Difficulties in Learning English Grammar Free Essays

string(26) " force among L2 learners\." International Journal of Instruction e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ? www. e-iji. net July 2011 ? Vol. We will write a custom essay sample on Difficulties in Learning English Grammar or any similar topic only for you Order Now 4, No. 2 p-ISSN: 1694-609X DIFFICULTIES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING GRAMMAR IN AN EFL CONTEXT1 Abdu Mohammed Al-Mekhlafi PhD. , College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman rayan3@gmail. com Ramani Perur Nagaratnam PhD. , Ministry of Manpower, Oman The role of grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context has been for decades a major issue for students and teachers alike. Researchers have debated whether grammar should be taught in the classroom and students, for their part, have generally looked upon grammar instruction as a necessary evil at best, and an avoidable burden at worst. The paper reports a study undertaken to investigate the difficulties teachers face in teaching grammar to EFL students as well as those faced by students in learning it, in the teachers’ perception. The study aimed to find out whether there are significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of difficulties in relation to their gender, qualification, teaching experience, and the level they teach in school, thus providing insights into their own and their students’ difficulties. Mean scores and t-test were used to interpret the data. The main findings are reported with implications. Key Words: English language teaching, instruction, EFL grammar instruction, teaching, difficulties in grammar instruction INTRODUCTION The English teacher is often portrayed as an â€Å"unattractive grammar monger whose only pleasure in life is to point out the faults of others† (Baron, 1982, p. 226). For the most part, within the classroom, any mention of grammar causes the student moments of discomfort and sometimes even terror. Many teachers have tried to make grammar teaching a non-threatening, imaginative and useful activity within the English curriculum. A summary of this paper was presented at the 54th World Assembly of the International Council on Education for Teaching (ICET) on ‘Maintaining Strategic Agility: Managing change and assuring quality in education for teaching’, 14-17 December 2009, Muscat, Oman. 70 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Previous studies on students’ and teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of grammar instruction in the context of language teaching and learning suggest a disparity between students and teachers. While students favour formal and explicit grammar instruction and error correction, teachers favour communicative activities with less conscious focus on grammar (e. g. , Brindley 1984; Kumaravadivelu 1991; Leki 1995; Schultz 1996, 2001; Spratt 1999). Rationale for the present study The foregoing review of literature shows that practicing teachers are faced with a range of options for grammar instruction in their classrooms. There are, however, many types of difficulties faced by students and teachers with regard to grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context. Identifying such difficulties and being consciously aware of them would help teachers find ways of overcoming them and provide effective grammar instruction. There has, however, been little investigation of the difficulties faced by EFL teachers and Aran learners in the Gulf region with regard to grammar instruction. The teachers employ theoretically recommended methods without necessarily taking into account their own and their learners’ potential difficulties. They may not be conscious of difficulties which are serious and may thus hinder students’ learning of English grammar, and do not choose the method of instruction that would pose fewer difficulties and problems to their learners. It is in this context that the present study was undertaken to capture valuable insights into how EFL school teachers in Oman perceive students’ as well as their own difficulties with grammar instruction. The study reported here aims to address this need by presenting the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students’ difficulties in this regard. It also aims to add to the knowledge base in this area. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attitudes towards grammar instruction In teaching grammar, three areas have to be considered: grammar as rules, grammar as form, and grammar as resource. For many L2 learners, learning grammar often means learning the rules of grammar and having an intellectual knowledge of grammar. Teachers often believe that this will provide the generative basis on which learners can build their knowledge and will be able to use the language eventually. For them, prescribed rules give a kind of security. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 71 A better approach is perhaps to see grammar as one of many resources that we have in language which helps us to communicate. We should see how grammar relates to what we want to say or write, and how we expect others to interpret what our language use and its focus. According to Widdowson (1990: 86), † . . . grammar is not a constraining imposition but a liberating force: it frees us from a dependency on context and a purely lexical categorization of reality. Given that many learners – and teachers – tend to view grammar as a set of restrictions on what is allowed and disallowed in language use – ‘a linguistic straitjacket’ in Larsen-Freeman’s words (2002: 103) – the conception of grammar as something that liberates rather than represses is one that is worth investigating. According to Morelli (2003), students perceived themselves as having a better attitude towards grammar instruction in context, while performing slightly better after having experienced the traditional grammar instruction. Elkilic and Akca (2008) reported generally positive attitudes of students studying English grammar at a private primary EFL classroom towards studying grammar. In particular, however, a little over 50% of their subjects claimed to enjoy grammar very much and only about 10% reported finding some difficulty in learning and remembering grammar. Student expectations Student expectations of traditional, explicit grammar teaching have been confirmed by many teachers (cf. Borg, 1999a, b). Burgess and Etherington (2002:440-441) also conclude that teachers believe that explicit teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because of expectations and feelings of insecurity. Since the 1970s, attention has shifted from ways of teaching grammar to ways of getting learners to communicate, but grammar has been seen to be a powerful undermining and demotivating force among L2 learners. You read "Difficulties in Learning English Grammar" in category "Essay examples" In terms of motivation and learner success with languages, grammar has been seen to be a problem and to stand in the way of helping learners to communicate fluently. The hard fact that most teachers face is that learners often find it difficult to make flexible use of the rules of grammar taught in the classroom. They may know the rules perfectly, but are incapable of applying them in their own use of the language. Teachers’ recognition of this process (i. e. , of transferring declarative knowledge about grammar into procedural knowledge) as a problem for many of their students has been reported by Burgess and Etherington (2002:442). Haudeck International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 72 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ as reported that many learners have difficulty in internalising grammar rules, although these have been taught intensively (1996, cited in European Commission, 2006). The use of grammatical terminology Metalinguistic discussion (i. e. , the use of grammatical terminology to talk about language) is seen by Stern (1992:327) as one of the characteristics of explicit grammar teaching. Acc ording to Burgess and Etherington (2002: 444), teachers believe that their students see grammatical terminology as useful and that its use does not present a particular difficulty for students. Descriptive grammars acknowledge the fact that language is dynamic and its use is constantly changing, although not in major ways. The problem for ESL/EFL learners, however, is that there is a time-lag between the awareness of such changes and their acceptance as the proper use of the language. As Morelli (2003:33-34) has observed, â€Å"Grammar can be taught traditionally or contextually, but student perception should be considered by teachers in the decision-making process. Students need to feel confident that educators have met their needs . . . nd educators should be willing to consider the attitudes and perceptions of students when making decisions about how to teach grammar. † METHOD Purpose The study reported here aims to investigate the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students’ difficulties with regard to grammar instruction. Research questions The study aimed to answer the following questions: 1. What are EFL teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties of students and teachers with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context? 2. Are there any differences in teachers’ perceptions between the difficulties faced by teachers and those faced by students? 3. Do these perceptions of difficulties vary according to the teachers’: †¢ Gender, †¢ Level taught, †¢ Qualifications, and †¢ Experience? International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 73 4. Are there any significant differences in teachers’ perceptions due to the type of difficulty? Limitation of the study The present study is limited to: †¢ EFL teachers teaching English in Omani Basic Education schools, and †¢ The use of questionnaire as the research instrument. Nevertheless, the responses are valuable in themselves, indicating the general difficulties that students and teachers face with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Research design The study was mainly quantitative in design, using a questionnaire and the subjects responded to each statement on a five-point Likert-type attitude scale (from 5 for ‘strongly agree’ to 1 for ‘strongly disagree’). The respondents also provided background information on gender, qualification, teaching experience and the level they teach, for creating their profile in terms of variables. The data was analyzed (t-test and ANOVA) using the SPSS. The research instrument The questionnaire used in the present study, which comprises 20 statements, was the one employed by Burgess and Etherington in their study (2002: 451452) (See ANNEXURE – I for the questionnaire used in the present study). Subjects Only one broad geographical context was chosen for the study, namely Oman, in order to be context-specific and be able to make a close connection between teachers, their assumptions and their practical experience. It is believed that the subjects fairly represented the context of EFL teaching at different levels in Omani schools. Besides, the sample size was 90, more than the minimum number required for making useful statistical analyses according to Cohen and Manion (1994:77). The profile of the subjects in terms of the four variables is given below in Table 1: International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 74 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Table 1. Profile of Respondents to the Study Instrument Variable Gender Level they teach Categories within the variable Male Female Grades 1-4 Grades 5-10 Grades 11-12 Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Diploma ? years 5 ? 10 years 10 years No. of respondents in each category 39 51 17 31 42 8 76 6 27 41 22 Total (N) 90 90 Qualification 90 Experience 90 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION With regard to the first research question whether there are difficulties faced by students and teachers with grammar instruction, Table 2 (ANNEXURE – II) shows an overall mean of 3. 51 on a five-point scale, the means for individual stateme nts ranging from 2. 97 to 4. 10, thus indicating teachers’ general agreement with most of the statements in the survey questionnaire (See Fig. below). This suggests that, in the perceptions of teachers, there are difficulties faced by teachers as well as students with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Fig. 1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 75 With regard to the second research question about the differences between students and teachers in the difficulties faced, Table 3 shows that there is a statistically significant difference at the level of p ; 0. 01 in the perceptions of teachers and students, with students experiencing difficulties to a greater extent than teachers, which is understandable. The overall mean for students’ difficulties as perceived by the teachers was 3. 58, while the overall mean for teachers’ difficulties wa s 3. 23 (Table 3 below). Table 3. Teachers’ Perceptions of Teachers’ and Students’ Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement Teachers’ Difficulties Students’ Difficulties as perceived by the Teachers Mean 3. 331 3. 5779 SD . 58484 . 42214 t Sig. (2-tailed) 5. 225 . 000 The third research question is about the differences in perception of difficulties in terms of the four teacher variables: gender, level taught, qualification, and teaching experience. With regard to gender, a comparison of the overall mean response for male (3. 508) and female teachers (3. 510) (See Fig. 2 below) shows that they are quite nearly the same and that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 5 in their perceptions about the difficulties (Sig. : . 978) (Table 4 in ANNEXURE – II)). This suggests that gender does not play a significant role in the teachers’ perceptions when it comes to articulating their own difficulties as we ll as those of their students with English grammar instruction. Fig. 2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Gender With regard to the level taught, Table 5 (ANNEXURE – II) shows that teachers teaching at different levels have similar perceptions about their wn and their International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 76 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ students’ difficulties with English grammar instruction, with a slightly higher mean for teachers of Grades 1-4 (3. 58) than the means for teachers of the other two levels, which are nearly the same (3. 49 and 3. 5) (See Fig. 3 below). Table 5 also shows that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 686). Fig. 3. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Level Taught With regard to teachers’ qualifications, Table 6 (ANNEXURE – II) shows a slightly higher overall mean for teachers with a diploma qualification (3. 78) than the overall means for teachers with higher qualifications, viz. bachelor’s (3. 46) or master’s degree (3. 49) (See Fig. 4 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 211 – Table 6). Fig. 4. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Qualifications With regard to teachers’ experience, it does not seem to be a significant variable with regard to their perceptions of their own and their students’ difficulties with English grammar instruction, as Table 7 (ANNEXURE – II) shows (See Fig. 5 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 869 – Table 7). International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 7 Fig. 5. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Experience The foregoing discussion is based on the overall mean score obtained for the difficulties in general and for each of the four teacher variables considered in the present study. With regard to the fourth research question, a detailed analysis of the results provides interesting and valuable insigh ts into teachers’ perceptions of different types of difficulties for students and teachers themselves and their concerns about classroom application of grammar teaching principles. The results are discussed with respect to difficulties categorized in terms of the themes listed in Table 8 below: Table 8. Statements in the Questionnaire Categorised according to Themes Theme Explicit grammar teaching The transfer of declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge The use of grammatical terminology Error correction Problem-solving activities The use of authentic texts for grammar instruction The use of spoken and written communicative activities Statement(s) 3, 4, 5, 13 1, 17, 18 14, 19 15, 16 2, 20 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 17, 18 Explicit grammar teaching The dichotomies of unconscious/conscious learning and inductive/deductive teaching methods are both sometimes equated with the dichotomy between implicit and explicit instruction. Attitudes to inductive and deductive methods were investigated through statements concerning explicit presentation of grammar by teachers, students finding form-function matches for themselves, and the constraints in using either of the two methods. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 78 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 3 (My students expect teachers to present grammar explicitly) and Statement 13 (A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure) produced a mean score of 3. 61 and 3. 38 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II), supporting the view that students, in teachers’ perception, prefer explicit grammar teaching. This is not surprising, as students are known to expect traditional, explicit grammar instruction (e. g. , Borg, 1999a, b). The responses in the present study indicate that this expectation of students still remains, especially at the school level. Responses to Statement 5 (My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves), however, produced a mean score of 3. 59 (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II), which is very close to the mean score for students’ expectation about explicit teaching of grammar. This perception of students’ preference for an inductive method of learning grammar on the part of the same responding teachers is surprising. With regard to the same statement, the difference in mean between males and females seems to be higher than for the other statements (Table 4 – ANNEXURE – II). A follow-up interview with teachers might have provided more specific information and thrown light on their understanding of explicit and implicit methods of teaching grammar. With regard to Statement 4 (My students prefer to learn grammar from onesentence examples), which links to explicit grammar teaching, responding teachers produced the lowest mean score (2. 97) of all statements in the questionnaire (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of experience, however, there seems to be some significant difference at the level of 0. 5 in favour of teachers with more than 10 years of experience (Table 7 – ANNEXURE – II). Declarative vs procedural knowledge Statement 1 (My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use), designed to identify teachers’ beliefs about the possible transfer of declarative knowledge (i. e. , knowledge about grammar) into procedural knowledge (i. e. , ability to use that knowled ge in actual communication), produced a mean score of 3. 81 (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II). This indicates that responding teachers recognise this process of transfer of one kind of knowledge into another as a problem for a large number of their students. This gap between students’ grammatical knowledge and communicative ability is not surprising to teachers, who often find that most of their students can recall grammatical rules accurately and perform very well on discrete-point grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 79 exercises, but fail to achieve such grammatical accuracy in actual communication. This fact is corroborated by the responses to Statements 17 and 18 (My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical knowledge within a totally communicative writing/speaking activity), which produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree strongly (mean of 4. 33) that their students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II). The use of grammatical terminology The use of grammatical terminology in the EFL classroom is seen as a necessary part of the explicit method of teaching grammar. When students and teachers talk about grammar (i. e. , in meta-linguistic discussion), which is one of the characteristics of explicit language teaching (Stern 1992: 327), they need to use grammatical terms. Two statements (14 19) sought to explore teachers’ perceptions of how their students feel about the use of grammatical terminology. Statement 14 (My students find grammatical terminology useful) and Statement 19 (My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology) produced a mean score of 3. 82 and 4. 07 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). This indicates that, in the responding teachers’ perception, their students see grammatical terminology as useful, but find difficulty in using the terms to be of a greater magnitude. Interestingly, the usefulness of grammatical terminology seems to be linked to the students’ preference for explicit grammar instruction. The difference in mean between teachers of Grades 1-4 and 11-12 on the one hand (mean of ? ) and those of Grades 5-10 (mean of 3. 4), however, seems to be higher with regard to their perceptions of the usefulness of grammatical terminology to their students. That is, teachers of the lowest and highest levels think that their students find grammatical terminology more useful than those of the middle grades. There is a sig nificant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of the level taught with regard to the usefulness of grammatical terminology (statement 14) (Table 5 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 0) that their students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelor’s International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 80 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 04). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II). Error Correction Teachers generally tend to believe that errors of form committed by EFL learners should be corrected even when communicative goals are intended. This need for correction of form even within a communicative context, either spoken or written, may arise from a concern for grammatical accuracy in students’ communicative output or for avoiding fossilization of errors in their interlanguage. Statements 15 and 16 aim to capture teachers’ perceptions in this regard. Statement 15 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context) and Statement 16 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context) produced a mean score of 3. 26 and 3. 7 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II). It may be inferred from the results that the responding teachers experience more difficulty in correcting their learners’ spoken communication than written. Problem-solving techniques Problem-solving techniques in relation to grammar teaching are inductive techniques that require learners to find form-function matches by themselves. (e. g. , Hall and Shepheard, 1991). Responses of teachers surveyed in the present study produced a mean score of 3. 58 for Statement 2 (My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar), showing a link to responses to Statement 5 bout students’ preference for finding matches between meaning and structure for themselves. Surprisingly, however, the same responding teachers produced a mean score of 3. 60 for Statement 20 (My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). A possible interpretation could be that teachers, while recognising the motivational potential of problem-solving techniques, also observe their students’ frustrating experience with such techniques, possibly because they are too ‘challenging’ for the learners to cope with. Another interpretation could be that teachers’ responses to Statement 2 are based on their theoretical assumption about what these techniques could do to the learners, while those to Statement 20 could be based on teachers’ assessment of the ground reality. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 81 With regard to the statement about students being motivated by problemsolving techniques for learning grammar (Statement 2), there is also a significant difference at the level of 0. 5 between males and females in their perceptions (Table 4 – ANNEXURE – II). The use of authentic texts for grammar instruction Authentic texts are texts that are not produced artificially for the purpose of language teaching, but are used for genuine purposes in the real world, like newspaper articles and recipes. By implication, these texts are contextualised and communicatively complete in themselves. They focus is on conveying real meaning rather than on form. Decontextualised examples of language, on the other hand, are one-sentence examples usually found in EFL textbooks and grammar practice books. They illustrate grammatical forms and structures in context-free sentences and are generally associated with the explicit method of teaching grammar. The use of texts illustrating authentic communication for presenting grammar is generally seen as posing problems to teachers and students alike. Students’ problems with their use arise from difficulties of variety of structures Statement 7), culture (Statement 8), vocabulary (Statement 9), and implicit form-function matches (Statement 10), besides an overall difficulty in handling grammar presented within authentic texts (Statement 6). Teachers’ difficulties with authentic texts include those arising from the amount of time needed for using them (Statement 11) and producing suitable tasks from such texts (Statement 12). According to the responding teachers’ perceptions, stud ents experience greater difficulties from vocabulary (Mean=3. 52), variety of structures (Mean=3. 49) and finding form-function matches (Mean=3. 3) than from handling from presented within authentic texts (Mean=3. 33) and culture (Mean=3. 26). Statements 11 and 12 relating to teachers’ difficulties in using authentic texts produced a mean score of 3. 03 and 3. 09 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II), which indicates a lower perception of teachers of their own difficulties than those of students. The use of spoken and written communicative activities Statements 17 and 18 refer to the possible difficulties students might have in improving the accuracy of their grammatical language within totally communicative activities. Responding teachers produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 for the two statements respectively. In fact, the highest mean score of International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 82 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ all scores for the survey questionnaire (4. 10) was obtained for Statement 17 (My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical knowledge within a totally communicative writing activity) (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II). The results indicate that, in teachers’ perceptions, totally communicative activities, whether written or spoken, pose great difficulties to students for learning grammar and improving grammatical accuracy, writing activities proving more challenging than spoken ones. It might be inferred that the teachers surveyed might have a serious concern about the lack of sufficient focus on form in purely communicative activities or tasks for developing students’ grammatical knowledge. Practising language as communication in real-life tasks might not give sufficient opportunities for students to improve their grammatical knowledge. In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 67) that their students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelor’s degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 01). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II). CONCLUSION Generally speaking, in teachers’ perceptions, both teachers and students invariably face serious difficulties with regard to EFL grammar instruction, students facing them to a greater extent than teachers. It is obvious that EFL teachers consider these difficulties quite serious, which suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to them. There may be generally recommended ways of teaching EFL grammar (for example, the implicit method), but it would not be proper to adopt them universally without looking at the possible difficulties that might go with those methods suggested. While a less favoured method might pose fewer problems and hence be more effective, a more favoured method might be less effective owing to greater difficulties or problems in implementing it. The difficulties may also be influenced by the context in which a particular method is used. It is, therefore, necessary to make a detailed study of such difficulties faced by teachers and students in specific contexts, take appropriate steps to overcome them, and adapt the method to suit the actual teaching and learning International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 83 environment. This is not to suggest ‘diluting’ a sound approach or method, but only to plan mediating or supplementary tasks to help learners tide over the difficulties. IMPLICATIONS The findings of the present study point to the following implications: 1. EFL Curriculum and material developers should show an understanding of learners’ and teachers’ difficulties, and provide sufficient guidance and help in the curriculum document and the teachers’ book showing how the potential difficulties could be addressed in planning their classroom activities. Teachers may be given examples of mediating tasks, which would mitigate the difficulties. 2. As Morelli (2003: 33-34) has pointed out, students need to be taught grammar through various methodologies and approaches to cater to their individual styles of learning, and educators should consider students’ attitudes and perceptions when making decisions about how to teach grammar. 3. EFL teachers would do well to understand and address their learners’ concerns in planning their lessons and classroom activities, and use supplementary materials, if necessary, to help learners cope with the difficulties. 4. Both in-service and pre-service training programmes should be planned in such a way that student-teachers and practising teachers articulate the potential and actual difficulties and discuss ways of overcoming or at least coping with them. The database relating to teaching English as a foreign language, including the difficulties of learners and teachers with regard to grammar instruction, should be enriched by more detailed research and analysis, which would enable generalizations across the gulf countries. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 84 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ REFERENCES Baron, D. (1982). Grammar and good taste: Reforming the American language. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press. Borg, S. (1999a). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: a qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics, 20 (1): 95-126. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002) Borg, S. (1999b). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53 (3): 157-167. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002). Brindley, G. (1984). Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. NSW Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney. Burgess, J. and Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit? System, 30: 433-458. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. C. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Elkilic, G. and Akca, C. (2008). Attitudes of the Students Studying at Kafkas University Private Primary EFL Classroom towards Storytelling and Motivation. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 4(1): 1-22. European Commission (2006). The Main Pedagogical Principles Underlying the Teaching of Languages to Very Young Learners. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 Study: Edelenbos, P. , Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. Hall, N. nd Shepheard, J. (1991). The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. London: Longman. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (2): 98-107. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The Grammar of Choice. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds. ). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jerse y: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leki, I. (1995). Good writing: I know it when I see it. In In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds. ) Academic Writing in a Second Language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. , No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 85 Morelli, J. A. (2003). Ninth Graders’ Attitudes toward Different Approaches to Grammar Instruction. Unpublished Dissertation. The Graduate School of Education, Fordham University, New York. Schultz, 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(3): 343-364. Schultz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. USAColombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(ii): 244-258. Spratt, M. 1999). How good are we at knowing what learners like? System, 27:141-155. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issue s and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Grammar and nonsense and learning. In H. G. Widdowson, Aspects of language teaching, pp. 79-98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 86 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ ANNEXURE – I RESEARCH INSTRUMENT – QUESTIONNAIRE STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITH GRAMMAR These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in the classroom. Please indicate how far you agree or disagree with these statements. If you agree strongly, mark a 5 on the scale; if you strongly disagree, mark a 1 on the scale. No. Statement SA 1 My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2 My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3 My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4 My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5 My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7 My students find authentic texts difficult because of the wide variety of structures which appear. 8 My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9 My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10 My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts withou t explicit direction from teachers. 11 Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12 Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts. 3 A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14 My students find grammatical terminology useful. 15 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context. 16 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context. 17 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 18 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 9 My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20 My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. A N D SD International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 87 ANNEXURE – II Table 2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement 1. My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2. My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3. My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4. My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5. My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. 6. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7. My students find authentic texts difficult because of the wide variety of structures which appear. 8. My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9. My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10. My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers. 11. Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12. Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts. 13. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14. My students find grammatical terminology useful. 15. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context. 16. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context. 17. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 8. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 19. My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20. My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. Overall Mean 3. 8111 3. 5778 3. 6111 2. 9667 3. 5889 3. 3333 3. 4889 3. 2556 3. 5222 3. 4333 3. 0333 3. 0889 3. 3778 3. 8222 3. 2556 3. 5730 4. 1000 3. 7333 4. 0667 3. 6000 3. 5090 SD . 93490 . 97125 1. 04607 1. 49494 . 94684 1. 03858 1. 01941 1. 03382 1. 07293 1. 02825 1. 05415 1. 16739 . 97816 1. 5937 1. 25027 . 83785 . 90006 . 99210 . 87152 1. 08927 7. 71887 Table 4. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Gender (Males: N=39; Females: N=51) Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 3. 8718 3. 7647 3. 2308 3. 8431 3. 7436 3. 5098 3. 1282 2. 8431 3. 7949 3. 4314 3. 2821 3. 3725 3. 5128 3. 4706 3. 2051 3. 2941 3. 5128 3. 5294 3. 3846 3. 4706 3. 0769 3. 0000 3. 1282 3. 0588 SD . 86388 . 99173 1. 6281 . 80926 . 96567 1. 10223 1. 47219 1. 51489 . 95089 . 92206 1. 02466 1. 05756 . 79046 1. 17223 1. 10452 . 98578 . 99662 1. 13759 1. 09100 . 98697 1. 10940 1. 01980 1. 19603 1. 15606 F 1. 357 4. 942 1. 447 . 032 . 068 . 095 9. 319 . 295 1. 240 . 600 . 062 . 107 t . 536 3. 105 1. 051 . 895 1. 828 . 408 . 194 . 403 . 072 . 391 . 341 . 278 Sig. (2-tailed) . 593 . 003 . 296 . 373 . 071 . 684 . 847 . 688 . 943 . 697 . 734 . 782 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 88 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 3. 3333 3. 4118 3. 9231 3. 7451 3. 3590 3. 1765 3. 5385 3. 6000 4. 0769 4. 1176 3. 7179 3. 7451 3. 8974 4. 1961 3. 4359 3. 7255 3. 5077 3. 5100 SD . 98230 . 98339 1. 28523 1. 24649 1. 34726 1. 17823 . 82226 . 85714 . 98367 . 84017 .88700 1. 07412 . 94018 . 80049 1. 16517 1. 02134 6. 67887 8. 50930 F . 018 . 105 1. 363 . 174 . 023 1. 454 . 201 2. 494 1. 604 t . 375 . 662 . 684 . 342 . 212 . 128 1. 626 1. 254 . 028 Sig. (2-tailed) . 708 . 510 . 496 . 733 . 833 . 898 . 108 . 213 . 978 Table 5. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to the Level taught Statement 1 Level 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 N 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 Mean 3. 8824 3. 5484 3. 9762 3. 8111 3. 5882 3. 2903 3. 7857 3. 5778 3. 7059 3. 5161 3. 6429 3. 6111 2. 7647 3. 4516 2. 6905 2. 9667 3. 7059 3. 6774 3. 4762 3. 5889 3. 1765 3. 3871 3. 3571 3. 3333 3. 6471 3. 4839 3. 4286 3. 889 3. 6471 3. 2903 3. 0714 3. 2556 3. 7059 3. 5484 3. 4286 3. 5222 3. 7647 SD 1. 05370 1. 09053 . 71527 . 93490 1. 00367 . 97275 . 92488 . 97125 1. 04670 . 99569 1. 10036 1. 04607 1. 52190 1. 43385 1. 47314 1. 49494 . 77174 . 79108 1. 10956 . 94684 1. 01460 1. 02233 1. 07797 1. 03858 1. 16946 1. 06053 . 94075 1. 01941 . 99632 . 93785 1. 09082 1. 03382 1. 26317 1. 09053 . 99125 1. 07293 1. 20049 F 1. 970 Sig. .146 2 2. 394 .097 3 .213 .809 4 2. 593 .081 5 .557 .575 6 .242 .785 7 .274 .761 8 1. 943 .149 9 .413 1. 116 .663 . 332 10 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 9 Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Level 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total N 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 41 89 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 Mean 3. 3871 3. 3333 3. 4333 2. 8824 3. 0968 3. 0476 3. 0333 3. 1176 3. 1290 3. 0476 3. 0889 3. 5294 3. 0645 3. 5476 3. 3778 4. 0000 3. 3871 4. 0714 3. 8222 3. 0588 3. 5161 3. 429 3. 2556 3. 6471 3. 7419 3. 4146 3. 5730 4. 2941 4. 0323 4. 0714 4. 1000 3. 6471 3. 6774 3. 8095 3. 7333 4. 3529 3. 9355 4. 0476 4. 0667 3. 5294 3. 5806 3. 6429 3. 6000 3. 5824 3. 4871 3. 4951 3. 5090 SD . 91933 1. 02806 1. 02825 1. 05370 1. 10619 1. 03482 1. 05415 1. 21873 1. 14723 1. 18841 1. 16739 1. 17886 . 99785 . 83235 . 97816 1. 22474 1. 22956 1. 23748 1. 25937 1. 39062 1. 17958 1. 24100 1. 25027 . 93148 . 68155 . 89375 . 83785 . 77174 . 87498 . 97262 . 90006 1. 27187 . 90874 . 94322 . 99210 . 70189 . 81386 . 96151 . 87152 1. 12459 1. 14816 1. 05510 1. 08927 7. 94466 8. 51652 7. 09156 7. 71887 F Sig. .230 .795 049 .953 2. 509 .087 2. 968 .057 1. 056 .352 1. 443 .242 .499 .609 .233 .792 1. 287 .281 .072 .931 .378 .686 Table 6. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Qualifications Statement 1 Qualification MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 3. 5000 3. 8026 4. 3333 3. 8111 3. 6250 3. 5395 4. 0000 3. 5778 SD 1. 30931 . 89472 . 81650 . 93490 . 91613 . 99921 . 63246 . 97125 F 1. 394 Sig. .253 2 .630 .535 Interna tional Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 90 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Qualification MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 75 6 89 8 76 6 Mean 3. 5000 3. 5921 4. 0000 3. 6111 3. 3750 2. 9605 2. 5000 2. 9667 3. 7500 3. 5526 3. 8333 3. 5889 2. 6250 3. 4079 3. 3333 3. 3333 3. 2500 3. 4605 4. 1667 3. 4889 3. 5000 3. 2237 3. 333 3. 2556 3. 1250 3. 5000 4. 3333 3. 5222 3. 3750 3. 4079 3. 8333 3. 4333 2. 7500 3. 0526 3. 1667 3. 0333 3. 5000 3. 0132 3. 5000 3. 0889 3. 2500 3. 4079 3. 1667 3. 3778 3. 1250 3. 8947 3. 8333 3. 8222 3. 3750 3. 2237 3. 5000 3. 2556 3. 5000 3. 5200 4. 3333 3. 5730 4. 5000 4. 0132 4. 6667 SD 1. 06904 1. 03509 1. 26491 1. 04607 1. 40789 1. 50058 1. 64317 1. 49494 1. 38873 . 91498 . 75277 . 94684 1. 30247 . 96854 1. 36626 1. 03858 1. 16496 1. 01247 . 75277 1. 01941 1. 06904 1. 02760 1. 21106 1. 03382 1. 24642 1. 05198 . 81650 1. 07293 1. 18773 1. 03509 . 75277 1. 02825 1. 58114 1. 00525 . 98319 1. 05415 1. 30931 1. 13717 1. 37840 1. 6739 1. 58114 . 86684 1. 47196 . 97816 1. 80772 1. 16137 1. 60208 1. 25937 1. 68502 1. 18433 1. 64317 1. 25027 1. 19523 . 77738 . 81650 . 83785 . 75593 . 91642 . 51640 F . 467 Sig. .629 .586 .559 .366 .694 2. 108 .128 1. 596 .209 .272 .762 2. 348 .102 .484 .618 .345 .710 1. 029 .362 .240 .787 1. 363 .261 .173 .842 2. 757 2. 407 .069 . 096 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 91 Statement 18 19 20 Overall Qualification Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total N 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 4. 1000 3. 6250 3. 7632 3. 5000 3. 333 4. 0000 4. 0395 4. 5000 4. 0667 3. 8750 3. 5658 3. 6667 3. 6000 3 . 4563 3. 4933 3. 7750 3. 5090 SD . 90006 1. 40789 . 92186 1. 37840 . 99210 . 75593 . 90097 . 54772 . 87152 1. 35620 1. 08733 . 81650 1. 08927 10. 98619 7. 29186 7. 44983 7. 71887 F Sig. .244 .784 .798 .453 .299 .742 1. 582 .211 Table 7. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Experience Statement 1 Exp. (yrs) ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 0 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 N 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 Mean 3. 5556 3. 9250 3. 9130 3. 8111 3. 4444 3. 5500 3. 7826 3. 5778 3. 4444 3. 8000 3. 4783 3. 6111 3. 2222 3. 1500 2. 3478 2. 9667 3. 7407 3. 5000 3. 5652 3. 5889 3. 2963 3. 4000 3. 2609 3. 3333 3. 4074 3. 5250 3. 5217 3. 4889 3. 1481 3. 2000 3. 4783 3. 2556 3. 8519 3. 3000 3. 5217 3. 5222 3. 3333 3. 4500 SD 1. 12090 . 91672 . 66831 . 93490 . 84732 . 95943 1. 12640 . 97125 . 97402 1. 01779 1. 16266 1. 04607 1. 52753 1. 45972 1. 40158 1. 49494 . 81300 1. 13228 . 2777 . 94684 1. 17063 . 98189 1. 00983 1. 03858 1. 24836 . 93336 . 89796 1. 01941 . 81824 1. 11401 1. 12288 1. 03382 1. 06351 1. 11401 . 94722 1. 07293 1. 03775 1. 06096 F 1. 457 Sig. .239 2 .778 .462 3 1. 185 .311 4 2. 772 .068 5 .525 .593 6 .153 .859 7 .121 .886 8 .733 .484 9 2. 189 . 214 .118 . 808 10 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 92 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Exp. (yrs) ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total N 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 89 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 Mean 3. 5217 3. 4333 2. 8889 3. 0750 3. 1304 3. 0333 3. 3333 3. 0750 2. 8261 3. 0889 3. 3704 3. 2750 3. 5652 3. 3778 3. 4815 3. 8500 4. 1739 3. 8222 3. 1481 3. 2500 3. 3913 3. 2556 3. 6667 3. 5000 3. 5909 3. 5730 4. 0741 4. 1000 4. 1304 4. 1000 3. 6667 3. 8250 3. 6522 3. 7333 4. 0370 4. 0500 4. 1304 4. 0667 3. 4074 3. 000 3. 6522 3. 6000 3. 4759 3. 5250 3. 5201 3. 5090 SD . 99405 1. 02825 1. 25064 . 99711 . 91970 1. 05415 1. 14354 1. 11832 1. 26678 1. 16739 . 92604 1. 01242 . 99206 . 97816 1. 36918 1. 23101 1. 11405 1. 25937 1. 43322 1. 14914 1. 23359 1. 25027 . 87706 . 87706 . 73414 . 83785 1. 03500 . 74421 1. 01374 .90006 1. 03775 . 84391 1. 19121 . 99210 . 70610 . 90441 1. 01374 . 87152 1. 18514 1. 06699 1. 02730 1. 08927 9. 44364 7. 20399 6. 48558 7. 71887 F Sig. .377 .687 1. 182 .311 .639 .530 1. 935 .151 .232 .794 .321 .727 .024 .976 .304 .739 .083 .921 .612 .545 .140 .869 International Journal of Instruction , July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 How to cite Difficulties in Learning English Grammar, Essay examples

Difficulties in Learning English Grammar Free Essays

string(26) " force among L2 learners\." International Journal of Instruction e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ? www. e-iji. net July 2011 ? Vol. We will write a custom essay sample on Difficulties in Learning English Grammar or any similar topic only for you Order Now 4, No. 2 p-ISSN: 1694-609X DIFFICULTIES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING GRAMMAR IN AN EFL CONTEXT1 Abdu Mohammed Al-Mekhlafi PhD. , College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman rayan3@gmail. com Ramani Perur Nagaratnam PhD. , Ministry of Manpower, Oman The role of grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context has been for decades a major issue for students and teachers alike. Researchers have debated whether grammar should be taught in the classroom and students, for their part, have generally looked upon grammar instruction as a necessary evil at best, and an avoidable burden at worst. The paper reports a study undertaken to investigate the difficulties teachers face in teaching grammar to EFL students as well as those faced by students in learning it, in the teachers’ perception. The study aimed to find out whether there are significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of difficulties in relation to their gender, qualification, teaching experience, and the level they teach in school, thus providing insights into their own and their students’ difficulties. Mean scores and t-test were used to interpret the data. The main findings are reported with implications. Key Words: English language teaching, instruction, EFL grammar instruction, teaching, difficulties in grammar instruction INTRODUCTION The English teacher is often portrayed as an â€Å"unattractive grammar monger whose only pleasure in life is to point out the faults of others† (Baron, 1982, p. 226). For the most part, within the classroom, any mention of grammar causes the student moments of discomfort and sometimes even terror. Many teachers have tried to make grammar teaching a non-threatening, imaginative and useful activity within the English curriculum. A summary of this paper was presented at the 54th World Assembly of the International Council on Education for Teaching (ICET) on ‘Maintaining Strategic Agility: Managing change and assuring quality in education for teaching’, 14-17 December 2009, Muscat, Oman. 70 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Previous studies on students’ and teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of grammar instruction in the context of language teaching and learning suggest a disparity between students and teachers. While students favour formal and explicit grammar instruction and error correction, teachers favour communicative activities with less conscious focus on grammar (e. g. , Brindley 1984; Kumaravadivelu 1991; Leki 1995; Schultz 1996, 2001; Spratt 1999). Rationale for the present study The foregoing review of literature shows that practicing teachers are faced with a range of options for grammar instruction in their classrooms. There are, however, many types of difficulties faced by students and teachers with regard to grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context. Identifying such difficulties and being consciously aware of them would help teachers find ways of overcoming them and provide effective grammar instruction. There has, however, been little investigation of the difficulties faced by EFL teachers and Aran learners in the Gulf region with regard to grammar instruction. The teachers employ theoretically recommended methods without necessarily taking into account their own and their learners’ potential difficulties. They may not be conscious of difficulties which are serious and may thus hinder students’ learning of English grammar, and do not choose the method of instruction that would pose fewer difficulties and problems to their learners. It is in this context that the present study was undertaken to capture valuable insights into how EFL school teachers in Oman perceive students’ as well as their own difficulties with grammar instruction. The study reported here aims to address this need by presenting the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students’ difficulties in this regard. It also aims to add to the knowledge base in this area. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attitudes towards grammar instruction In teaching grammar, three areas have to be considered: grammar as rules, grammar as form, and grammar as resource. For many L2 learners, learning grammar often means learning the rules of grammar and having an intellectual knowledge of grammar. Teachers often believe that this will provide the generative basis on which learners can build their knowledge and will be able to use the language eventually. For them, prescribed rules give a kind of security. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 71 A better approach is perhaps to see grammar as one of many resources that we have in language which helps us to communicate. We should see how grammar relates to what we want to say or write, and how we expect others to interpret what our language use and its focus. According to Widdowson (1990: 86), † . . . grammar is not a constraining imposition but a liberating force: it frees us from a dependency on context and a purely lexical categorization of reality. Given that many learners – and teachers – tend to view grammar as a set of restrictions on what is allowed and disallowed in language use – ‘a linguistic straitjacket’ in Larsen-Freeman’s words (2002: 103) – the conception of grammar as something that liberates rather than represses is one that is worth investigating. According to Morelli (2003), students perceived themselves as having a better attitude towards grammar instruction in context, while performing slightly better after having experienced the traditional grammar instruction. Elkilic and Akca (2008) reported generally positive attitudes of students studying English grammar at a private primary EFL classroom towards studying grammar. In particular, however, a little over 50% of their subjects claimed to enjoy grammar very much and only about 10% reported finding some difficulty in learning and remembering grammar. Student expectations Student expectations of traditional, explicit grammar teaching have been confirmed by many teachers (cf. Borg, 1999a, b). Burgess and Etherington (2002:440-441) also conclude that teachers believe that explicit teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because of expectations and feelings of insecurity. Since the 1970s, attention has shifted from ways of teaching grammar to ways of getting learners to communicate, but grammar has been seen to be a powerful undermining and demotivating force among L2 learners. You read "Difficulties in Learning English Grammar" in category "Essay examples" In terms of motivation and learner success with languages, grammar has been seen to be a problem and to stand in the way of helping learners to communicate fluently. The hard fact that most teachers face is that learners often find it difficult to make flexible use of the rules of grammar taught in the classroom. They may know the rules perfectly, but are incapable of applying them in their own use of the language. Teachers’ recognition of this process (i. e. , of transferring declarative knowledge about grammar into procedural knowledge) as a problem for many of their students has been reported by Burgess and Etherington (2002:442). Haudeck International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 72 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ as reported that many learners have difficulty in internalising grammar rules, although these have been taught intensively (1996, cited in European Commission, 2006). The use of grammatical terminology Metalinguistic discussion (i. e. , the use of grammatical terminology to talk about language) is seen by Stern (1992:327) as one of the characteristics of explicit grammar teaching. Acc ording to Burgess and Etherington (2002: 444), teachers believe that their students see grammatical terminology as useful and that its use does not present a particular difficulty for students. Descriptive grammars acknowledge the fact that language is dynamic and its use is constantly changing, although not in major ways. The problem for ESL/EFL learners, however, is that there is a time-lag between the awareness of such changes and their acceptance as the proper use of the language. As Morelli (2003:33-34) has observed, â€Å"Grammar can be taught traditionally or contextually, but student perception should be considered by teachers in the decision-making process. Students need to feel confident that educators have met their needs . . . nd educators should be willing to consider the attitudes and perceptions of students when making decisions about how to teach grammar. † METHOD Purpose The study reported here aims to investigate the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students’ difficulties with regard to grammar instruction. Research questions The study aimed to answer the following questions: 1. What are EFL teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties of students and teachers with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context? 2. Are there any differences in teachers’ perceptions between the difficulties faced by teachers and those faced by students? 3. Do these perceptions of difficulties vary according to the teachers’: †¢ Gender, †¢ Level taught, †¢ Qualifications, and †¢ Experience? International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 73 4. Are there any significant differences in teachers’ perceptions due to the type of difficulty? Limitation of the study The present study is limited to: †¢ EFL teachers teaching English in Omani Basic Education schools, and †¢ The use of questionnaire as the research instrument. Nevertheless, the responses are valuable in themselves, indicating the general difficulties that students and teachers face with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Research design The study was mainly quantitative in design, using a questionnaire and the subjects responded to each statement on a five-point Likert-type attitude scale (from 5 for ‘strongly agree’ to 1 for ‘strongly disagree’). The respondents also provided background information on gender, qualification, teaching experience and the level they teach, for creating their profile in terms of variables. The data was analyzed (t-test and ANOVA) using the SPSS. The research instrument The questionnaire used in the present study, which comprises 20 statements, was the one employed by Burgess and Etherington in their study (2002: 451452) (See ANNEXURE – I for the questionnaire used in the present study). Subjects Only one broad geographical context was chosen for the study, namely Oman, in order to be context-specific and be able to make a close connection between teachers, their assumptions and their practical experience. It is believed that the subjects fairly represented the context of EFL teaching at different levels in Omani schools. Besides, the sample size was 90, more than the minimum number required for making useful statistical analyses according to Cohen and Manion (1994:77). The profile of the subjects in terms of the four variables is given below in Table 1: International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 74 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Table 1. Profile of Respondents to the Study Instrument Variable Gender Level they teach Categories within the variable Male Female Grades 1-4 Grades 5-10 Grades 11-12 Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Diploma ? years 5 ? 10 years 10 years No. of respondents in each category 39 51 17 31 42 8 76 6 27 41 22 Total (N) 90 90 Qualification 90 Experience 90 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION With regard to the first research question whether there are difficulties faced by students and teachers with grammar instruction, Table 2 (ANNEXURE – II) shows an overall mean of 3. 51 on a five-point scale, the means for individual stateme nts ranging from 2. 97 to 4. 10, thus indicating teachers’ general agreement with most of the statements in the survey questionnaire (See Fig. below). This suggests that, in the perceptions of teachers, there are difficulties faced by teachers as well as students with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Fig. 1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 75 With regard to the second research question about the differences between students and teachers in the difficulties faced, Table 3 shows that there is a statistically significant difference at the level of p ; 0. 01 in the perceptions of teachers and students, with students experiencing difficulties to a greater extent than teachers, which is understandable. The overall mean for students’ difficulties as perceived by the teachers was 3. 58, while the overall mean for teachers’ difficulties wa s 3. 23 (Table 3 below). Table 3. Teachers’ Perceptions of Teachers’ and Students’ Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement Teachers’ Difficulties Students’ Difficulties as perceived by the Teachers Mean 3. 331 3. 5779 SD . 58484 . 42214 t Sig. (2-tailed) 5. 225 . 000 The third research question is about the differences in perception of difficulties in terms of the four teacher variables: gender, level taught, qualification, and teaching experience. With regard to gender, a comparison of the overall mean response for male (3. 508) and female teachers (3. 510) (See Fig. 2 below) shows that they are quite nearly the same and that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 5 in their perceptions about the difficulties (Sig. : . 978) (Table 4 in ANNEXURE – II)). This suggests that gender does not play a significant role in the teachers’ perceptions when it comes to articulating their own difficulties as we ll as those of their students with English grammar instruction. Fig. 2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Gender With regard to the level taught, Table 5 (ANNEXURE – II) shows that teachers teaching at different levels have similar perceptions about their wn and their International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 76 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ students’ difficulties with English grammar instruction, with a slightly higher mean for teachers of Grades 1-4 (3. 58) than the means for teachers of the other two levels, which are nearly the same (3. 49 and 3. 5) (See Fig. 3 below). Table 5 also shows that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 686). Fig. 3. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Level Taught With regard to teachers’ qualifications, Table 6 (ANNEXURE – II) shows a slightly higher overall mean for teachers with a diploma qualification (3. 78) than the overall means for teachers with higher qualifications, viz. bachelor’s (3. 46) or master’s degree (3. 49) (See Fig. 4 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 211 – Table 6). Fig. 4. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Qualifications With regard to teachers’ experience, it does not seem to be a significant variable with regard to their perceptions of their own and their students’ difficulties with English grammar instruction, as Table 7 (ANNEXURE – II) shows (See Fig. 5 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 869 – Table 7). International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 7 Fig. 5. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Experience The foregoing discussion is based on the overall mean score obtained for the difficulties in general and for each of the four teacher variables considered in the present study. With regard to the fourth research question, a detailed analysis of the results provides interesting and valuable insigh ts into teachers’ perceptions of different types of difficulties for students and teachers themselves and their concerns about classroom application of grammar teaching principles. The results are discussed with respect to difficulties categorized in terms of the themes listed in Table 8 below: Table 8. Statements in the Questionnaire Categorised according to Themes Theme Explicit grammar teaching The transfer of declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge The use of grammatical terminology Error correction Problem-solving activities The use of authentic texts for grammar instruction The use of spoken and written communicative activities Statement(s) 3, 4, 5, 13 1, 17, 18 14, 19 15, 16 2, 20 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 17, 18 Explicit grammar teaching The dichotomies of unconscious/conscious learning and inductive/deductive teaching methods are both sometimes equated with the dichotomy between implicit and explicit instruction. Attitudes to inductive and deductive methods were investigated through statements concerning explicit presentation of grammar by teachers, students finding form-function matches for themselves, and the constraints in using either of the two methods. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 78 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 3 (My students expect teachers to present grammar explicitly) and Statement 13 (A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure) produced a mean score of 3. 61 and 3. 38 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II), supporting the view that students, in teachers’ perception, prefer explicit grammar teaching. This is not surprising, as students are known to expect traditional, explicit grammar instruction (e. g. , Borg, 1999a, b). The responses in the present study indicate that this expectation of students still remains, especially at the school level. Responses to Statement 5 (My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves), however, produced a mean score of 3. 59 (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II), which is very close to the mean score for students’ expectation about explicit teaching of grammar. This perception of students’ preference for an inductive method of learning grammar on the part of the same responding teachers is surprising. With regard to the same statement, the difference in mean between males and females seems to be higher than for the other statements (Table 4 – ANNEXURE – II). A follow-up interview with teachers might have provided more specific information and thrown light on their understanding of explicit and implicit methods of teaching grammar. With regard to Statement 4 (My students prefer to learn grammar from onesentence examples), which links to explicit grammar teaching, responding teachers produced the lowest mean score (2. 97) of all statements in the questionnaire (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of experience, however, there seems to be some significant difference at the level of 0. 5 in favour of teachers with more than 10 years of experience (Table 7 – ANNEXURE – II). Declarative vs procedural knowledge Statement 1 (My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use), designed to identify teachers’ beliefs about the possible transfer of declarative knowledge (i. e. , knowledge about grammar) into procedural knowledge (i. e. , ability to use that knowled ge in actual communication), produced a mean score of 3. 81 (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II). This indicates that responding teachers recognise this process of transfer of one kind of knowledge into another as a problem for a large number of their students. This gap between students’ grammatical knowledge and communicative ability is not surprising to teachers, who often find that most of their students can recall grammatical rules accurately and perform very well on discrete-point grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 79 exercises, but fail to achieve such grammatical accuracy in actual communication. This fact is corroborated by the responses to Statements 17 and 18 (My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical knowledge within a totally communicative writing/speaking activity), which produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree strongly (mean of 4. 33) that their students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II). The use of grammatical terminology The use of grammatical terminology in the EFL classroom is seen as a necessary part of the explicit method of teaching grammar. When students and teachers talk about grammar (i. e. , in meta-linguistic discussion), which is one of the characteristics of explicit language teaching (Stern 1992: 327), they need to use grammatical terms. Two statements (14 19) sought to explore teachers’ perceptions of how their students feel about the use of grammatical terminology. Statement 14 (My students find grammatical terminology useful) and Statement 19 (My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology) produced a mean score of 3. 82 and 4. 07 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). This indicates that, in the responding teachers’ perception, their students see grammatical terminology as useful, but find difficulty in using the terms to be of a greater magnitude. Interestingly, the usefulness of grammatical terminology seems to be linked to the students’ preference for explicit grammar instruction. The difference in mean between teachers of Grades 1-4 and 11-12 on the one hand (mean of ? ) and those of Grades 5-10 (mean of 3. 4), however, seems to be higher with regard to their perceptions of the usefulness of grammatical terminology to their students. That is, teachers of the lowest and highest levels think that their students find grammatical terminology more useful than those of the middle grades. There is a sig nificant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of the level taught with regard to the usefulness of grammatical terminology (statement 14) (Table 5 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 0) that their students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelor’s International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 80 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 04). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II). Error Correction Teachers generally tend to believe that errors of form committed by EFL learners should be corrected even when communicative goals are intended. This need for correction of form even within a communicative context, either spoken or written, may arise from a concern for grammatical accuracy in students’ communicative output or for avoiding fossilization of errors in their interlanguage. Statements 15 and 16 aim to capture teachers’ perceptions in this regard. Statement 15 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context) and Statement 16 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context) produced a mean score of 3. 26 and 3. 7 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II). It may be inferred from the results that the responding teachers experience more difficulty in correcting their learners’ spoken communication than written. Problem-solving techniques Problem-solving techniques in relation to grammar teaching are inductive techniques that require learners to find form-function matches by themselves. (e. g. , Hall and Shepheard, 1991). Responses of teachers surveyed in the present study produced a mean score of 3. 58 for Statement 2 (My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar), showing a link to responses to Statement 5 bout students’ preference for finding matches between meaning and structure for themselves. Surprisingly, however, the same responding teachers produced a mean score of 3. 60 for Statement 20 (My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). A possible interpretation could be that teachers, while recognising the motivational potential of problem-solving techniques, also observe their students’ frustrating experience with such techniques, possibly because they are too ‘challenging’ for the learners to cope with. Another interpretation could be that teachers’ responses to Statement 2 are based on their theoretical assumption about what these techniques could do to the learners, while those to Statement 20 could be based on teachers’ assessment of the ground reality. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 81 With regard to the statement about students being motivated by problemsolving techniques for learning grammar (Statement 2), there is also a significant difference at the level of 0. 5 between males and females in their perceptions (Table 4 – ANNEXURE – II). The use of authentic texts for grammar instruction Authentic texts are texts that are not produced artificially for the purpose of language teaching, but are used for genuine purposes in the real world, like newspaper articles and recipes. By implication, these texts are contextualised and communicatively complete in themselves. They focus is on conveying real meaning rather than on form. Decontextualised examples of language, on the other hand, are one-sentence examples usually found in EFL textbooks and grammar practice books. They illustrate grammatical forms and structures in context-free sentences and are generally associated with the explicit method of teaching grammar. The use of texts illustrating authentic communication for presenting grammar is generally seen as posing problems to teachers and students alike. Students’ problems with their use arise from difficulties of variety of structures Statement 7), culture (Statement 8), vocabulary (Statement 9), and implicit form-function matches (Statement 10), besides an overall difficulty in handling grammar presented within authentic texts (Statement 6). Teachers’ difficulties with authentic texts include those arising from the amount of time needed for using them (Statement 11) and producing suitable tasks from such texts (Statement 12). According to the responding teachers’ perceptions, stud ents experience greater difficulties from vocabulary (Mean=3. 52), variety of structures (Mean=3. 49) and finding form-function matches (Mean=3. 3) than from handling from presented within authentic texts (Mean=3. 33) and culture (Mean=3. 26). Statements 11 and 12 relating to teachers’ difficulties in using authentic texts produced a mean score of 3. 03 and 3. 09 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II), which indicates a lower perception of teachers of their own difficulties than those of students. The use of spoken and written communicative activities Statements 17 and 18 refer to the possible difficulties students might have in improving the accuracy of their grammatical language within totally communicative activities. Responding teachers produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 for the two statements respectively. In fact, the highest mean score of International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 82 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ all scores for the survey questionnaire (4. 10) was obtained for Statement 17 (My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical knowledge within a totally communicative writing activity) (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II). The results indicate that, in teachers’ perceptions, totally communicative activities, whether written or spoken, pose great difficulties to students for learning grammar and improving grammatical accuracy, writing activities proving more challenging than spoken ones. It might be inferred that the teachers surveyed might have a serious concern about the lack of sufficient focus on form in purely communicative activities or tasks for developing students’ grammatical knowledge. Practising language as communication in real-life tasks might not give sufficient opportunities for students to improve their grammatical knowledge. In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 67) that their students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelor’s degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 01). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II). CONCLUSION Generally speaking, in teachers’ perceptions, both teachers and students invariably face serious difficulties with regard to EFL grammar instruction, students facing them to a greater extent than teachers. It is obvious that EFL teachers consider these difficulties quite serious, which suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to them. There may be generally recommended ways of teaching EFL grammar (for example, the implicit method), but it would not be proper to adopt them universally without looking at the possible difficulties that might go with those methods suggested. While a less favoured method might pose fewer problems and hence be more effective, a more favoured method might be less effective owing to greater difficulties or problems in implementing it. The difficulties may also be influenced by the context in which a particular method is used. It is, therefore, necessary to make a detailed study of such difficulties faced by teachers and students in specific contexts, take appropriate steps to overcome them, and adapt the method to suit the actual teaching and learning International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 83 environment. This is not to suggest ‘diluting’ a sound approach or method, but only to plan mediating or supplementary tasks to help learners tide over the difficulties. IMPLICATIONS The findings of the present study point to the following implications: 1. EFL Curriculum and material developers should show an understanding of learners’ and teachers’ difficulties, and provide sufficient guidance and help in the curriculum document and the teachers’ book showing how the potential difficulties could be addressed in planning their classroom activities. Teachers may be given examples of mediating tasks, which would mitigate the difficulties. 2. As Morelli (2003: 33-34) has pointed out, students need to be taught grammar through various methodologies and approaches to cater to their individual styles of learning, and educators should consider students’ attitudes and perceptions when making decisions about how to teach grammar. 3. EFL teachers would do well to understand and address their learners’ concerns in planning their lessons and classroom activities, and use supplementary materials, if necessary, to help learners cope with the difficulties. 4. Both in-service and pre-service training programmes should be planned in such a way that student-teachers and practising teachers articulate the potential and actual difficulties and discuss ways of overcoming or at least coping with them. The database relating to teaching English as a foreign language, including the difficulties of learners and teachers with regard to grammar instruction, should be enriched by more detailed research and analysis, which would enable generalizations across the gulf countries. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 84 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ REFERENCES Baron, D. (1982). Grammar and good taste: Reforming the American language. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press. Borg, S. (1999a). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: a qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics, 20 (1): 95-126. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002) Borg, S. (1999b). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53 (3): 157-167. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002). Brindley, G. (1984). Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. NSW Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney. Burgess, J. and Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit? System, 30: 433-458. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. C. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Elkilic, G. and Akca, C. (2008). Attitudes of the Students Studying at Kafkas University Private Primary EFL Classroom towards Storytelling and Motivation. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 4(1): 1-22. European Commission (2006). The Main Pedagogical Principles Underlying the Teaching of Languages to Very Young Learners. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 Study: Edelenbos, P. , Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. Hall, N. nd Shepheard, J. (1991). The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. London: Longman. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (2): 98-107. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The Grammar of Choice. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds. ). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jerse y: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leki, I. (1995). Good writing: I know it when I see it. In In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds. ) Academic Writing in a Second Language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. , No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 85 Morelli, J. A. (2003). Ninth Graders’ Attitudes toward Different Approaches to Grammar Instruction. Unpublished Dissertation. The Graduate School of Education, Fordham University, New York. Schultz, 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(3): 343-364. Schultz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. USAColombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(ii): 244-258. Spratt, M. 1999). How good are we at knowing what learners like? System, 27:141-155. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issue s and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Grammar and nonsense and learning. In H. G. Widdowson, Aspects of language teaching, pp. 79-98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 86 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ ANNEXURE – I RESEARCH INSTRUMENT – QUESTIONNAIRE STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITH GRAMMAR These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in the classroom. Please indicate how far you agree or disagree with these statements. If you agree strongly, mark a 5 on the scale; if you strongly disagree, mark a 1 on the scale. No. Statement SA 1 My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2 My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3 My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4 My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5 My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7 My students find authentic texts difficult because of the wide variety of structures which appear. 8 My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9 My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10 My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts withou t explicit direction from teachers. 11 Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12 Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts. 3 A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14 My students find grammatical terminology useful. 15 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context. 16 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context. 17 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 18 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 9 My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20 My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. A N D SD International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 87 ANNEXURE – II Table 2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement 1. My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2. My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3. My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4. My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5. My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. 6. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7. My students find authentic texts difficult because of the wide variety of structures which appear. 8. My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9. My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10. My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers. 11. Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12. Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts. 13. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14. My students find grammatical terminology useful. 15. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context. 16. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context. 17. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 8. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 19. My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20. My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. Overall Mean 3. 8111 3. 5778 3. 6111 2. 9667 3. 5889 3. 3333 3. 4889 3. 2556 3. 5222 3. 4333 3. 0333 3. 0889 3. 3778 3. 8222 3. 2556 3. 5730 4. 1000 3. 7333 4. 0667 3. 6000 3. 5090 SD . 93490 . 97125 1. 04607 1. 49494 . 94684 1. 03858 1. 01941 1. 03382 1. 07293 1. 02825 1. 05415 1. 16739 . 97816 1. 5937 1. 25027 . 83785 . 90006 . 99210 . 87152 1. 08927 7. 71887 Table 4. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Gender (Males: N=39; Females: N=51) Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 3. 8718 3. 7647 3. 2308 3. 8431 3. 7436 3. 5098 3. 1282 2. 8431 3. 7949 3. 4314 3. 2821 3. 3725 3. 5128 3. 4706 3. 2051 3. 2941 3. 5128 3. 5294 3. 3846 3. 4706 3. 0769 3. 0000 3. 1282 3. 0588 SD . 86388 . 99173 1. 6281 . 80926 . 96567 1. 10223 1. 47219 1. 51489 . 95089 . 92206 1. 02466 1. 05756 . 79046 1. 17223 1. 10452 . 98578 . 99662 1. 13759 1. 09100 . 98697 1. 10940 1. 01980 1. 19603 1. 15606 F 1. 357 4. 942 1. 447 . 032 . 068 . 095 9. 319 . 295 1. 240 . 600 . 062 . 107 t . 536 3. 105 1. 051 . 895 1. 828 . 408 . 194 . 403 . 072 . 391 . 341 . 278 Sig. (2-tailed) . 593 . 003 . 296 . 373 . 071 . 684 . 847 . 688 . 943 . 697 . 734 . 782 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 88 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 3. 3333 3. 4118 3. 9231 3. 7451 3. 3590 3. 1765 3. 5385 3. 6000 4. 0769 4. 1176 3. 7179 3. 7451 3. 8974 4. 1961 3. 4359 3. 7255 3. 5077 3. 5100 SD . 98230 . 98339 1. 28523 1. 24649 1. 34726 1. 17823 . 82226 . 85714 . 98367 . 84017 .88700 1. 07412 . 94018 . 80049 1. 16517 1. 02134 6. 67887 8. 50930 F . 018 . 105 1. 363 . 174 . 023 1. 454 . 201 2. 494 1. 604 t . 375 . 662 . 684 . 342 . 212 . 128 1. 626 1. 254 . 028 Sig. (2-tailed) . 708 . 510 . 496 . 733 . 833 . 898 . 108 . 213 . 978 Table 5. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to the Level taught Statement 1 Level 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 N 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 Mean 3. 8824 3. 5484 3. 9762 3. 8111 3. 5882 3. 2903 3. 7857 3. 5778 3. 7059 3. 5161 3. 6429 3. 6111 2. 7647 3. 4516 2. 6905 2. 9667 3. 7059 3. 6774 3. 4762 3. 5889 3. 1765 3. 3871 3. 3571 3. 3333 3. 6471 3. 4839 3. 4286 3. 889 3. 6471 3. 2903 3. 0714 3. 2556 3. 7059 3. 5484 3. 4286 3. 5222 3. 7647 SD 1. 05370 1. 09053 . 71527 . 93490 1. 00367 . 97275 . 92488 . 97125 1. 04670 . 99569 1. 10036 1. 04607 1. 52190 1. 43385 1. 47314 1. 49494 . 77174 . 79108 1. 10956 . 94684 1. 01460 1. 02233 1. 07797 1. 03858 1. 16946 1. 06053 . 94075 1. 01941 . 99632 . 93785 1. 09082 1. 03382 1. 26317 1. 09053 . 99125 1. 07293 1. 20049 F 1. 970 Sig. .146 2 2. 394 .097 3 .213 .809 4 2. 593 .081 5 .557 .575 6 .242 .785 7 .274 .761 8 1. 943 .149 9 .413 1. 116 .663 . 332 10 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 9 Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Level 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total N 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 41 89 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 Mean 3. 3871 3. 3333 3. 4333 2. 8824 3. 0968 3. 0476 3. 0333 3. 1176 3. 1290 3. 0476 3. 0889 3. 5294 3. 0645 3. 5476 3. 3778 4. 0000 3. 3871 4. 0714 3. 8222 3. 0588 3. 5161 3. 429 3. 2556 3. 6471 3. 7419 3. 4146 3. 5730 4. 2941 4. 0323 4. 0714 4. 1000 3. 6471 3. 6774 3. 8095 3. 7333 4. 3529 3. 9355 4. 0476 4. 0667 3. 5294 3. 5806 3. 6429 3. 6000 3. 5824 3. 4871 3. 4951 3. 5090 SD . 91933 1. 02806 1. 02825 1. 05370 1. 10619 1. 03482 1. 05415 1. 21873 1. 14723 1. 18841 1. 16739 1. 17886 . 99785 . 83235 . 97816 1. 22474 1. 22956 1. 23748 1. 25937 1. 39062 1. 17958 1. 24100 1. 25027 . 93148 . 68155 . 89375 . 83785 . 77174 . 87498 . 97262 . 90006 1. 27187 . 90874 . 94322 . 99210 . 70189 . 81386 . 96151 . 87152 1. 12459 1. 14816 1. 05510 1. 08927 7. 94466 8. 51652 7. 09156 7. 71887 F Sig. .230 .795 049 .953 2. 509 .087 2. 968 .057 1. 056 .352 1. 443 .242 .499 .609 .233 .792 1. 287 .281 .072 .931 .378 .686 Table 6. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Qualifications Statement 1 Qualification MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 3. 5000 3. 8026 4. 3333 3. 8111 3. 6250 3. 5395 4. 0000 3. 5778 SD 1. 30931 . 89472 . 81650 . 93490 . 91613 . 99921 . 63246 . 97125 F 1. 394 Sig. .253 2 .630 .535 Interna tional Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 90 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Qualification MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 75 6 89 8 76 6 Mean 3. 5000 3. 5921 4. 0000 3. 6111 3. 3750 2. 9605 2. 5000 2. 9667 3. 7500 3. 5526 3. 8333 3. 5889 2. 6250 3. 4079 3. 3333 3. 3333 3. 2500 3. 4605 4. 1667 3. 4889 3. 5000 3. 2237 3. 333 3. 2556 3. 1250 3. 5000 4. 3333 3. 5222 3. 3750 3. 4079 3. 8333 3. 4333 2. 7500 3. 0526 3. 1667 3. 0333 3. 5000 3. 0132 3. 5000 3. 0889 3. 2500 3. 4079 3. 1667 3. 3778 3. 1250 3. 8947 3. 8333 3. 8222 3. 3750 3. 2237 3. 5000 3. 2556 3. 5000 3. 5200 4. 3333 3. 5730 4. 5000 4. 0132 4. 6667 SD 1. 06904 1. 03509 1. 26491 1. 04607 1. 40789 1. 50058 1. 64317 1. 49494 1. 38873 . 91498 . 75277 . 94684 1. 30247 . 96854 1. 36626 1. 03858 1. 16496 1. 01247 . 75277 1. 01941 1. 06904 1. 02760 1. 21106 1. 03382 1. 24642 1. 05198 . 81650 1. 07293 1. 18773 1. 03509 . 75277 1. 02825 1. 58114 1. 00525 . 98319 1. 05415 1. 30931 1. 13717 1. 37840 1. 6739 1. 58114 . 86684 1. 47196 . 97816 1. 80772 1. 16137 1. 60208 1. 25937 1. 68502 1. 18433 1. 64317 1. 25027 1. 19523 . 77738 . 81650 . 83785 . 75593 . 91642 . 51640 F . 467 Sig. .629 .586 .559 .366 .694 2. 108 .128 1. 596 .209 .272 .762 2. 348 .102 .484 .618 .345 .710 1. 029 .362 .240 .787 1. 363 .261 .173 .842 2. 757 2. 407 .069 . 096 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi Nagaratnam 91 Statement 18 19 20 Overall Qualification Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total N 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 4. 1000 3. 6250 3. 7632 3. 5000 3. 333 4. 0000 4. 0395 4. 5000 4. 0667 3. 8750 3. 5658 3. 6667 3. 6000 3 . 4563 3. 4933 3. 7750 3. 5090 SD . 90006 1. 40789 . 92186 1. 37840 . 99210 . 75593 . 90097 . 54772 . 87152 1. 35620 1. 08733 . 81650 1. 08927 10. 98619 7. 29186 7. 44983 7. 71887 F Sig. .244 .784 .798 .453 .299 .742 1. 582 .211 Table 7. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Experience Statement 1 Exp. (yrs) ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 0 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 N 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 Mean 3. 5556 3. 9250 3. 9130 3. 8111 3. 4444 3. 5500 3. 7826 3. 5778 3. 4444 3. 8000 3. 4783 3. 6111 3. 2222 3. 1500 2. 3478 2. 9667 3. 7407 3. 5000 3. 5652 3. 5889 3. 2963 3. 4000 3. 2609 3. 3333 3. 4074 3. 5250 3. 5217 3. 4889 3. 1481 3. 2000 3. 4783 3. 2556 3. 8519 3. 3000 3. 5217 3. 5222 3. 3333 3. 4500 SD 1. 12090 . 91672 . 66831 . 93490 . 84732 . 95943 1. 12640 . 97125 . 97402 1. 01779 1. 16266 1. 04607 1. 52753 1. 45972 1. 40158 1. 49494 . 81300 1. 13228 . 2777 . 94684 1. 17063 . 98189 1. 00983 1. 03858 1. 24836 . 93336 . 89796 1. 01941 . 81824 1. 11401 1. 12288 1. 03382 1. 06351 1. 11401 . 94722 1. 07293 1. 03775 1. 06096 F 1. 457 Sig. .239 2 .778 .462 3 1. 185 .311 4 2. 772 .068 5 .525 .593 6 .153 .859 7 .121 .886 8 .733 .484 9 2. 189 . 214 .118 . 808 10 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 92 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Exp. (yrs) ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total N 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 89 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 Mean 3. 5217 3. 4333 2. 8889 3. 0750 3. 1304 3. 0333 3. 3333 3. 0750 2. 8261 3. 0889 3. 3704 3. 2750 3. 5652 3. 3778 3. 4815 3. 8500 4. 1739 3. 8222 3. 1481 3. 2500 3. 3913 3. 2556 3. 6667 3. 5000 3. 5909 3. 5730 4. 0741 4. 1000 4. 1304 4. 1000 3. 6667 3. 8250 3. 6522 3. 7333 4. 0370 4. 0500 4. 1304 4. 0667 3. 4074 3. 000 3. 6522 3. 6000 3. 4759 3. 5250 3. 5201 3. 5090 SD . 99405 1. 02825 1. 25064 . 99711 . 91970 1. 05415 1. 14354 1. 11832 1. 26678 1. 16739 . 92604 1. 01242 . 99206 . 97816 1. 36918 1. 23101 1. 11405 1. 25937 1. 43322 1. 14914 1. 23359 1. 25027 . 87706 . 87706 . 73414 . 83785 1. 03500 . 74421 1. 01374 .90006 1. 03775 . 84391 1. 19121 . 99210 . 70610 . 90441 1. 01374 . 87152 1. 18514 1. 06699 1. 02730 1. 08927 9. 44364 7. 20399 6. 48558 7. 71887 F Sig. .377 .687 1. 182 .311 .639 .530 1. 935 .151 .232 .794 .321 .727 .024 .976 .304 .739 .083 .921 .612 .545 .140 .869 International Journal of Instruction , July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 How to cite Difficulties in Learning English Grammar, Essay examples

Accountability and Nursing Practice

Question: Discuss about the Accountability and Nursing Practice. Answer: Introduction: Accountability is the central element of nursing practice. Accountability is has its roots in all the ways and all the levels of nursing. All the healthcare professionals including nurses are accountable to provide quality and lawful services to the clients. On the other hand nurses are accountable for providing the feedback. Feedback can be about the client that is given while handover. This feedback must be accurate, as it may influence the actions and decisions of other nurses (Wilkinson et al, 2012). The accountability principle also includes that nurses must be committed towards supporting their teammates. For example, while providing the feedback to the student nurses, the senior nurse must be accountable for providing practical advice, for their performance enhancement (Clynes, Raftery, 2008). References Clynes, M. P., Raftery, S. E. (2008). Feedback: an essential element of student learning in clinical practice.Nurse Education in Practice,8(6), 405-411. Wilkinson, S., Couldry, R., Phillips, H., Buck, B. (2012). Preceptor development: providing effective feedback.Hospital pharmacy,48(1), 26-32.

Planning and Evaluation of Assurance Serviceâ€MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Planning and Evaluation of Assurance Services. Answer: Introduction: At the season of leading the audits, the examiners are in charge of taking after the largely acknowledged benchmarks of evaluating (Wong and Millington 2014). Reviewer freedom alludes to the autonomy of the inward evaluator or an outer examiner from gatherings that have money related enthusiasm for the business that is being inspected in reasonable means. Moreover, Independence implies respectability and in addition a target way to deal with the review procedure. The examiner ought to be autonomous from the customer organization where the review conclusion will not be impacted by any connection between them. The inspectors are relied upon to give an unprejudiced and legit proficient feeling on the money related articulations to the shareholders (William, Glover and Prawitt 2016). Non-audit administrations are those administrations that are rendered by the inspectors to his customers that are out of degree (Srivastava, Rao and Mock 2013). This mulls over assessment related administrations, administration benefits and additionally advancement of customers business in the meantime. These administrations are given basically in return of extra salary or any type of non-financial favorable position. Moreover, it is noticed that contributing non-audit benefits really prompts the debilitation of autonomy of reviewer at the season of rendering administrations to the potential customers. One of the real fragments that should be mulled over is the effect of non-review administrations. It is vital to consider the way that review quality is a noteworthy issue that regularly gets reactions from the partners and controllers. Backing, then again, is one of the dangers to freedom to evaluator that should be mulled over in the specific circumstance. Promotion alludes to the ci rcumstance where an evaluator gives a supposition however; the general population feels that the nature of the review is being traded off. Morals will be traded off when an evaluator renders promotion administrations and along these lines unfavorably influence inspector's autonomy (Soh and Martinov-Bennie 2015). In this specific circumstance, it is noticed that autonomy of an inspector gets undermined colossally when a reviewer takes any financial or non-money related advantages other than the endorsed charges for the review administrations (Simnett, Carson and Vanstraelen 2016). The inspector may take some other advantages from that are not said in the review assertion or engagement and influence the auditors freedom. In this circumstance, the customer was offered an occasion bundle voucher for the review firm part. On the off chance that the examiner acknowledges such sort offer, then there is a situation when inspector tries to acknowledge non-financial advantages that influence auditors freedom (William, Glover and Prawitt 2016). On the off chance, that the auditor will continue getting the additional advantages that ought not to be benefited by them, then danger to independency of the auditor will likewise increments at a similar pace. In this specific circumstance, it is noticed that auditors life partner, needy and parent and siblings relatives (Peters and Romi 2014). Financial interest contemplates debt gurantee, here and short or long term securities and additionally proprietorship that are straightforwardly possessed by the individual in relationship with the people or through mediator when individual takes an interest and also administers at the season of settling on the speculation choices that controls over the intermediately (Simnett, Carson and Vanstraelen 2016). For this situation, the father of the proposed bookkeeper is the financial controller for the specific business. In that situation, if Michael acknowledges the given offer for being a piece of review group, then it will jeopardize the independency of the auditor (Marques, Santos and Santos 2013). In this specific circumstance, it is noticed that there is cozy relationship exhibit between the customer, workers and additionally officers and executives who gets impacted by the hazard that adjusts to the business condition of the customer (Louwers et al. 2013). Expansion to that, in the vast majority of the cases an evaluator is jeopardized of being thoughtful and in addition related with the customer. There is cozy relationship give the customer that prompts elevated amounts of trust with the customer and additionally speaking to the information in a precise way. Moreover, it happens that inspectors as of now have the essential data of the customer, as she had been a piece of LTH only a month prior. The auditor was in charge of completing the administrations that requires fundamental expense counts in the wake of making the bookkeeping sections for the year finished 30th of June 2015. In this manner, it is not doable for an auditor to audit his or her own work (Junior, Best and Cotter 2014). Identification of any shields to the previously mentioned threats There are different restricted services that are provide for the customers and in addition reviewer ought to give any administration that really bargain their freedom (Hayes, Wallage and Gortemaker 2014). Expansion to that, there are a few measures that should be executed that will reinforce the freedom of an examiner and these are as per the following: One of the measures that ought to be connected for increase freedom of a auditor is revolution of a audit accomplice (Eilifsen et al. 2013). This implies pivoting arrangement of audit accomplice that addresses the risk over information and narcissism, as it will empower the freedom trademark with no sort of generous cost. Moreover, learning on institutional and in addition verifiable will be made accessible to the colleagues that will help them in keeping up high caliber of audit (Duncan and Whittington 2014). It is important to have a productive audit advisory group who ought to keep up increased state of transparency. This will go about as a powerful instrument so that auditor autonomy is kept up in the most proper way (DeFond and Zhang 2014). The audit group ought to be very much qualified and additionally have the basic assets where they can undoubtedly evaluate the objectivity and freedom that outcomes in future results that are made accessible to people in general. An auditor that is autonomous ought to go for directing and additionally contributing towards keeping up quality review and review independency in the meantime (Cohen and Simnett 2014). One of the principle attributes is productive oversight of an auditor who contemplates freedom particularly from the political obstruction and in addition audits profession. Auditor ought to keep up straightforwardness that will speak to valid and in addition reasonable and include in sharing of confidential information (William, Glover and Prawitt 2016). It is vital for an auditor to take after the ethical standards while conducting audit, for example, Auditing Standards and Code of Ethics (Byrnes et al. 2015). They ought to take after the international arrangement of high quality independence and ethical norms that can help in decreasing the complexities in the give auditing methods. Contribution of risks with the spare parts inventory In this specific part, risk management is clarified that is a vital component utilized for dealing with the extra parts stock yet in the majority of the cases, dealing with the stock is executed ineffectively (Arens et al. 2015). Expansion to that, business association considers the hazard administration variables where they dissect the hazard and make strides for lessening the risk quite far. Portions of the risks that are recognized by the business association incorporate reputational chance, business risk and chance identifying with wellbeing and security (Srivastava, Rao and Mock 2013). There is downtime risk that prompts monetary misfortune where business association neglects to consider actualizing innovations in connection with the risk administration of spare parts. Moreover, there are two sorts of business risks in relationship with the purchase of extra parts. The risk that ought to be mulled over by business association is operational hazard and additionally vital hazard ( Arens, Elder and Beasley 2014). Vital hazard is one of the dangers that are not identified with the exchange approaches and choice of the association who chooses over the set in stone items and market (Srivastava, Rao and Mock 2013). This specific risk mulls over stock administration of extra parts where organization makes do with the extra parts in the most proper way. Business association chooses specially appointed offices where the business spends on the things for buy through utilization of no positive arrangements that are formal in nature. The association delegates experienced chiefs who can give their dynamic judgment particularly on day-by-day procedural issues. It is vital for an association for choosing perspectives utilized for dealing with the extra parts in a path where there is institutionalization of budgetary administration exercises. Business association ought to concentrate more on contributing fund to deal with the stock and risk level in relationship with the potential loss. They have to do the broadened downtime encounters and misfortunes that are related with a path for taking care of the dangers by utilization of substantial amounts buy. It is then required for business association for executing specially appointed system that ought to be proper in nature. Moreover, when an organization can't bear the cost of the amplified downtime and in addition huge interest in stock, it is then required for an association for discovering better methodology for dealing with the extra parts in a powerful way (Simnett, Carson and Vanstraelen 2016). Subsequently, it is required to assess the option routes for alleviating or keeping away from likely losses in the most suitable way. Operational risk is other hazard that is related with the operational downtime. Expansion to that, risk is connected with the chosen approach contingent on the execution level (William, Glover and Prawitt 2016). It is essential for the business association for setting vital administration approach who neglects to execute in an effective way. Business association ought to actualize a strategy for stocking at the season of settling on choices in connection to the institutionalization. The association makes do with the operational risk that guarantees appropriate execution of methodologies and deals with the stock in legitimate ways (Srivastava, Rao and Mock 2013). It is important to deal with the risk that is confronted by business association that guarantees recognizing the appropriate methodologies utilized for adjusting the practices. Audit risks and effect on account balance In this specific segment, related risk is considered as the intrinsic risk (Simnett, Carson and Vanstraelen 2016). Expansion to that, inherent risk happens due to exclusion or blunder as noted in the financial report that owes to the element than the control failure. Moreover, the risk happens where the way of exchange is perplexing in nature and the circumstance requires abnormal state of judgment particularly for money related projections. There is different risks affiliation that has an effect over the stock adjust and additionally account receivables sum. All things considered, there are a few records where exchanges are exceedingly connected with inborn risk, for example, chance identified with the stock management (Srivastava, Rao and Mock 2013). In this manner, it immensely influences the balance of bookkeeping in light of the transaction classes. There are different related risks that incorporate operational risks and in addition situation risks. What's more, there is likelihood that an auditor won't have the capacity to take note of the misquoted figures in relationship with the budgetary explanations (William, Glover and Prawitt 2016). It is the situation when association conducts examination and additionally substantive test techniques for future reason. For this, discovery risk is one of the risks where an auditor had presumed that there is no critical blunder found at the season of executing audit report (Srivastava, Rao and Mock 2013). In this risk, assessor expects for actualizing bookkeeping parities and also surveying the bookkeeper. Moreover, it influence with the bookkeeping parities that relies on the given exchanges and additionally sum that is included in the exchange. Along these lines, a large portion of the records are defenseless in nature that adjusts to the kind of risks and the uncertainties partners with purchase account, income account and transaction record and stock record (Simnett, Carson and Vanstraelen 2016). Reference List Arens, A., Elder, R. and Beasley, M., 2014. Auditing and assurance services-An integrated approach; includes coverage of international standards and global auditing issues, in addition to coverage of.Boston: Aufl. Arens, A.A., Elder, R.J., Beasley, M.S. and Jones, J., 2015.Auditing: The Art and Science of Assurance Engagements. Pearson Canada. Byrnes, P.E., Al-Awadhi, C.A., Gullvist, B., Brown-Liburd, H., Teeter, C.R., Warren Jr, J.D. and Vasarhelyi, M., 2015. Evolution of Auditing: From the Traditional Approach to the Future Audit.Audit Analytics, p.71. Cohen, J.R. and Simnett, R., 2014. CSR and assurance services: A research agenda.Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory,34(1), pp.59-74. DeFond, M. and Zhang, J., 2014. A review of archival auditing research.Journal of Accounting and Economics,58(2), pp.275-326. Duncan, B. and Whittington, M., 2014, September. Compliance with standards, assurance and audit: does this equal security?. InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Security of Information and Networks(p. 77). ACM. Eilifsen, A., Messier, W.F., Glover, S.M. and Prawitt, D.F., 2013.Auditing and assurance services. McGraw-Hill. Hayes, R., Wallage, P. and Gortemaker, H., 2014.Principles of auditing: an introduction to international standards on auditing. Pearson Higher Ed. Junior, R.M., Best, P.J. and Cotter, J., 2014. Sustainability reporting and assurance: a historical analysis on a world-wide phenomenon.Journal of Business Ethics,120(1), pp.1-11. Louwers, T.J., Ramsay, R.J., Sinason, D.H., Strawser, J.R. and Thibodeau, J.C., 2013.Auditing and assurance services. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Marques, R.P., Santos, H. and Santos, C., 2013. A conceptual model for evaluating systems with continuous assurance services.Procedia Technology,9, pp.304-309. Peters, G.F. and Romi, A.M., 2014. The association between sustainability governance characteristics and the assurance of corporate sustainability reports.Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory,34(1), pp.163-198. Simnett, R., Carson, E. and Vanstraelen, A., 2016. International Archival Auditing and Assurance Research: Trends, Methodological Issues, and Opportunities.Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory,35(3), pp.1-32. Soh, D.S. and Martinov-Bennie, N., 2015. Internal auditors perceptions of their role in environmental, social and governance assurance and consulting.Managerial Auditing Journal,30(1), pp.80-111. Srivastava, R.P., Rao, S.S. and Mock, T.J., 2013. Planning and evaluation of assurance services for sustainability reporting: An evidential reasoning approach.Journal of Information Systems,27(2), pp.107-126. William Jr, M., Glover, S. and Prawitt, D., 2016.Auditing and assurance services: A systematic approach. McGraw-Hill Education. Wong, R. and Millington, A., 2014. Corporate social disclosures: a user perspective on assurance.Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal,27(5), pp.863-887.