Gender Differences in Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Shahid Beheshti University

2 Khatam University

Abstract

This paper explores male and female students' and teachers' perceptions of the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. A questionnaire, administered to 60 male and female intermediate EFL students (30 males and 30 females) and 40 teachers (20 males and 20 females), elicited student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of explicit grammar instruction and corrective feedback in learning English as a foreign language. Data comparisons revealed high agreement between students as a group and teachers as a group across genders on the majority of questions. A number of discrepancies were evident between students and teachers’ beliefs within each gender. There were also some comparisons of sample groups based on gender differences which examined the effect of formal grammar instruction in foreign language teaching. Although the differences between students' and teachers’ belief system can be a threat to learning, it is essential to mention that teachers’ consideration of students’ perceptions of those factors will improve the process of new language learning, and an effort to consider the potential mismatch between students’ beliefs and teachers’ instructions will enhance learning.
 
 

Keywords

References

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, C. A. (1993). Communicative competence and beliefs about language among graduate teaching assistants in French. Modern Language Journal, 77, 313–324.
Green, J. M. (1993). Student attitudes toward communicative and non-communicative activities: Do enjoyment and effectiveness go together? Modern Language Journal, 77, 1–10.
Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2003). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In S. Foster- Cohen & A. Nizegorodzew (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook, Volume 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988).The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.
Kern, R. G. (1995).Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 71–92.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1999).Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 245–257.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). From grammar to grammaring.Boston, MA: Newbury House.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). A  response to Truscott’s “What’s wrong with oral grammar correction?” Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 457–467.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 70, 372–386.
Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking tradition: An exploration of the historical relationship between theory and practice in second language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235–247.
Pienemann, M. (1999). Language, processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1988). Grammar and language teaching: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Salomone, A. M. (1998). Communicative grammar teaching: A problem for and a message from international teaching assistants. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 552–566.
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89–102.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions Concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85, 244-258.
Semke, H.D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals,17, 195-202.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. Modern Language Journal, 61, 325–336.
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction? Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437–456.
Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice
Volume 2, Issue 4
Winter and Spring 2009
Pages 28-56

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics