂指正成錯的…恩… corrections…They could have corrected
有點浪費時間吧。(S30) the grammar errors wrongly…kind of
waste time. (S30)

同學不喜歡被他們的英文老師指 Students dislike being corrected by their

正…老師多半很急著糾正學生不合 English teachers…Teachers tend to
文法的英文…他們不自覺地對被糾 eagerly correct the ungrammatical English
正的學生加諸太多壓力…會破壞英 of their students…They imperceptibly
文課的上課氣氛。(T2) impose too much pressure on the students
being corrected…ruined the atmosphere
in the English classroom. (T2)

高中學生當然是喜歡被同儕糾正的 Peer corrections are definitely more welcome

啦…這個階段的學生不喜歡被直接 by senior high school students …Students
指出他們的錯誤啊…他們會覺得受 during this stage do not like to be pointed out
傷或沒面子…同儕指正效果好多 their errors directly…They feel hurt or
了…高中學生都會尋求被同儕接 face-threatening …Peer correction works
納。(T15) much better…High school students are
seeking peer acceptance. (T15)

144
 Liao & Wang: Grammar Instruction and Error Correction

Needs and attitudes towards error correction in speaking and writing

即使文法的錯誤沒有阻礙溝通，我仍 Even the grammar errors do not obstruct

然想要被老師指正…我希望能說正 communication, I still want to be corrected
確的英文…老師的指正能讓我進 by teachers…I hope I can speak correct
步，說英文都合文法。(S12) English…Teacher corrections make me
improve in speaking grammatically. (S12)

如果老師不管我的錯誤沒指正我，我 I feel cheated if the teachers leave my

會覺得有被老師欺騙的感覺…我會 errors there without correcting them…I
覺得他們根本沒認真看我寫的…負 feel they do not look at my writing
責任的英文老師應該要直接指正我 seriously…A responsible English teacher
的錯誤，而不是用分組討論或叫我自 should correct my writing, instead of
己反省來找出有錯的地方。(S20) asking group discussion or my own
reflection to correct the errors. (S20)

根據溝通式教學法，如果不妨礙溝 Based on the Communicative Approach,

通，學生講英文的時候要是有文法錯 grammar errors in speaking should be
誤應該要用很自然的態度面對…學 treated naturally if they do not hinder
生講英文我會避免指正他的文法錯 communication…I will avoid correcting
誤，以免給學生負面觀感。(T5) the speaking errors lest to cause negative
feelings to students. (T5)

學生的文法錯誤應該要糾正…以後 Students should be corrected for their

統一入學測驗的英文才會考得讚一 grammar errors…they can score better in
點…透過討論，用同儕來指正寫作的 future English writing of JCEE English
錯誤比較能引起學生的興趣…這樣 test…Peer correction through discussions
指正錯誤會比較節省時間…課堂氣 can be interesting to correct these errors
氛也比較好啦。(T12) in writing…The errors corrected this way
save more time…good classroom
atmosphere. (T12)

145
英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
33. 1 (Spring 2009)

高中教師與學生
對於文法教學及錯誤修正之認知差異
對於文法教學及錯誤修正之認知差異

摘要
本文探討高中英語教師與學生對文法教學及錯誤修
正上認知的差異，研究對象為 41 位高中教師及 371
位高中生，分別來自臺灣北、中、南、東部及外島各
一所高中，採用問卷及電話訪問收集資料。本研究者
以 Schulz (2001) 的研究為藍本，並參照 Borg (1998)
提出六大教師文法教學行為設計問卷，將教師問卷及
學生問卷擴充至七大項：錯誤分析、母語的使用、文
法術語的使用、文法與溝通能力、文法規則、文法練
習、錯誤修正。研究結果顯示高中教師及學生對於文
法教學及錯誤修正的認知有所不同，尤其是在教學語
言的使用、文法練習活動及錯誤修正的需要。研究者
隨後與 15 位教師及 32 位學生進行電話訪談，以深入
了解雙方造成認知上差異的因素。根據研究結果，本
研究提出關於課堂上文法教學及錯誤修正的教學意
見，期望能幫助教師與學生達成更高的教學效益。本
文最後亦提出對文法教學採用「語言形式教學」
(focus-on-form approach) 的建議。

關鍵詞：認知差異 文法教學 錯誤修正

146