You are here

Home » Content

English Language Teachers’ Preferences in Presenting Target Language Grammar

Journal Name:

  • Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
This article reports the findings of a quantitative study conducted among English language teachers at secondary schools. In an attempt to explore the preferences of grammar presentations of the teachers, a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was administered to 63 participants who actively involved in the observation. The research instrument included the statements that aimed at identifying the perceptions of teachers in presenting target language grammar. The participants (n=63) were comprised of prospective English language teachers who were supposed to make an observation at secondary schools for four hours a week throughout the 2012-2013 academic year. The data collected from the research was analyzed using SPSS16 programme. Results showed that English teachers at secondary schools in Turkey most frequently preferred to use the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and Total Physical Response (TPR) techniques while presenting target language grammar.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-english-language-teachers-preferences-presenting-target-language-grammar.pdf
  • 8
39
51
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Barnard, R. & Scampton, D. (2008). Teaching grammar: A survey of EAP teachers in New Zealand. New Zealand studies in Applied linguistics, 14(2), 59-82.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,1, 1-47.
Chang, S. C. (2011). A contrastive study of grammar translation method and communicative approach in teaching English grammar. ELT, 4(2), 13-24.
Cullen, R. (2008).Teaching grammar as a liberating force. ELT Journal, 62(3), 221-230.doi: 10.1093/elt/ccm042
Çakır, İ. (2005). Climbing the Mountain of Language: Grammar. Journal of Faculty of Education. Sakarya (10).
Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective. TESOL Quarterly. 40(1), 83-107.
Gollin, J. (1998). Key concepts in ELT: Deductive vs. inductive language learning. ELT Journal 52(1), 88-89. doi: 10.1093/elt/52.1.88
Gomes, C. (2011). Creative grammar teaching: reviewing some established English language teaching (ELT) methods (Bachelor thesis). Retrieved from http://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/handle/10361/1671
Haigh, E. C., Herron, C., Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 288-310. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2007.tb03202.x Harmer, J. (2003). Popular culture, methods, and context. ELT Journal, 57(3), 288-294.
2013, Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 8, 39-51.
2013, Journal of Language and Literature Education, 8, 39-51.
51
Henry, W.C.H., Evelyn, W.M.C. & Terence, T.S.L. (2011). Examining the effectiveness of adopting an inductive approach to the teaching of English grammar. Retrieved from http://www.edb.org.hk/HKTC/download/eras/1011/ERAS1011_R09.pdf
Kırkgöz, Y. (2008). A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2008), 1859-1875. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.007
Krashen, S.D.(1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Anderson M. (2011). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (3rd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Teaching Language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage
Ma, T. (2009). On communicative language teaching - Theoretical foundations and principles. Asian Social Science, 5(4), 40-45. Mohamad, F. (1997). An inductive approach vs. A deductive approach in teaching grammar. Faizah Mohamad. Masters Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Mara.
Özsevik, Z. (2010). The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, IL
Paradowski, M. B. (2009). Deductive vs. inductive teaching. Sciencebin 1,110-114. Retrieved from
http://sciencebin.wordpress.com/article/deductive-vs-inductive-teaching-...
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, M. W. (1991). Reflections on Language Learning and Teaching. Forum, vol.29.
Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Essex: Pearson Education.
Spada, N. (2007). Communicative Language Teaching. In Cummins, J. & Davison, C. (2007). International Handbook of English Language Teaching. (pp. 271-288). NewYork, USA: Springer Sciences-Business Media,LLC. Swan, M. (2010). michaelswan. Retrieved May 15, 2013 from http://www.mikeswan.co.uk/elt-appliedlinguistics/what-is-grammar.htm
Thanasoulas, D. (2002). englishclub. Retrieved May 20, 2013 from http://www.englishclub.com/tefarticles/history-english-language-teaching...

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com