Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1998). Irony and relevance: A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi. In R.
Carston, & S. Uchida, (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 283-93). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tannen, D. (1999). The Argument Culture:stopping Americas war of words. New Yourk: Ballantine.
Tavakoli, M., Dabaghi, A., & Khorvash, Z. (2010). The effect of metadiscourse awareness on L2 reading
comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. Ccsenet: English Language Teaching Journal, 3(1), 92-102.
Thompson, G., Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: the management of interaction in
written discourse. Text, 15 (1), 103-127.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied
Linguistics , 22(1), 58-78.
Toumi, N. (2009). A model for investigation of reflexive metadiscourse in research articles. Language
Studies Working Papers, 1, 64-73.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2009). Discipline and gender: Constructing rhetorical identity in book review. In K.
Hyland, & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic evaluation and review genres (pp. 87-104). UK, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Van Dijk, T. A., Ting Toomy, S., Smitherman, G., & Troutman, D. (1997). Discourse, Ethnicity, Culture
and Racism. In: T. van Dij (Eds.), Discourse as Social Action. London: Sage Publications.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and
Communication, 36, 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton,
& G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91-113). Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Waugh, Linda R. (1995). Reported speech in journalistic discourse: the relation of function and text.
Text15 (1), 129-173.
Webb, N. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 5, 421-
445.
Wortham, S., & Locher, M. (1960). Voicing on the news: an analytic technique for studying media bias.
Text, 16 (4), 557-585.

L2 TEACHERS BELIEFS ABOUT GRAMMAR

INSTRUCTION VIS--VIS THEIR ClASSROOM
PRACTICES

Faezeh Ahmadi
Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
ahmadi.fh@gmail.com

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 541

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

Sajad Shafiee
Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
shafiee.sajad@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
THIS PAPER REPORTS ON A STUDY THAT INVESTIGATED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
TEACHERS BELIEFS ABOUT TEACHING GRAMMAR AND THEIR ACTUAL PRACTICES IN THE
CLASSROOM. TO ELICIT THE DATA ON THEIR BELIEFS, BELIEFS ABOUT LANGUAGE LEARNING
INVENTORY (HORWITZ, 1987) WAS MODIFIED AND DISTRIBUTED AMONG 35 ENGLISH
LANGUAGE TEACHERS CHOSEN FROM DIFFERENT LANGUAGE INSTITUTES IN ISFAHAN.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSES WERE USED TO ANALYZE THE DATA GERMANE TO
THEIR BELIEFS. TO UNVEIL THE TEACHERS CLASSROOM PRACTICES, THE REQUIRED DATA
WERE OBTAINED THROUGH OBSERVATION. THE OBSERVATION DATA WERE RECORDED IN A
CHECKLIST AND ANALYZED DESCRIPTIVELY. THE ANALYSES INDICATED THAT THERE WERE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEACHERS BELIEFS AND THEIR ACTUAL PERFORMANCES WITH
REGARD TO ERROR-CORRECTION AND TESTING PROCEDURES IN THE CLASSROOM;
NEVERTHELESS, THEIR BELIEFS, AND PERFORMANCES IN OTHER ASPECTS, E.G. TEACHING
TECHNIQUES AND TEACHING APPROACHES, WERE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.

KEY WORDS: TEACHERS BELIEF, GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION, TEACHING PRACTICES

1. Introduction
It is important to recognize the fact that teacher beliefs are conceptual systems arisen from teachers prior
experiences, school practices, personality, educational theory, reading and other sources (Richards, Gallo,
& Renandya, 2001). Furthermore, understanding the teachers beliefs is vital because it is said that what
teachers do in the classroom is governed by what they believe and these beliefs affect their judgment
shaping their classroom behavior (Pajares, 1992; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). It is observed that in the realm
of TESOL, there is a need to understand this belief system and its impact on classroom practices (Borg,
1998b, 2003; Farrell, 1999; Golombek, 1998). Some studies have been conducted in the field of second
language teaching in which they examined ESL teachers knowledge and focused on teachers beliefs and
grammar teaching (Breen, 1991; Farrell, 1999; Ng & Farrell, 2003; Richards, Gallo, & Renandya, 2001; Yim,
1993). Following the importance of teachers belief in education, researchers in second language
acquisition have examined how teachers construct their theories and beliefs (Cumming, 1993; Leinhardt,
1990), how teachers conceptualize their work (Berliner, 1987; Shulman, 1987), and the extent to which
teachers theoretical beliefs influence their classroom practices (Johnson, 1991). Others still have
investigated the decisions teachers employ while teaching (Nunan, 1992). Attitudes to the nature of
teaching seem to be significant in the process of teaching practices. The beliefs about teaching and
learning held by teachers, reflect their ideas and attitudes in this area (Richards, 1996; Verloop, 2001). The
study of teacher beliefs has indicated that it is these beliefs that construct teaching practices and create an
interaction between thoughts and behaviors. Nunan (2004) asserted that whatever teachers do in the
classroom is influenced by beliefs about the nature of language, the nature of the learning process, and
the nature of the teaching act. In the area of language teaching, teacher beliefs is to see personal beliefs
and knowledge of teaching, and the impact they have on instructional practices and teachers decision
(Dunkin, 2002; Hativa, 2002).
Research on teachers practices in grammar teaching has focused on how teachers beliefs and practices in
grammar instruction interact with each other. Burgess and Etherington (2002) note that It is becoming
clearer that it is the choices made by teachers in their individual contexts which play a large part in
determining the kind of teaching which takes place (p. 436).
Concerning teachers beliefs and their actual practices in teaching grammar, some studies were
conducted by Borg (1998a, 1999, 2001) and Johnston and Goettsch (2000) in which the real classroom
events and teachers viewpoint on grammar teaching were described clearly. As mentioned above,

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 542

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

teachers beliefs are related to their classroom practices; therefore, changes in practices follow changes in
beliefs. Thus, it is needed to recognize teaching from teachers perspectives by understanding the beliefs
they hold in their work. Educational research has indicated that much can be learned about the extent to
which various factors related to the cognition and contexts play a significant role in the development of
teachers beliefs which have a substantial impact on teachers classroom practices. Unlike several studies
into teachers beliefs towards grammar teaching in ESL contexts, the number of studies in the Iranian EFL
contexts is few. The present study may enhance the awareness of perceiving the factors about teachers
cognition in relation to grammar teaching by the examination of teachers beliefs about grammar.
2. Literature Review
There are different beliefs in favor of and against grammar teaching in the field of applied linguistics
(Hawkins, 1984; Newmark, 1979). The place of grammar in language teaching and a range of views for
and against such teaching within language methodology is a controversial topic to many researchers.
The necessity of grammar instruction has been proved and undergone changes over the past few decades.
At one point grammar instruction was central then it was absent and again it regained significance and
was reconsidered as an important part in second language classrooms. The place and the role of grammar
in language teaching have changed over the years; however, there is still debate over the role of grammar
in language teaching and learning. In spite of the fact that there are various views over the role of
grammar, the importance of grammar is undeniable since it has been accepted that grammatical
competence is vital for communication. Ellis (2005) asserts that L2 learners are required both to achieve
rich expressions for their fluency and to know grammatical rules for the accuracy within L2 acquisition.
There are some studies which focused on pre-service and in-service language teaching (e.g., Altan, 2012;
Galiniene, 1999; Vibulphol, 2004). The studies of teachers beliefs have indicated that ESL teachers
instructional practices and decisions have been influenced by personal beliefs and knowledge of
pedagogical systems of teaching and the process of recognizing teachers work have been examined as
well. (Burns, 1992; Golombek, 1998; Richards, Gallo, & Renandya, 2001).
Over the past 25 years, teacher education research has made significant effort in studying the relationship
between teacher beliefs and classroom practices. A great deal of evidence has established the influence of
teachers beliefs on their classroom practices and has found the relationship of these two with each other
(Calderhead, 1996; Heath, Kane, & Sandretto, 2002). Cronin-Jones (1991, cited in Khader, 2012) suggested
that curriculum implementation process was influenced by beliefs about the ways learners acquire
knowledge, the teachers role in the classroom, the level of the learners ability, and the importance of
content topics. However, teachers inability in describing their beliefs would affect their behaviors in the
classroom effectively.
There is also some research which indicates that teachers behaviors are not always consistent with their
beliefs. The connection between constructive classroom practices and teaching beliefs of social studies
teachers in the New York were found in the study of Bisland, OConner and Malow-Iroff (2009).
Observation and group interviews were the instruments of this study: No relationship between teachers
beliefs and constructive classroom practices in the social studies was found.
Through these studies, it is noticed that the primary source for teachers classroom practices is teachers
belief systemsthe information, attitudes, values, theories and assumptions about teaching and learning
which teachers build up over time and bring with them to the classroom. Realizing teachers beliefs is
essential for developing teaching practices and teacher education programs; it plays a role in
understanding how information on teaching is translated into classroom practices.
Teachers beliefs mostly shape their behaviors and affect classroom practices. As Wright (1987) stated, the
way teachers choose for teaching is influenced by their thinking and beliefs. Thus, even though there
have been some changes in teaching methods and the ways of teaching languages, it is still the teachers
who decide how to teach, when to teach, and how much to teach in class based on their own beliefs.
The study set out to investigate the following research questions:
1. What beliefs do teachers hold towards grammar teaching in language institutes?
2. What are the differences between teachers beliefs about teaching grammar and what they
actually teach in language classrooms?
3. Method

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 543

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

3.1 Participants
The participants of the study were 35 English language teachers who were randomly selected from
several English language institutes in Isfahan. Out of 35 language teachers, 30 of them completed the
questionnaires. They taught English to language learners with different levels of proficiency. Their
average years of experience as teachers of English were 20 years. The teachers were both male and
females (13 males and 17 females) and had Masters and Bachelor degrees in different majors.
3.2 Instrument
The data collection tool used in this study was a Likert-type questionnaire in which the participants
indicated their preferred answer on a 5-point scale. This scale is the most widely used scale in survey
research. When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents specify their degree of
agreement/disagreement with a statement and the responses ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by three experts. In order to evaluate
the reliability of the tool, Cronbachs Alpha was calculated. The alpha coefficient for the items was .80,
suggesting that the items had a high internal consistency. The teachers questionnaire consisted of 5
background questions, 2 open-ended questions, and 45 belief items which were categorized into 7
categories including the definition of grammar, importance of grammar, reasons for teaching grammar,
teaching approach, error correction, test, and teaching techniques. The purpose of these two open-ended
questions was giving a chance to teachers and learners to present those beliefs and ideas which were not
included in the questionnaires.
Another instrument used to collect data was observation. Some of the classes at each institute were
randomly selected and each of these classes was observed by the researcher three times and all the details
of the teachers and learners activities were observed using a checklist. The items of the checklist were
taken from teachers questionnaire to see the difference between teachers beliefs and their actual
performance in the classroom. The checklist consists of four parts including teaching approach, error
correction, test, and teaching techniques. The number of items in the checklist was 23 in which teaching
approach consists of 5 items, error correction consists of 6 items, test consists of 2 items and teaching
techniques consists of 10 items.
3.3 Procedures
The teachers were asked to fill out the questionnaires in their free time. Some of them gave answer to the
questionnaires during their class time. Others devoted their time to replying it during one week.
Each class was observed three times in which the researchers role was that of a non-participant observer
during the observation. The details of the activities occurred in the classes were also recorded and the
recordings were examined to see if there is any difference between the checklists data and the
recordings. The result showed no difference between them.
4. Results
Teachers who participated in this study were asked to respond to a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire in
order for the researcher to evaluate their beliefs. In the following tables all the items of teachers
questionnaire are listed and the mean score and standard deviation of teachers responses to the items are
computed. The tables show the results of teachers beliefs about teaching grammar in language institute
classes.

Table 1. Teachers Beliefs about the Definition of Grammar

The Definition of Grammar Mean SD
1. Grammar is a set of structures and rules of a language. 4.40 .49
2. Grammar is concerned with using the correct tenses. 3.86 .86
3. Grammar means to produce language structures accurately. 4.16 .87
4. Grammar helps better understand different meanings. 3.93 .98
5. Grammar means the appropriate use of language in different situations. 3.93 .86
6. Grammar facilitates communication. 3.73 .94

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 544

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

In Table 1, the highest mean belonged to item 1 with the mean of 4.40, and the lowest mean belonged to
item 6 with the mean of 3.37. They indicated that teachers mostly concurred with the first definition of
grammar which stated grammar is a set of structures and rules of a language.
Table 2. Teachers Beliefs about the Importance of Grammar
The Importance of Teaching Grammar Mean SD
7. Grammar is important and has to be taught in language institute
4.40 .56
courses.
8. It is not needed to teach grammar to learners because theyve already
1.56 .56
had it in high school.
9. It is good to dedicate some time to teaching grammar in language
4.30 .53
institute classes.
10. Grammar should be the main part of language institute syllabus.
3.10 1.15

Reasons for Teaching Grammar Mean SD

11. Learners need to know the grammar rules for writing. 4.33 .54
12. Grammar is important to improve learners
3.80 .80
communication ability.
13. Without a good knowledge of grammar, learners
3.60 1.00
language development will be severely constrained.
14. Grammar looks tidy, teachable and easily testable so
3.56 .81
its desirable to be taught in language institute courses.
15. Teaching grammar gives power to teachers by
3.00 1.17
showing that they know more than the learners do.
16. Learners generally need to understand the
grammatical rules of English in order to improve their 3.46 1.00
reading skill.
17. Learners need grammar for future occupation. 3.00 1.01

According to Table 2, teaching grammar in language institute courses was significant. Teachers also
considered it as a need for learners, regardless of whether they had already learnt it in high school or not.
Table 3. Teachers Beliefs about Reasons for Teaching Grammar
From teachers point of view, writing with the mean of 4.33 was the best reason for teaching grammar
in language institutes. Items 15 and 17 with identical mean scores had the lowest mean among this
category items.
Table 4. Teachers Beliefs about Teaching Approach

Considering Table 4, it was concluded that teachers believed in both inductive and deductive teaching
approaches, and it was learners proficiency level in the English language which should be considered as
a key factor in choosing a teaching approach. The lowest mean belonged to item 25 with the mean of 2.56
which meant that they did not believe in large and complex amount of exercises and practice.
Table 5. Teachers Beliefs about Error Correction

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 545

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

Error Correction Mean SD

26. When learners make errors, I correct them and later I
explain it to them. 3.53 1.13

27. When learners make errors, I ignore them. 2.23 1.00

28. I only correct learners errors if it interferes with
2.96 1.06
communication.
Teaching Approach Mean SD
18. Grammatical structures taught depend on learners needs. 3.56 1.10
19. The approaches to grammar teaching depend largely on the learners
4.10 .75
proficiency level in the English language.
20. Grammar should be taught explicitly. 3.16 1.17
21. Grammar should be taught implicitly. 3.80 1.03
22. Teacher should present grammatical rules at sentence level. 3.76 .89
23. Teachers should teach grammatical structures not only in discrete sentences but
4.00 1.08
also in texts.
24. Both inductive and deductive approaches should be used. 4.13 .81
25. There is an essential need to provide a large number of complex exercises for
2.56 1.13
learners to master the grammatical structures.
29. I provide learners with an opportunity to think about
their performance. 3.96 .88

30. I encourage learners to correct each other. 3.90 .84

31. I correct local errors. 3.26 1.04
32. I correct global errors. 3.83 .79

As for error-correction, teachers mostly provided learners with an opportunity to think about their
performance and they also believed in peer-correction. The results also indicated that teachers preferred
global-correction rather than local-correction. Item 27 with the mean of 2.23 had the lowest mean in this
category

Table 6. Teachers Beliefs about Tests

Test Mean SD

33. I test grammar at sentence level. 3.53 .86

34. I test grammar in context (text or at discourse level) 3.93 .63
35. Grammar is one of the most important parts of
3.66 1.06
language institute exam.

In Table 6 concerning test, teachers preferred to test grammar items in context with the mean of 3.93
which was the highest mean of the category. The second highest mean was 3.66 showing that grammar
was one of the most important parts of language institute exam for teachers.

Table 7. Teachers Beliefs about Teaching Techniques

Teaching Techniques Mean SD
36. Using story-telling 2.66 1.02
37. Using role-play 3.33 1.26
38. Using pictures and images 2.76 1.30

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 546

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

39. Using teaching devices and aids (balls, boxes, dolls

2.03 1.12
and so on)
40. Using tables, figures, charts and diagrams (such as
2.90 1.09
tense tables)
41. Using music, songs and poems 2.03 1.21
42. Playing games 2.20 1.06
43. Making learners participate in real life tasks in order to
3.93 1.01
develop their grammatical knowledge
44. Using contextualized practice 4.00 .98
45. Using form-focused practice (such as substitution
3.90 1.12
drills)

For the last table, which was related to techniques of grammar teaching, the use of techniques entailing
teaching aids, music, songs, and poems had the lowest mean of 2.03. However, contextualized practice
technique had the highest mean of 4.00. Real life tasks and form-focused practice techniques had the
second and third highest means of the category with the mean scores of 3.93 and 3.90, respectively.
Referring to the second research question which was concerned with the difference between teachers
beliefs and their performance in the classroom, the items of the checklist were compared to teachers
questionnaires. The results are presented in the following table.

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of Teachers Beliefs and Their Practices in the Classroom
Items
1. Grammar is taught explicitly. Frequency 17

Percentage 56%

Mean 3.16
2. Grammar is taught implicitly. Frequency 27
Percentage 90%
Mean 3.80
3. Teacher presents grammatical rules at sentence level. Frequency 30
Percentage 100%
Mean 3.76
4. Teacher teaches grammatical structures not only in Frequency 22
discrete sentences but also in texts. Percentage 73%
Mean 4.00

5. There is an essential need to provide a large number Frequency 8

of exercises for learners to master the grammatical Percentage 26%
structures.
Mean 2.56
6. When learners make errors, teacher corrects them Frequency 23
and later she/he explains it to them. Percentage 76%

Mean 3.53

7. When learners make errors, teacher ignores them. Frequency -

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 547

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

Percentage -
Mean 2.23
8. Teacher provides learners with an opportunity to Frequency 27
think about their performance.
Percentage 90%
Mean 3.96
9. Teacher encourages learners to correct each other. Frequency 9
Percentage 30%
Mean 3.90
10. Teacher corrects local errors. Frequency 22
Percentage 73%
Mean 3.26
11. Teacher corrects global errors. Frequency 23
Percentage 76%
Mean 3.83
12. Teacher tests grammar at sentence level. Frequency 27
Percentage 90%
Mean 3.53
13. Teacher tests grammar in context. Frequency 7
Percentage 23%
Mean 3.93
14. Using story-telling Frequency 14
Percentage 46%
Mean 2.66
15. Using role play Frequency 23
Percentage 76%
Mean 3.33
16. Using pictures and images Frequency 8
Percentage 26%
Mean 2.76

17. Using teaching devices and aids Frequency -

Percentage -
Mean 2.03

18. Using tables, figures, charts and diagrams (such as Frequency 7

tense tables)
Percentage 23%
Mean 2.90
19. Using music, songs, and poems Frequency 5
Percentage 16%

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 548

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

Mean 2.03
20. Playing games Frequency 5

Percentage 16%
Mean 2.20
21. Using real life tasks Frequency 28
Percentage 93%
Mean 3.93
22. Using contextualized practice Frequency 22
Percentage 73%
Mean 4.00
23. Using form-focused practice Frequency 30
Percentage 100%
Mean 3.90

Out of 23 items mentioned in the table above, only in two items there were differences between teachers
beliefs and their performance in the classroom. Item 9 showed that teachers mostly believed in peer-
correction (3.90); however, only 30% of them encouraged learners to correct each other in the classroom.
Item 13 also indicated that testing grammar in context was favorable among teachers (3.93), while only
23% of them were willing to test grammar in this way. Accordingly, the comparison of teachers beliefs
and their performance in actual classroom showed that there existed a relationship between the stated
beliefs and their grammar teaching activities in the classroom.
The data collected from open-ended questions in the final part of the survey generally support the ideas
reflected in questionnaires; however, some impressions and suggestions made by teachers are presented
in the following.
Teachers Beliefs
The teachers who participated in this study suggested the utilization of the following teaching techniques
in language classrooms:
(1) Teaching grammar by using story books, (2) Setting a situation for students to discover the new
grammar, (3) Teaching grammar using Grammar-Translation method, and (4) Teaching grammar using
drama and pantomime.
Moreover, they alleged to hold the following beliefs about teaching grammar in language classes:
(1) Teaching grammar should not be done through boring and serious methods. Instead, it can be
taught by providing a fun and tempting atmosphere, (2) It is incumbent upon every English
instructor to provide students with a sufficient amount of grammar instruction. Not only does
it help students to talk and write correctly, but also it helps them to understand English
language better in different contexts. Therefore, it has to be an inseparable part of institutes
curriculum, (3) Teaching grammar helps learners to put the words in the correct place of the
sentence, (4) Teaching grammar develops learners reading skill and improves their
comprehension, and (5) Teaching grammar should be taught based on learners level and age.

5. Discussion
The items of the questionnaire were designed to elicit teachers beliefs about the role of grammar in
language teaching. Of these items, teachers definition of grammar was more form-based. Considering
the structural view as the most tangible aspect of grammar, this idea could be formed that traditionally
the term grammar was often used by linguists as a set of rules of a language, and the other aspects were
not prevalent among them. Consequently, this belief reflected peoples attention about the structural
definition of grammar. This attitude is obvious in Lados (1961) definition of grammar who viewed
grammar as a set of structures in which the words are arranged to show certain kinds of meaning.

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 549

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

In this research, teachers hold positive opinions on the importance of grammar teaching in language
institutes. It could be inferred that the knowledge of grammatical rules was perceived as the key to gain
mastery over a language. As English language teachers in this study, some researchers took positive view
about the importance of teaching grammar (Subasini & Kokilavani, 2013).
From teachers viewpoint, writing was considered as a major reason for grammar teaching in language
institutes. The basis of this idea may probably be that writing can help learners make use of the grammar
knowledge effectively. Irmscher (1979) believed that grammar instruction develops learners
consciousness in making a diagnosis of writing problems. However, several studies revealed evidence
against the relevance of the teaching grammar and writing. They suggested that grammar instruction has
not to do with learners writing development and cannot be applied in larger parts of composition
(Hillocks, 1986; Shaughnessy, 1977; Andrews, Torgerson, Beverton, Freeman, Lock, Low, Robinson, &
ZHD, 2006).
In choosing teaching approach, teachers had more preference for contextualized approach and learners
preferred decontextualized teaching styles. The teachers positive attitudes towards contextualized
teaching grammar might come from the idea that language is context-sensitive in which a sentence can be
fully and easily understood within a text. Moreover, teaching grammar through contextualization could
increase learners motivation in learning grammatical items. The study conducted by Nasrin Khan (2007)
supported the findings regarding contextualization. She reported that teaching grammar through the
texts would help learners to use grammatical structures in real life context. However, the results of the
present study run counter to Al-Mekhlafi and Nagaratnams (2011) finding, which denoted the fact that
one of the teachers difficulty in applying contextualized approach arose from the amount of time needed
for producing and using suitable tasks for them.
Error correction was most often cited as a technique that had been used by language teachers and that
had inhibited learners from speaking. It could be because of negative experiences of being corrected that
teachers chose not to interrupt their learners flow of speech in the classroom to correct errors.
Kavaliauskien and Anusien (2012) in their survey on error-correction notified that the teachers
negative attitude towards interrupting students originated from the premise that learners would lose
their confidence and motivation.
Regarding testing grammar in language institutes, teachers agreed more on contextualized grammar
testing. This may probably be due to the fact that testing grammar through isolated sentences is non-
communicative from teachers viewpoint, while communicative testing would challenge learners
competence in learning the language and provide the opportunity for them to create their own message
to a given text. These explanations were in accordance with Ahangari and Barghi (2012) who pointed out
that if test items seek to be contextualized, assessing learners knowledge of grammar will be more
valuable since their ability of using this knowledge are challenged in a meaningful way.
Teaching and learning techniques were another issue under investigation in this study. Celce-Murcia and
Hilles (1988) explained that to have an effective teaching, it is needed to use some techniques in the
classroom including problem solving activities. This is so because these techniques not only improve
teachers teaching of grammar, but also motivate learners in a comfortable setting. In case of using
teaching techniques in the present study, Teachers reported to use contextualized techniques often. It
could be inferred that teachers valued the application of communicative activities which improve
learners grammatical knowledge. This inference seems to be in agreement with Baleghizadeh and
Farshchi (2009) who expressed whereas communicative activities developed learners grammatical
performance, the majority of teachers did not see using decontextualized techniques valuable.

6. Conclusion
The research intended to examine the relationship between teachers beliefs about teaching grammar and
their practices in language institute classes. To fulfill this goal, a modified BALLI questionnaire was
distributed among 35 English language teachers to gain an understanding of grammar teaching from
teachers perspective. Moreover, the classes were observed using a checklist to see the difference between
teachers beliefs and their performance. The comparison of teachers beliefs and their actual performance
in classroom showed that there existed a relationship between the stated beliefs and their grammar

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 550

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

teaching activities in the classroom. In fact, most of the teachers ideas of grammar teaching were found
to be convergent with their performance. Considering those who proved themselves to be slightly
divergent from their beliefs, the differences were found to lie in testing grammar in context and peer-
correction. As teachers views on grammar teaching influence their practices in the classroom, it is
concluded that consistency between teachers beliefs and their behaviors results from the necessity of
grammar teaching from teachers viewpoint suggesting that teachers intend to support their beliefs about
grammar teaching in the area of language teaching/learning , while the inconsistency between these two
underpins the notion that teachers intend to change the teaching process into a beneficial and pleasurable
experience in the classroom.

REFERENCES
Ahangari, S., & Barghi, A. H. (2012). Consistency of measured accuracy in grammar knowledge tests and
writing: TOEFL PBT. Language Testing in Asia, 2 (2), 5-21.
Al-Mekhlafi, A. M., & Nagaratnam, R. P. (2011). Difficulties in teaching and learning grammar in an EFL
context. International Journal of Instruction, 4 (2), 70-92.
Altan, M.Z. (2012). Pre-service EFL teachers beliefs about foreign language learning. European Journal of
Teacher Education, DOI 10.1080/02619768.2011.643399. Retrieved on 5th May, 2014 from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02619768.2011.643399
Andrews, R.C., Torgerson, S., Beverton, A., Freeman, T.,Lock, G., Low, G., Robinson, A. & ZHU, D. (2006)
The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Education Research Journal 32, 1, pp. 39-55.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Farshchi, S. (2009). An exploration of teachers beliefs about the role of grammar in
Iranian high schools and private language institutes. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52,
18-38.
Berliner, D. C. (1987). Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less experienced
teachers. In J. Caldehead (Ed.), Exploring teachers thinking (pp. 60-83). London: Cassell. Educational
Limited.
Bisland, B., OConnor, E. & Malow-Iroff, M. (2009, November). Beliefs and issues in social studies
instructional practices: A Case study of alternatively certified elementary teachers. Paper presented at the
College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, Atlanta, GA.
Borg, S. (1998a). Talking about grammar in the foreign language classroom. Language Awareness, 7, 159-
175.
Borg, S. (1998b). Teachers pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 9-38.
Borg, S. (1999). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: A qualitative
study of teachers practices and cognitions, Applied Linguistics, 20, 95-126.
Borg, S. (2001). Self- perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal, 55, 21-29.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers
think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109.
Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect, 7, 56-66.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cronin-Jones, L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: two
case studies. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 235-250.
Cumming, A. (1993). Teachers curriculum planning and accommodations of innovation: Three case
studies of adult ESL instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 30-51.
Dunkin, M. (2002). Novice and award-winning teachers concepts and beliefs. In N. Hativa, Teacher
thinking and knowledge in higher education (pp. 41-57). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ellis, R. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit? System 30(4), 433-458.

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 551

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

Farrell, T. S. C. (1999). The reflective assignment: Unlocking pre-service teachers beliefs on grammar
teaching. RELC Journal, 30, 1-17.
Galinien, L. (1999). Learner autonomy through project work. In A. Camilleri (Ed.), Introducing learner
autonomy in teacher education (pp. 2232). Malta: Heidelberg-Verlag.
Golombek, P. (1998). A study of language teachers personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32,
447-464.
Hativa, N. (2002). Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). "Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching." Urbana, IL:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in
English.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin
(Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning, (pp.119-129), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Irmscher, W. F. (1979). Teaching expository writing. New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston.
Johnson, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language teaching: Explanations by
experienced teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 437-468.
Johnson, K. E. (1991). The relationship between teachers beliefs and practices during literacy instruction
for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24 (1), 83-108.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S.H., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on
teaching beliefs and practice of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72, 177228.
Kavaliauskien, G., & Anusien, L. (2012). Case study: Learner attitudes towards the correction of
mistakes. Social Technologies, 2(1), 88101.
Khader, F.R. (2012). Teachers pedagogical beliefs and actual classroom practices in social studies
instruction. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(1), 73-92.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. London: Longman.
Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 18-25.
Nasrin Khan, R. (2007). Effective grammar teaching in ESL classroom. Unpublished BA thesis, BRAC
University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Newmark, L. (1979). How not to interfere with language learning. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.),
The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 160-166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ng, E. K. J., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Do teachers beliefs of grammar teaching match their classroom
practices? A Singapore case study. In D. Deterding, A. Brown & Low E. L. (Eds.), English in Singapore:
Research on Grammar. Singapore, (pp. 128-137): McGraw Hill, 128-137.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers maxims in language thinking. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 281-296.
Richards, J. C., Gallo, P. B., & Renandya, W. A. (2001). Exploring teachers beliefs and the processes of
change. PAC Journal, 1 (1), 41-58.
Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and
behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51 (4), 445-498.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Subasini, M., & Kokilavani, B. (2013). Significance of grammar in technical English. Academic Research
Journals, 1(3), 56-58.
Vibulphol, J. (2004). Beliefs about language learning and teaching approaches of pre-service EFL teachers in
Thailand. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, United States -- Oklahoma.

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 552

 Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)

Verloop, N. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of
Educational Research, 35(5), 441-461.
Wright, T. (1987). Roles of teachers and learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yim, L. W. (1993). Relating teachers perceptions of the place of grammar to their teaching practices.
Masters thesis, Singapore: National University of Singapore.

THE CONFORMITY BETWEEN THE EVALUATION

METHODS OF ENGLISH AND THE IRANIAN JUNIOR
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS` LINGUISTIC NEEDS

Vol. 6, Issue 6, September 2016 Page 553

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.