Teaching Grammar and Providing Feedback; Differences and Similarities in Attitudes of Teachers and Persian Students from South Korea, Russia and Iraq

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD. in Linguistics and member of the Applied research group for Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran. shskp.linguistic @gmail.com

2 Corresponding Author .Ph.D. candidate in Teaching Persian Language to Non-Persian Speakers, AllamehTabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Master's Degree in Teaching Persian to Non-Persian Speakers, AllamehTabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Teaching grammar has long been an integral part of second language instruction. There are different approaches to teaching this language component. Direct instruction, instruction meaning without emphasis on grammar, and combination instruction are the three basic approaches. On the other hand, providing corrective feedback on learners' mistakes is another critical issue in language teaching in which learners' beliefs and attitudes are influential. This study investigated the impact of nationality and point of views of learners and their teachers on their attitudes toward teaching grammar and providing feedback. For this purpose, a questionnaire was distributed among students from Russia, South Korean and Iraq and teachers who teach for each of these three nationalities, and their results were analyzed. According to the results, both teachers and language learners believe that learning grammar helps to learn Persian. However, only language learners believe that learning grammar also helps with communication skills. Also, in general, language learners have a more positive approach to direct instruction than instructors. On the other hand, not all language learners like to correct their errors directly, but tend to have their teachers point out their errors with indirect feedbacks. The study also provided details on differences between learners of different nationalities in their teaching grammar and receiving feedback.
Extended Abstract:
     In language teaching, there are three different perspectives on grammar teaching. Extreme focus on grammar, which equates to language teaching; Emphasis on the meaning that we removed the grammar from the language; And a logical focus on the grammar, at which point grammar returned to language teaching and became important alongside meaning. Learners also have different perspectives on grammar and feedback training, some of which are rooted in their culture. Language learners of some nationalities still equate grammar with language teaching and prefer feedback to their mistakes to be direct. Language learners of some other nationalities prefer the grammar to be removed from language teaching or to pay less attention to it.

Materials and Methods

Participants in the study were 22 teachers and 44 Russian, Iraqi and Korean teachers. The data collection tool in this study was a questionnaire extracted from Schultz (2001). The study consisted of two separate questionnaires corresponding to the Likert scale distributed among Persian students and teachers with 13 statements about "respondent's view on grammar teaching and error correction".

Results and Discussion

Reliability was 0.71 for teachers 'answers and 0.66 for Persian students' answers. The modified Lilforce Kolmogorov-Smirnov test examined the normal distribution, and the data distribution of teachers and Persian students was not normal. We used the non-parametric Wilcoxon test for instructors and the parametric t-test for the Persian students' data according to the central limit theorem.
According to table1, The following can be extracted:

All language learners believe that communication skills improve with learning grammar, but no group of educators believes so. Also, all language learners believe that grammar is reminded by writing or reading.
Both teachers and language learners believe that learning grammar helps to learn Persian.
Iraqi and Russian language learners have a more positive approach to direct instruction, but this approach is less common in Korean language learners.
The approach of Russian language teachers to direct instruction in grammar is more favorable than the other two groups of teachers.
In general, language learners 'approach to grammar teaching is more favorable than teachers' approach.



According to table, The following can be extracted:

• All groups of language learners generally have a negative attitude towards correction by the teacher. However, they have a positive attitude towards correcting writing and speaking mistakes.

Russian language teachers have the most positive approach to feedback. In contrast, Iraqi language teachers have a more negative approach.
Except for two groups (Russian language learners and Korean language teachers), the rest of the groups believe that Persian students are not interested in correcting their mistakes in the classroom.


Conclusion

Contrary to the first hypothesis, teachers generally do not have a very positive approach to direct instruction.
The difference in the attitude of language learners towards direct instruction of grammar is correct, but contrary to the hypothesis, Iraqi language learners prefer direct instruction of instruction more than other language learners. Instructors' approach to feedback cannot be summarized in general.
 Russian language learners have a more positive approach to corrective feedback than other language learners, but we cannot talk about Russian language teachers.
It is not possible to talk about the approach of Korean language learners and their instructors to corrective feedback.

The approach of Iraqi language learners to feedback cannot be summarize

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References:
Allen, J. P. B. (1974). Pedagogical grammar. In. J. P. B. Allen & S. P. Corder (Eds.), The Edinburg Cours   in Applide Linguistics (Vol. 3. pp. 59-92).
Bailey, Richard, & Garner, Mark (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paperit is written on Teacher´s reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187-198.
Burgess, J. and Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit System, 30: 433-458. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. 1991. Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 459–480.
Choi, J. (2013) ‘Does Peer Feedback Affect L2 Writers’ L2 Learning, Composition Skills, Metacognitive Knowledge, and L2 Writing Anxiety?’ English Teaching, 68(3), pp.187-213.
Chand Sherma, T. (2002). Modern Methods of Lannguage Teaching ) New Delhi.
Ciftci, Hatime. and Kocoglu, Zenep. (2012) ‘Effects of peer E-feedback on Turkish EFL students' writing performance’  J. Educational Computing Research, 46 (1), pp. 61-84.
Chun-Yi L. and Eric Zhi-F. (2013) ‘Using peer feedback to improve learning via online peer assessment’, TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), pp.187-199.
Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: Staff an student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25-36.‏
Dirven, R. (1990). Pedagogical Grammar. Language Teaching, 235 1-18.       
Dörnyei, Z., & Clément, R. (2001). Motivational characteristics of learning different target languages. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 399-432). Honolulu: University of Hawai‟i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Eatemad Al Eslami, M. S., & Sahraee, R. M. (2017). Corrective Feedback; Why and How to Provide It in Teaching Persian to Non-Persian Speakers Classrooms. Journal of Research in Educational Science, In Persian, 11(37).
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Pres
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly,40, 83–107.
Elyıldırım, S., & Ashton, S. (2006). Creating positive attitudes towards English as a foreign language. English Teaching Forum, 4.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student‟s contribution to second language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1.
Gardner, R. C., & Tremblay, P. F. (1998) Specificity of affective variables and the Trait/State conceptualisation of motivation in second language acquisition. In R. Agnihotri, A. L. Khanna and I. Sachdev (eds.), Social Psychological Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp. 187-203). New Delhi: Sage.
Hajiseyedrezaee, A., & sahraee, R. (2015). The assessment of grammatical content of some Persian language sources in pedagogical grammar perspective. Journal of Researches in Linguistics, 7(2), 57-84.
Hadizadeh, M. J., Mahdavi, M. J., Sahraei, R. M., & Alizadeh, A. (2018). Evaluating the grammar content of TPSOL materials based on pedagogical grammar approach. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 7(TOME 16), 45-68. In Persian
Keck, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Pedagogical grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students' and teachers' beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 71-92.
Kia Shamshki, L. (2015). An analysis of grammar teaching approaches and techniques and their representation in Persian language teaching books for non-Persian speakers, Master's thesis, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran.
Klapper, J., & Rees, J. (2003). Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language learning context. Language
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar. A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32(2), 245-254.
Kulhavy, R. W. (1977) ‘Feedback in written instruction’, Review of Educational Research, 47(1), pp.211-232.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Teaching and Testing Grammar. In Long, M. H., & C. J. Doughty (eds.), the handbook of language teaching (pp. 518-542). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Lee, J. F., & Valdman, A. (1999). Form and Meaning: Multiple Perspectives. Issues in Language Program Direction: A Series of Annual Volumes. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 20 Park Plaza, Boston, MA Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1-9.‏
Lyster, Roy, Patsy Lightbown, and Nina Spada. "A response to Truscott's ‘What's wrong with oral grammar correction’." Canadian Modern Language Review 55, no. 4 (1999): 457-467.
MacIntyre, P.D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283-305.
Mantle‐Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 372-386.
McGrath, April L.; Taylor, Alyssa; Pychyl, Timothy A. (2011). "Writing Helpful Feedback: The Influence of Feedback Type on Students’ Perceptions and Writing Performance". The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2).
Miller, T. (2009) ‘Formative computer-based assessment in higher education: the effectiveness of feedback in supporting student learning’,  Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), pp.181-192
Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking Tradition: An Exploration of the Historical Relationship Between Theory and Practice in Second Language Teaching. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 860 Taylor Station Rd., Blacklick, OH 43004-0545; toll-free.
Newby, D. (2000). Pedagogical grammar. Extract from Byram, M. (Ed). Encyclopedia of language teaching and learning . New York: Routledge.
Nicol, J.& Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in higher education, 31(2), pp.199-218.
Nunan D. (2000). Language teaching methodology (2nd Impression). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Odlin, T. (1994). Perspectives On Pedagogical Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Olgas V. and Maria C. (1998) ‘Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing’, Applied linguistics,19 (4), pp.491-514.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers
Pavlenko, A. (2003). Language of the enemy: Foreign language education and national identity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(5), 313_331.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Pearson Education.
Richards, J. C., & Reppen, R. (2014). Towards a pedagogy of grammar instruction. RELC Journal, 45(1), 5-25
Reina, Wakabayashi (2013). "The Effects of the Peer Feedback Process on Reviewers Own Writing," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(9), pages 177-177.
Rezei, V., & Kuravand, A. (2014). Evaluating the Pedagogical Grammar in Teaching Persian Language Coursebooks. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 3(VOL.3,NO.3,(TOME 8)), 117-141.
Salomone, A. M. (1998). Communicative grammar teaching: A problem for and a message from international teaching assistants. Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 552-568.
Sahrai, Rezamarad. (2014) "The position of order in second language learning theories and programs; In search of a plan for teaching Persian grammar". Educational Psychology Quarterly. .23-1:11/35
Sauro, S. (2021). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. UMBC Education Department Collection.‏
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht), 7(2), 89-102.
Schultz, J. M. (2001). Toward a pedagogy of creative writing in a foreign language. In G. Bräuer (Ed.), Pedagogy of language learning (pp. 93–104). ABLEX Series in Advances in Foreign and Second Language Pedagogy: 2. Fields of Alternative Pedagogy. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Shute, V. J. (2007) ‘Focus on Formative Feedback’ Educational Testing Service (ETS).
Sippel, L. (2019). The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 52(3), 595-611.‏
Sutton, P. (2009) ‘Towards dialogic feedback’, Critical and Reflective Practice in Education, 1(1), pp.1-10.
Teresa et al., (2013) ‘Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in an online learning environment’, Distance Education, 34(3), pp. 324-338.
Timperely, H. and Hattie, J. (2007) ‘The power of feedback’, Review of Educational Research. 77(1), pp. 81-112.
Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437-456
Valette, R. M. (1991). Proficiency and the prevention of fossilization-An editorial. Modern Language Journal, 325-328.
Voelkel, Susanne. (2013) ‘Combining the formative with the summative: the development of a two stage online test to encourage engagement .

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 January 2023
  • Revise Date: 25 February 2023
  • Accept Date: 04 March 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics