FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO.

3 467

Grammar Teaching and Learning

in L2: Necessary, but Boring?
Gladys Jean
Université du Québec à Montréal

Daphnée Simard
Université du Québec à Montréal

Abstract: This descriptive inquiry-based study targeted second language (L2) high
school students’ (n 5 2321) and teachers’ (n 5 45) beliefs and perceptions about gram-
mar instruction, specifically about grammatical accuracy, corrective feedback, and
diverse forms of grammar teaching and learning. Results showed only slight discrepan-
cies between students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions, and very few differences
according to the target language and students’ gender or age. The main findings suggest
that grammar instruction is perceived by both students and teachers as necessary and
effective, but not as something they enjoy doing. Implications are discussed in view of the
necessity to improve the teaching of L2 grammar, as students’ retention rate and motiva-
tion in L2 programs may be affected by the perceived as necessary but “oh so boring”
learning of grammar!

Key words: beliefs and perceptions, grammar instruction, English as a second lan-
guage teaching, French as a second language teaching, inquiry-based study

The teaching-learning process is often illustrated with the help of the didactic triangle,1
which shows that learning is the result of the interaction or reciprocal influence of the
three poles that constitute it: the student, the teacher, and the subject matter. In this
respect, when considering how one best learns or how one can best structure teaching
so that it leads, in this case, to the learning or acquisition of a second language (L2), it
is important to look not only into what the teacher or the learner does in a teaching-
learning situation, but also into what one expects from the other—that is, to verify if
the tacit terms of the didactic contract are respected. Knowing how both parties per-
ceive the efficacy of the ways in which teaching and learning are taking place is con-
sequently of prime importance. Schulz (2001) outlined how important student beliefs
are in terms of accepting the teaching they receive: “FL [foreign language] educators
need to keep these beliefs or perceptions in mind when planning classroom activities,
given that teaching activities need to be perceived in the learners’ minds as conducive
to learning” (p. 245). Indeed, not only do teaching practices need to be pedagogically
sound, but they also need to be perceived as being so. Consequently, misunderstandings

Gladys Jean (PhD, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto) is
Associate Professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Daphnée Simard (PhD, Université Laval, Quebec) is Professor at the Université du
Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
468 FALL 2011

between students and teachers may arise more specifically, to particular types of
about the true value of certain teaching prac- grammar instruction (i.e., the effectiveness,
tices if the two parties hold divergent views level of difficulty, degree of interest, and
about the specific goals of the language class, degree of familiarity of different grammar
such as the need for accuracy. Mismatched teaching practices, including exercises, rule
objectives may lead students to perceive the presentation, and corrective feedback). We
teaching as deficient, and teachers to perceive gathered their teachers’ beliefs and percep-
their students as unmotivated or uninterested. tions about the same issues at the same time
Following this reasoning, one may expect that for comparison purposes. We also took the
difficulties will arise in the teaching-learning age of the students (initial as compared to
process if there is a clash between the teach- later years of high school) and learners’
ers’ and the students’ beliefs and perceptions. gender into consideration in the analysis of
Often, for example, teachers may be inclined the data.
to let errors pass by uncorrected, thinking that
students may not welcome corrections. How-
ever, the opposite may in fact be true. Schulz Beliefs and Perceptions
(1996), for example, reported from one of Basturkmen, Loewen, and Ellis (2004)
her inquiry-based studies that students were defined beliefs as “statements teachers made
“surprisingly positive toward negative feed- about their ideas, thoughts, and knowledge
back” (p. 346). In other respects, Kalaja and that are expressed as evaluations of what
Ferreira Barcelos (2003) argued that “beliefs ‘should be done,’ ‘should be the case,’ and ‘is
are considered one area of individual learner preferable’” (p. 244). They continued by cit-
differences that may influence the processes ing Pajares (1992), who argued that beliefs
and outcomes of second/foreign language influence one’s perceptions or judgments. In
learning/acquisition (SLA)” (p. 1). fact, because perceptions come from one’s
Because the context or environment belief system, the two concepts are so closely
plays a crucial role in influencing how all related that it is difficult to consider percep-
the poles of the triangle interact with each tions and beliefs separately.
other, it is important to study these inter- Horwitz (1985, 1988) was one of the
actions in different contexts. So far, stud- first researchers to investigate students’ beliefs
ies investigating beliefs and perceptions about language learning and teaching using
have mainly targeted the adult population the now widely known Beliefs about Lan-
(Burgess & Etherington, 2002; Ethering- guage Learning Inventory (BALLI). Horwitz’s
ton, 2006; Peacock, 1998; Schulz, 1996, studies, along with some others done in the
2001); to the researchers’ knowledge, very wake of the BALLI (e.g., Kern, 1995; Siebert,
few published studies, if any, have inves- 2003), investigated more generally aspects
tigated teachers’ and students’ beliefs and such as aptitude, difficulty of language learn-
perceptions concerning specific issues ing, nature of language learning, strategies,
related to L2 grammar instruction in high motivation, and expectations. They focused
school contexts. Moreover, very few stud- very minimally on beliefs and perceptions
ies (with the exception of Schulz, 2001, and about the teaching and learning of grammar
Loewen et al., 2009) have investigated L2 per se. Nevertheless they generally concluded
grammar instruction in relation to different that students’ and teachers’ beliefs about lan-
languages. The present study attempted to guage learning differed in several aspects and
fill gaps in research by investigating high that students seemed to be very concerned
school learners’ perceptions of their own with corrective feedback and grammatical
grammatical competence, and the impor- accuracy (Chavez, 2007).
tance for them of grammatical accuracy. It Other relevant studies include Schulz
also collected information about students’ (1996), who reported on data collected
receptivity to grammar instruction and, through multiple-choice questionnaires
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 469

inquiring about students’ and teachers’ views and in the positive role of grammar in FL
on error correction and the role of grammar. learning than U.S. students.
The answers from the 824 students and 92 Discrepancies between teachers’ and
U.S. university FL teachers (about 12 differ- students’ beliefs and perceptions about
ent languages were represented) indicated grammar instruction were again evident in
that the student participants were “rela- Hawkey (2006). One of the very few con-
tively favorably disposed toward a focus on ducted with elementary, middle, and high
form, regardless of language” (p. 343). In school students, this study reported that
general, however, teachers were somewhat students perceived a greater emphasis on
less favorable toward focusing on form and grammar than what their teachers seemed
error correction than their students. In addi- to acknowledge: students rated the promi-
tion, almost half the students claimed to like nence of grammar exercises 5th in a series
the study of grammar, while only 18% of the of 13 types of classroom activities, while
teachers actually thought this was the case. teachers rated them 11th.
Schulz reported that there was a strong con- Another study focusing on language activi-
viction among the students that grammar ties was Spratt (1999), which investigated,
instruction is helpful in FL learning. Dis- through a questionnaire, learners’ preferences
crepancies in beliefs were found, however, regarding 48 L2 classroom activities, including
among different groups of teachers. Of par- some grammatical ones, and teachers’ percep-
ticular interest for later comparison with the tions of learners’ preferences. The study sur-
results of our own study, English as a second veyed 997 tertiary-level learners and their 50
language (ESL) teachers were less inclined teachers on service English programs at a uni-
than teachers of other languages to believe versity in Hong Kong. To summarize, Spratt
that the study of grammar helps in learning reported that in most studies she surveyed,
an FL or L2 and were less inclined toward students expressed their preference for more
error correction. French L2 students’ and traditional types of activities (e.g., Alcorso &
teachers’ views were comparable to those of Kalantzis, 1985; Barkhuisen, 1998; Yorio, 1986).
students and teachers of other FLs (with the In addition, a mismatch between students’ and
exception of Latin, which always scored the teachers’ preferences was evident in some stud-
highest on the grammar desirability scale). ies reviewed, including Brindley (1984), Nunan
Schulz’s replication of her 1996 study, (1988), and Peacock (1998). In Spratt’s study,
conducted the following time with Colom- although the main objective was not to com-
bian FL students and teachers and pub- pare grammar exercises and more communica-
lished in 2001, compared the answers of tive activities, raw scores reported on the items
these two groups of participants with the inquiring about preferences regarding these
U.S. groups of the 1996 study. The results two types did not show a marked difference.
showed that the context had little impact Because the objective of the study was, as the
on the students’ and teachers’ perceptions title suggests, to determine “How good are we at
concerning the role of grammar instruc- knowing what learners like?” the study reported
tion and corrective feedback. Most of the that “teachers were able to gauge their learners’
answers to the questionnaire failed to show preferences with accuracy for 54% of activities”
significant discrepancies: “Data compari- (Spratt, 1999, p. 142).
sons indicated relatively high agreement Another study worth looking at in terms
between students as a group and teachers as of beliefs and perceptions about grammar
a group across cultures on the majority of instruction is Etherington (2006). In her
the questions” (Schulz, 2001, p. 244). How- study, conducted with adult Chinese learners
ever, meaningful differences between the in a U.K. Higher Education English for Aca-
two cultures were observed on some items; demic Purposes (EAP) context and using a
for example, Colombian students demon- 28-item Likert-scale questionnaire on beliefs
strated a stronger belief in error correction and perceptions about grammar and grammar
470 FALL 2011

learning, she concluded that beginner learn- response to this question, the resound-
ers viewed grammar learning less positively ing response was “It’s boring” with
than more advanced learners. However, the a full 25% of the learners using that
type of grammar that the learners wanted was word or a synonym, such as “tedious,”
one that was more in tune with their immedi- “monotonous,” or “dry,” for exam-
ate needs. ple. Other negative descriptors used
Loewen et al. (2009) recently attempted included “difficult,” “confusing,” and
with adult learners, as did we with high school “complicated.” Over half of all learn-
students, to gather data on students’ beliefs ers responded with such negative com-
specifically related to grammar instruction ments. (pp. 99–100)
and error correction, whereas most other stud-
On the issue of error correction, Loewen
ies reviewed so far only included these topics
et al.’s study brings results that contradict
among many others related to language learn-
many others: “error correction was viewed
ing. Their study involved 754 U.S. university
separately [from grammar instruction], and
L2 students who were learning 13 different
somewhat negatively by the participants”
languages (including English, German, Ara-
(2009, p. 101).
bic, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, and Persian,
Finally, a few studies related to beliefs
but not French). The authors compared stu-
and perceptions about language learning
dents’ beliefs about grammar instruction and
have investigated the possible relationship
error correction using 37 Likert-scale items
between these and individual differences
and four open-ended prompts. A factor anal-
such as gender. Siebert (2003), using the
ysis was performed on the quantitative data,
BALLI, as reported in Bernat and Lloyd
and a content analysis on the qualitative data.
(2007), investigated university ESL learners
Relevant results from the quantitative analyses
of diverse nationalities and found:
included the following: grammar instruction
was valued by most learners; learners of Eng- a number of significant differences in
lish were the least positive about the role or beliefs among males and females in
efficacy of grammar instruction in L2 learning; relation to language learning and strat-
ESL learners also had “the strongest dislike egy use, using descriptive statistics
of error correction and the least concern for in the form of percentages. Findings
grammatical accuracy” (Loewen et al., 2009, revealed that male students were more
p. 97). It is worth noting that ESL learners likely than female students to rate their
were the group who reported having received abilities high. […] Siebert also reported
the most grammar instruction, not in their that 23% of females, as opposed to 47%
current classes but in their first language (L1) of males, either strongly agreed or
learning in general. FL learners, who were agreed that the most important part of
more convinced about the need for grammar learning a language is learning gram-
instruction and error correction than ESL mar. (Bernat & Lloyd, 2007, p. 80)
learners, were native English speakers. The
Bacon and Finneman (1992), using a
results of the qualitative analysis led Loewen
5-point Likert-scale questionnaire of their
et al. to offer the following conclusions:
own, found some differences between male
Although some learners obviously and female learners in some aspects of lan-
enjoyed grammar for its own sake, guage learning, but none dealing specifically
others were less positive, expressing with grammar learning. Studies comparing
an attitude of having to put up with it male and female students’ beliefs about lan-
because it was beneficial (p. 99). […] guage learning are sparse, and their results
the second prompt, I don’t like study- are often contradictory. This may be due in
ing grammar because…, probed the part to other variables related to individ-
negative aspects of grammar study. In ual differences like age, stages of learning,
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 471

language learned, context, and so on. ers’ and students’ beliefs and perceptions of
Because individual factors are being consid- grammar instruction in the two official lan-
ered more and more in different studies, we guages of Canada: French and English. The
decided, in order to address possible que- research questions that we report on in this
ries, to include gender and age as part of our article are the following:
analyses of the answers given to the ques-
1. What are FSL and ESL teachers’ and
tionnaire used in the present study.
students’ beliefs and perceptions about
The review of the above-mentioned stud-
grammar instruction and, more specifi-
ies brought only some indirect and fragmented
cally, about grammatical accuracy, cor-
data about teachers’ and students’ beliefs and
rective feedback, and grammar teaching
perceptions about specific practices related
and learning practices?
to grammar instruction, as most of the stud-
2. Do teachers’ and students’ beliefs and
ies targeted larger topics related to language
perceptions about grammar instruction
learning. The present research aimed at col-
match?
lecting much-needed information about spe-
3. Do gender and age have an impact on
cific grammar learning and teaching practices
students’ beliefs and perceptions about
and used the bilingual Montreal context to
grammar?
investigate these issues in relation to two dif-
ferent languages. The study was conducted in We sought quantitative and qualitative
the greater Montreal area (Quebec, Canada) answers to these three research questions
with high school ESL and French as a second in the present descriptive inquiry-based
language (FSL) learners and teachers. research through the use of a questionnaire
administered to both the participating stu-
dents and their teachers.2
Research Design
In light of what has been mentioned so far
concerning beliefs and perceptions about if Participants
and how grammar should be learned in an Two thousand three hundred and twenty-
L2 class, and concerning the possible nega- one (2,321) students took part in the sur-
tive effects on the teaching-learning rela- vey. Table 1 gives some relevant information
tionships of a mismatch between teachers about them. The questionnaire was admin-
and learners’ beliefs and perceptions, the istered to regular (core) L2 classes.3 The
present study set out to investigate teach- breakdown of students in Table 1 takes into

TABLE 1

Information About Student Participants

2321 high school students

ESL FSL
1328 students 993 students
(average age: 14) (average age: 15)
2nd cycle

2nd cycle
1st cycle

1st cycle
Female

Female
Male

Male

1120 208 446* 872 464 529 436 552

*Information regarding sex was not provided by all participants.
472 FALL 2011

consideration that the 5-year high school in nature. We observed as well that gram-
program is divided into two cycles: cycle mar was taught quite explicitly in the L2
one includes the first 2 years of high school, classes targeted. An analysis of the kinds
and cycle two the next 3 years. Female stu- of form-focused instruction observed
dents outnumbered male students in ESL showed that the interventions were more
classes due to the inclusion of participants of the focus-on-forms types than focus-
from a girls-only school. Popularity of the on-form. Vocabulary, syntactic structures,
programs with one gender or the other was and inflectional morphology accounted
not a factor in this instance because both for 84% of all grammar-related interven-
ESL and FSL are compulsory at all levels of tions (n.p.).
high school in Quebec.
In addition to the students, 45 teach-
ers took part in the present study. Infor- Instruments
mation about them is found in Table 2. The questionnaire for the present study was
Female teachers outnumbered male teach- created from questions used in a previous
ers. Most teachers had several years of study by one of the authors ( Jean, 2005).
experience teaching an L2 (9.8 years on These questions were derived from a dis-
average). Native speakers teaching FSL cussion in focus groups about grammar
were more common than native speakers instruction, during which specific themes
teaching ESL, due to the French-speaking about grammar instruction emerged. We
context in which this study took place consequently targeted five main areas of
(Montreal area). interest related to grammar instruction: per-
In order to help describe the context, ceived language competence, importance of
we can report that about 200 of the sur- grammatical accuracy in oral and written
veyed students were part of the 8 classes production, general receptivity to grammar
that took part in a related study (Simard & instruction, receptivity to specific types of
Jean, in press, n.p.) where we made class- grammar instruction, and, finally, receptiv-
room observations (60 hours of recorded ity to corrective feedback.4
class time over a period of 2 months) that The questionnaire was made up of
revealed that the classes investigated were four parts. The first part, titled “Informa-
exposed to grammar instruction 34% of tion,” allowed us to gather general infor-
the total class time (one grammar-related mation about our participants. The second
intervention every 4 minutes and 45 sec- part, Part A, contained 14 Likert-scale type
onds) even though the competency-based questions about grammatical accuracy,
provincial curriculum is communicative corrective feedback, and diverse grammar

v TABLE 2

Information About Teacher Participants

45 teachers
Nonnative
speakers

speakers
teaching

teaching
Years of

Years of
Female

Native
an L2
Male
FSL
ESL

19 26 11 34 11.7 9.8 ESL: 6* ESL: 12

FSL: 23 FSL: 2
* Two participants did not answer this question.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 473

teaching practices. We present these ques- Results and Interpretation

tions later, along with the results. Teachers’ and students’ responses to the
Part B of the questionnaire inquired fur- 5-level Likert-type questions appear here in
ther about receptivity to different types of terms of percentages of students or teach-
grammar instruction, specifically exercises. ers having chosen each of the five sug-
It sought opinions on two distinctive types gested answers.5 Choices of answers varied
of exercises: those that involve attending according to the question: excellent to poor,
to meaning at the same time as attending very important to not important, useful
to form (meaningful and communicative to not useful, interesting to not interest-
drills as labeled by Bratt Paulston, 1972), ing, etc. Appendixes A and B give details
and those that focus exclusively on form about the questions, the answer choices,
(mechanical drills). The questions aimed and the results. We grouped the answers to
at getting students’ and teachers’ opinions the open-ended question of Part C of the
regarding the perceived usefulness, interest, questionnaire into three categories (neutral,
and level of difficulty of these exercises as positive, and negative) in order to facilitate
well as to inquire about how familiar stu- their interpretation (see Appendix C for the
dents were with them. detailed results).
Finally, Part C sought additional (and We discuss results first according to
cross-referential) information about recep- the following themes presented in our first
tivity to grammar instruction. It consisted research question: importance of grammati-
of three open-ended questions from which cal accuracy, receptivity to corrective feed-
only the following one provided usable data: back on grammatical errors, and disposition
“Which word comes immediately to your toward grammar instruction in general and
mind when you hear the word grammar”? towards specific teaching practices. We also
Teachers’ and students’ questions dif- present them for both FSL and ESL students
fered only in respect to the point of view and teachers, and we highlight major differ-
taken for answering the questions: The ences between the two groups of students.
students answered according to their own We also highlight noteworthy observ-
perceptions as learners, and the teachers able discrepancies between students’ and
answered (with a few exceptions) according teachers’ beliefs or perceptions in order to
to what they thought their students’ percep- address research question number 2. As for
tions were. the apparent influence of gender and age on
The questionnaire was presented in the students’ beliefs and perceptions (research
first or main language of the students (Eng- question 3), we discuss this briefly at the
lish for the FSL learners, and French for the end of this section.
ESL learners), and in French for the teach-
ers (who were all fluent in French).
Importance of Accuracy
First, we asked an introductory question
Procedure on the topic of accuracy concerning stu-
After an initial trial of the questionnaire dents’ perceived ability to speak their L2
and relevant analysis of consistency, reli- accurately (Part A, question 1). The data
ability, and feasibility, we administered the show that students rated their grammatical
final questionnaire to all the participants competence quite highly. Both FSL and ESL
inside a period of two months. Students and students rated their ability to speak the L2
their teachers filled in the questionnaire at accurately as “good” or “very good” (68%
the same time. No interaction between the of all students), and their teachers generally
students or between the students and their agreed with their self-assessment.
teachers was permitted. They had all the Next, two questions in Part A addressed
time they needed to fill it in conscientiously. the issue of the importance of accuracy:
474 FALL 2011

Question 3 inquired about how important it Receptivity to Corrective Feedback

was to be able to express oneself accurately Related to the topic of accuracy, we inves-
in an L2 (i.e., without grammatical errors), tigated the extent to which corrective feed-
and question 12 asked about how much stu- back should be used with two questions:
dents would like to express themselves like Question 13 inquired about the errors that
a native speaker in their L2. The answers to should be corrected in oral production or
question 3 reveal that students rated accu- interaction, and question 14 asked about
racy quite high in general, and that the ESL errors in written production. We asked
students assigned more importance to accu- students when they thought their teacher
racy (91% of them rated accuracy as “very should correct them, and the teachers
important” or “important”) as compared to when they thought they should correct
the FSL students (64% of them rated it as their students. It appears from the results
“very important” or “important”). The ten- that students are very receptive to error
dency was, however, reversed for the teach- correction. Indeed, 54% of ESL students
ers: FSL teachers gave more importance answered that they should get their oral
to accuracy (92% of them rated it as “very errors corrected “all the time,” and 41%
important” or “important”) as compared that they should be corrected when they
to the ESL teachers (only 63% chose these “cannot make themselves understood.”
two ratings). All in all, however, almost the FSL students were a little less demanding
entire sample of students and teachers rated on their teachers than ESL students. The
accuracy from “somewhat important” to majority (51%) estimated that oral errors
“very important.” The same pattern, espe- should be corrected only when they inter-
cially for the students, was reflected in the fere with communication. Still, 30% of FSL
answers to question 12: 76% of FSL stu- students thought that oral errors should
dents and 89% of ESL students answered be corrected “all the time.” FSL teach-
that they “would like” or “would like very ers strongly agreed with their students,
much” to be able to express themselves like while ESL teachers indicated being more
a native speaker. Teachers were partly able inclined to correct oral errors when stu-
to accurately assess their students’ feel- dents could not make themselves under-
ings: 58% of FSL teachers and 68% of ESL stood, or when the error was related to
teachers thought that their students “would knowledge students should possess or to
like” or “would like very much” to express a grammar point covered in the lesson.
themselves like a native speaker. Answers As for written errors, students expressed
to these two questions show a general a clear willingness to have all errors cor-
tendency toward a belief that accuracy is rected (66% for FSL learners and 68% for
important. They also show that accuracy ESL learners). Teachers, however, did not
tends to be slightly more important for ESL quite share students’ enthusiasm for writ-
learners than for FSL learners. It could be ten error correction. As with oral errors,
hypothesized that, because ESL learners are they mainly responded that they tended to
schooled in French, they are more used to correct errors that impede comprehension
the importance of grammatical accuracy and errors on grammar points that should
as it is very much stressed in their French be known.
classes. The fact that almost all the FSL
teachers (92%) rated accuracy as “impor-
tant” or “very important” as compared to Disposition Toward Grammar
only 63% for ESL teachers could be fur- Learning
ther evidence that the French language is One Likert-scale question in Part A of the
perceived as more rule- or norm-governed questionnaire (question 2) and one open-
than English. ended question in Part C (question 1)
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 475

addressed the issue of how receptive stu- among the L2 learners we investigated. As
dents were to grammar instruction in gen- for teachers, we asked them the very same
eral. To the question of how much students open-ended question as their students. (We
generally liked learning grammar in their did not in this instance ask them what they
L2, a little more than half the FSL students thought their students’ perceptions were,
answered that they either “did not like rather just their own perceptions.) It is
it much” (29%) or “did not like it at all” interesting to note in this respect that FSL
(23%). The ESL students were a little less teachers shared their students’ opinions
negative about it: 25% indicated “not liking about grammar instruction; their com-
it much” and 9% “not at all.” In addition, ments were neutral and negative in about
while 11% of the FSL students mentioned the same proportion. However, ESL teach-
that they liked learning grammar or liked ers expressed more positive feelings: Neu-
it a lot, 25% of the ESL students gave simi- tral, negative, and positive comments were
lar answers. In our opinion, the discrepan- almost equally distributed, with 32% falling
cies between the two groups may be due in the positive category.
to the difference in the types of grammar
instruction used in FSL as compared to ESL
classes: We reported in Simard and Jean (in Disposition Toward Specific Grammar
press) that, although the same amount of Teaching Practices
time was spent on interventions on form As was the case for our inquiry involving
in ESL and FSL classes, FSL teachers spent classroom observations (Simard & Jean, in
considerably more time on traditional-type press), we were interested in getting a view
exercises than did ESL teachers. As for the of the different types of classroom practices
teachers’ perceptions about how much their used, including exercises and grammatical
students liked learning grammar, the results explanations. Question 6 inquired about
show that they generally matched their stu- how important it was for the students to
dents’ responses. practice grammar through specific gram-
Further negative feelings about gram- mar exercises rather than simply through
mar instruction were evident in the answers speaking or writing. The majority of stu-
to the open-ended question asked in Part C dents (73% for FSL learners and 72% for
of the questionnaire: “Which word comes ESL learners) expressed the opinion that
immediately to your mind when you hear it was “somewhat important” or “impor-
the word grammar?” Appendix C includes tant.” Teachers shared their students’ opin-
the raw scores. The answers (633 for FSL ions and were even more convinced of their
learners and 895 for ESL learners) were importance, as a quite high percentage of
grouped as “neutral,” “positive,” or “nega- them (23% and 32%) rated exercises as
tive.” For example, answers that included “very important.”
such words as exercises, books, or diction- Questions 10 and 11 of Part A of the
ary were rated as neutral; negative answers questionnaire and Part B involved further
included words such as boring, difficult, probing on the issue of exercises. First,
or useless; and positive answers included question 10 inquired about the usefulness of
words such as interesting, easy, or useful. mechanical-type exercises (e.g., providing
Overall, very few of the students’ answers verbs in the indicated tenses in fill-in-the-
were positive. Neutral answers were the blank exercises, transforming affirmative
most common. However, the fact that 26% statements into negative statements, etc.).
of the comments from FSL learners and 28% Students and teachers rated these exercises
from ESL learners were negative in nature generally as “somewhat useful” to “very
brings further evidence that negative feel- useful.” Students seemed to find them even
ings toward grammar instruction do exist more useful than their teachers, as 18% of
476 FALL 2011

FSL students and 28% of ESL students rated “not interesting at all,” while 35% of them
them as “very useful,” compared to only gave the same ratings to form-and-meaning
12% for FSL teachers and 5% for ESL teach- exercises.
ers. As for the interest generated by this Although students in general did not
type of exercise (question 11), the answers find the two types of exercise all that inter-
indicated that such exercises are less inter- esting, they did find them quite useful. The
esting than they are useful. Indeed, the majority of ESL students (52%) rated both
highest percentage of answers fell under the types as “useful,” while FSL students rated
“not very interesting” choice for FSL stu- form-only exercises generally as more use-
dents (36%) and the “somewhat interest- ful than form-and-meaning exercises (63%
ing” choice for ESL students (36% as well). rated form-only exercises as “useful” or
In general, ESL students found them more “very useful,” compared to 48% who gave
interesting than FSL students. (Again, we the same two ratings for form-and-meaning
know from our observation research that exercises). Teachers generally agreed with
FSL students are doing more of these types students: they thought that their students
of exercises than ESL students.) ESL and were “familiar” or “very familiar” with both
FSL teachers found them in general “some- types of exercises, especially FSL teach-
what interesting.” ers; they perceived form-only exercises,
Part B of the questionnaire, as described however, as slightly easier than form-and-
earlier, investigated more deeply the kind meaning exercises; they believed generally
of exercises that students and teachers that the form-and-meaning exercises were
perceived as familiar, useful, interesting, “interesting” while the form-only exercises
and difficult. Detailed results for ESL and were only “somewhat interesting”; and they
FSL students are found in Appendix B. As rated both as “useful.”
expected, students indicated that they were Finally, still with regard to students’
slightly more familiar with form-only exer- and teachers’ disposition toward different
cises than with form-and-meaning exer- types of grammar instruction, we inquired
cises, even more so for FSL than for ESL about students’ and teachers’ beliefs and
students. As for the difficulty level, both perceptions about the learning of grammat-
groups did not find the form-and-meaning ical rules. Questions 7, 8, and 9 of Part A
exercises more difficult than the form-only addressed this issue. Both the teachers and
exercises, which came as somewhat of a students generally agreed with the fact that
surprise. Because VanPatten (1996) argued learning grammar rules is “important” or
that attending to form and meaning at the “very important.” Surprisingly, students
same time is cognitively more demanding, did not generally find learning the rules
we would have thought that our partici- that difficult: The majority of ESL students
pants would have perceived it to be so. Con- (55%) were positioned around the “not very
cerning the interest generated by both types difficult” and “not difficult at all” choices,
of exercises, it seems that communicating while the majority of FSL students (60%)
meaningful information as one is practicing opted for the “not very difficult” or “some-
a targeted form does not make the exercise what difficult” choices. Teachers perceived
more interesting from the students’ perspec- the level of difficulty of learning rules as
tive than if the form is practiced mechani- slightly higher than did their students: ESL
cally. Indeed, most ESL students rated both teachers (73%) rated understanding rules as
types of exercises equally as “somewhat “not very difficult” to “somewhat difficult”
interesting.” FSL students, however, rated for their students, while FSL teachers (also
the form-only exercises as slightly less 73%) rated this as “somewhat difficult”’ to
interesting than form-and-meaning exer- “difficult.”
cises: 48% of FSL students rated the form- One final aspect about the learning of
only exercises as “not very interesting” or rules that was of interest to us was to find
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 477

out if the inductive (discovery) approach Conclusion

was used in these particular L2 teaching The aim of this descriptive, inquiry-based
contexts and, if so, if it was perceived as use- study was to investigate the beliefs and
ful and difficult (questions 9a, 9b, and 9c). perceptions of high school L2 learners
A majority of FSL students (61%) reported of French and English and their teach-
that the discovery approach had been used ers regarding different aspects related to
at some point in their class as opposed to grammar learning. As we proposed at the
only 29% of ESL students. FSL teachers beginning of the article, knowing how each
mainly agreed with their students, but ESL party in a teaching-learning relationship
teachers did not: A much higher percent- perceives teaching and learning practices
age of ESL teachers (74%), as compared to could help maximize the language learn-
ESL students (29%), reported having used ing experience. If we hold this as true for
the discovery approach. As for how difficult all aspects of language learning, it is even
this approach was judged, the majority of more so for grammar instruction, because it
students agreed that it was in the range of has been pointed out as a possible impedi-
“not very difficult” to “somewhat difficult,” ment to motivation and retention in L2
while FSL teachers rated it as “difficult” classes: For example, a report from Cana-
to “somewhat difficult,” and ESL teachers dian Parents for French (2004) indicated
as “somewhat difficult” to “not very diffi- that a large percentage of students in core
cult.” Both teachers and students reported (regular) programs were blaming the gram-
finding the approach “useful”’ to “some- mar instruction they received for their lack
what useful.” of interest or motivation to learn the lan-
guage, and for their eventual withdrawal
from their French L2 program. We are not
Role of Gender and Age proposing, however, that students’ and
We also viewed the data in respect to gender teachers’ beliefs and perceptions should
and age (research question 3) and noticed match perfectly in order to get the most out
only minor differences for both variables.6 of a teaching-learning experience, but it is
Slight differences occurred concerning the our understanding that when one under-
perceived importance of being able to express stands the intent or the needs of the other,
oneself accurately: 9% more girls than boys it is more likely that the teaching-learning
rated this as high or very high (83% as com- relationship will be rewarding. That being
pared to 74%). We observed similar differ- said, this study, conducted with more than
ences in percentages of answers in relation 2,000 L2 French and English high school
to the importance of learning grammar and learners and their teachers, revealed inter-
to the usefulness of exercises and of learn- esting results about the nature of the rela-
ing rules. Girls, in general, seem to be more tionship of both parties with one aspect of
receptive to grammar instruction. the subject matter, namely grammar, and
As for the role that age played in stu- with each other as partners in the teaching-
dents’ perceptions, we compared the results learning relationship. Even though this
of the first cycle of high school (years 1 and study includes the usual limitations related
2) with those of the second cycle (years 3, to the limited context and the possible
4, and 5). Differences in the range of 10 response bias often reported with the use
to 15% in the two highest degrees of the of quantitative self-report questionnaires,
Likert scale were noticeable only in regard and even though the findings cannot nec-
to the importance of accuracy: Older stu- essarily be generalized beyond this student
dents found it more important to express and teacher population, the results reported
themselves accurately than did younger here contribute to the rare investigations
learners. conducted specifically in regard to grammar
478 FALL 2011

instruction and practices with participants every 15 seconds, for example, as reported
of younger ages, whom we should consider by Fanselow, 1977), their beliefs could be
more often in second language acquisition different and match more closely those of
research as they constitute the pool of stu- their teachers, who are aware that correct-
dents from which many language and edu- ing every single mistake may have a detri-
cation departments or faculties receive their mental effect on learning. The same could
enrollment. be said for mechanical drills. If students
Overall, and as an answer to our first knew what research is telling us and what
research question, we discovered that these teachers know about their usefulness, they
specific learners are quite sold on the need might have less positive views about them.
for grammar instruction. They welcome it In relation to our third research ques-
because of its perceived usefulness for the tion, related to the potential impact of stu-
production of accurate speech, both writ- dents’ gender and age on their beliefs and
ten and oral. They seem to value grammati- perceptions about grammar, girls generally
cally accurate speech and overwhelmingly indicated more positive feelings about gram-
embrace error correction, for their oral mar instruction, which neither confirms
and even more so for their written produc- nor contradicts earlier studies as results in
tion. These findings are very much in line this area have been rather conflicting. As for
with several studies reported on earlier, the difference between younger and older
especially concerning the positive value of learners in high school, the only notice-
grammar instruction (Kern, 1995; Loewen able difference occurs in regard to accuracy:
et al., 2009; Schulz, 1996; Siebert, 2003). Older learners value accurate speech more
Our student participants value rule learn- than younger learners.
ing and exercises, even the most mechani- The most revealing result of the study,
cal ones, even though they do not find them however, is that these high school learn-
very interesting. Studies from Alcorso and ers did not report liking learning grammar,
Kalantzis (1985), Barkhuisen (1998), and but they reported valuing it. Indeed, a very
Yorio (1986) also showed preferences for low percentage of them reported liking it,
traditional types of activities. especially FSL learners. It appears to us that
As for the results associated with our high school learners and even their teach-
second research question, very interest- ers perceive grammar as what we would
ingly, but contrary to a number of stud- call a mal nécessaire (a necessary evil). The
ies (for example, Brindley, 1984; Nunan, results came out clearly in a Likert-scale
1988; Peacock, 1998; Spratt, 1999), stu- question and in an open-ended question:
dents and teachers generally agreed about Positive feelings about grammar instruction
the benefits of grammar instruction. Where are rather rare. Even more surprising is the
apparent mismatches between teachers’ and fact that teachers largely share their stu-
students’ beliefs and perceptions occurred, dents’ beliefs. They expressed proportion-
these pointed toward greater positive beliefs ally as many negative comments as their
about the benefits of grammar instruction students, although ESL teachers expressed
for learning a language on the part of the more positive feelings than their colleagues
students rather than the teachers. Stu- in FSL. These results are somewhat similar
dents believed even more than teachers to some reported earlier with adult learners:
in the value of error correction and in the In Schulz’s (1996) study, only half the learn-
usefulness of mechanical-type exercises. ers claimed to like the study of grammar.
Of course, it could always be argued that Our results relate quite closely as well to
experience and knowledge about language the results obtained in Loewen et al. (2009,
learning greatly influence students’ and p. 99), in which 25% of the learners found
teachers’ beliefs: If students were effectively the study of grammar “boring.” However, in
corrected for every mistake they make (one Loewen et al.’s study, it was the ESL learners
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 479

who had more negative feelings as com- Loewen, 2005; Long, 1983), it is time to
pared to FL learners because of, presuma- put our collective effort into improving our
bly, the extended exposure to grammar they methods of teaching grammar so that they
had in their L1. In our case, it seems that can be perceived at least as interesting (or
it is the present exposure to grammar in enjoyable) as they are effective.
their FSL classes that brought up the nega- It was also disappointing to us that
tive feelings, as these students were mainly mechanical drills are the most familiar types
English speakers or speakers who had of grammar exercise among high school
attended English schools since the primary students in a teaching context where gov-
grades and who had limited formal gram- ernment instructional guidelines have been
matical instruction in their L1 language arts considerably influenced by communicative,
classes (as evidenced in the provincial cur- socio-constructivist, and competency-based
riculum documents). However, ESL learners approaches. Traditional teaching still seems
value grammar instruction for its efficacy to prevail in this context (see also Simard &
more so than FSL learners, and this, as men- Jean, in press) despite efforts to move away
tioned earlier, could find its explanation from it. We do not deny that certain values
in the fact that ESL learners have received are attached to traditional teaching, but if
grammar training in their L1 French lan- it is perceived as “boring” one must ques-
guage arts classes (again as evidenced in the tion its true efficacy with learners. In this
provincial curriculum documents). case, it cannot be said that because students
Finally, we wish to point out that our and teachers share the same beliefs and per-
results confirm results presented in the ceptions about the efficacy of traditional
report by the Canadian Parents of French grammar instruction, effective learning will
(2004) mentioned earlier, which reported necessarily result from the teaching. It is
that students do not enjoy the study of surely helpful for the teaching-learning rela-
grammar. The report partially blamed gram- tionship that students and teachers agree on
mar instruction for the lack of motivation the dullness of grammar instruction, but it
among teenagers to learn an L2. Unfortu- would certainly be preferable if both groups
nately, we have no data to compare receptiv- could be brought to see grammar as less
ity to grammar instruction with receptivity tedious. Should “boring” and “effective”
to L2 learning as a whole, or even more gen- continue to be considered as an inevitable
erally to school learning. It may be that the contradictory pair of qualifiers in regard to
methods used in schools are viewed posi- grammar teaching practices? Should lan-
tively because students trust their efficacy, guage researchers continue to accept that
but that studying and learning as a whole grammar instruction is a mal nécessaire? Is
are seen negatively. In one case or the other, it unrealistic to contemplate that it could
it is rather sad that methods viewed as become a bien nécessaire (a necessary good)
effective are mostly not rated as enjoyable such that students commit to longer study
or even interesting. Maybe it is sheer uto- in L2 learning and their chances of success
pianism to believe that all aspects of learn- improve?
ing could be made enjoyable, but it is our The question is, of course, how we go
belief that work needs to be done in order about making grammar instruction less
to make grammar instruction less of a bur- tedious now that we know from diverse
den on both teachers and students. Because research, including the present, that learn-
students, teachers, and SLA researchers are ers feel that they expressly need it. Differ-
now generally convinced about the need ent approaches to teaching grammar have
for form-focused instruction, as evidenced been presented by different researchers in
in diverse recent studies (e.g., Doughty recent years. The practitioner is left with
& Williams, 1998; Ellis, Basturkmen, & the difficult decision of choosing the one
Loewen, 2002; Lightbown & Spada, 1990; that will render the interrelation that is
480 FALL 2011

happening between the three pillars of the and how teachers are going to go about
didactic triangle (the learners, the teacher, it can go a long way toward making stu-
and the content) most effective in the spe- dents interested and motivated. Keeping
cific context he or she is teaching. Should as a principle that the rationale cannot
the approach be integrated and isolated? exclusively be that studying the form is
Should it be based exclusively on focus- part of the curriculum, teachers should
on-form principles and disown focus-on- provide students with reasons why accu-
forms? Should it be implicit or explicit? rate use of the form improves communi-
Deductive or inductive? How much discov- cation. Students should first be able to
ery should be allowed and in which cases, see and hear the form in authentic dis-
and with whom? course and then receive a communica-
In the face of these hard decisions, we tive task that they will very likely better
would suggest to practitioners to keep in perform if they use the form. Teachers
mind the following recommendations (not should also inquire about what students
at all novel, but worth reiterating, perhaps) believe could help them improve their
issued from our experience as L2 teachers, comprehension and production of the
teachers’ trainers, and researchers: language, and negotiate with them the
best ways to go about it, bringing results
• Kill two birds with one stone. Choose from research to back up proposed
an approach that does more than teach types of interventions. As Schulz (1996)
grammar. Start from the principle that pointed out, students’ opinions about
grammar instruction should work as a grammar instruction may be influenced
catalyst for language acquisition, not by practices that have been “passed on
purely as a way to learn the intricacies of from generation to generation of FL/L2
the language and improve accuracy. As learners” (p. 348).
such, time spent on grammar instruction • Narrow the gap for better transfer. If exer-
should also help learners develop vocab- cises are used to practice a form, make
ulary knowledge, oral and written com- sure that they are framed in contexts that
petencies, cognitive skills, etc. A study narrowly resemble the ones in which
by Jean (2005) compared a group of stu- students are going to use it, and that they
dents exposed to communicative drills reproduce language likely to be found in
where they had to attend to both form naturally occurring discourse situations.
and meaning to a group of students who For example, teachers could use slogans
used mechanical drills where they just in grammar exercises that aim at prac-
had to attend to the forms. The results ticing the French imperative as part of
showed that the group that attended to a sequence leading to a project or final
both form and meaning did as well as the task involving some kind of advertise-
students who went through mechanical ment campaign. Beware of the numerous
drills on measurements related to the textbook exercises that betray natural
knowledge of the formal properties of discourse (Calvé, 1994) as they contrib-
the targeted grammatical forms, did not ute to building false representations in
feel overwhelmed by the added chal- the learner’s internal grammar.
lenge, and, more important, showed • One approach does not fit all. The perfect
improved vocabulary knowledge. The and unique cure for boredom when study-
lesson to be learned is maybe that we ing grammar has not yet been found,
should not undervalue students’ abilities nor will it. Each learning situation is
and cognitive skills. unique. An exclusive and permanent
• Sell grammar instruction and one’s choice between integrated or isolated,
approach to students. Giving students the or between focus-on-form as opposed
reasons for tackling a grammatical form to focus-on-forms, or between inductive
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 481

or deductive does not necessarily have factors to consider. Forms to be taught

to be made. It is very likely that stu- should also be prioritized, taking into
dents would get tired of always using the consideration the urgency of modifying
same approach. Because not all grammar specific deficient aspects of the learners’
points have the same level of complex- interlanguage.
ity or demand the same level of accurate • Grammar learning is not necessarily
use, it may not be pedagogically sound less boring if we make it fun. We end by
to teach them all in the same manner. expressing the view that the solution to
• Grammar rules are not laws. Language boring grammar is not necessarily to start
teachers would be well advised to treat playing games with verb conjugations or
grammar from a constructivist or descrip- other grammar elements. Games are too
tivist point of view rather than from a often just disguised meaningless drills.
prescriptivist (juridical) point of view. They provide a good diversion, but they
Learners’ frustration too often comes do not go very far in helping learners to
from the fact that rules in textbooks or build language skills. Grammar instruc-
reference grammars are presented as tion will still have to take place, and if
norms that must not be transgressed. not reengineered as discussed earlier will
Very soon, they find out that these rules continue to cause boredom.
get transgressed quite often in native
discourse. They are then presented with
the many “exceptions,” or fine print of Acknowledgments
the law, which often puzzle and frustrate This study was funded by the Social Sci-
them. If, from the start, we were to show ences and Humanities Research Council of
students that a rule is nothing more than Canada. Parts of this study were presented
a representation or a description that a at the colloquium Recherches en acquisi-
grammarian has come up with to try to tion et en didactique des langues étrangères
make sense of observed regularities and et secondes in Paris in 2006, at the joint
irregularities of a form so that learners in Conference of the American Association for
turn can make sense of them, then they Applied Linguistics and the Canadian Asso-
may more easily accept grammar rules as ciation of Applied Linguistics in Montreal
helping tools rather than frustrating and in 2006, and at the international confer-
boring objects of study. It would be even ence of the Fédération internationale des
better if we could involve the learners in professeurs de français in Quebec City in
being critical of these descriptions and 2008. We are grateful to the anonymous
coming up with their own variations. A reviewers for their thorough evaluation. We
rule or law that is negotiated rather than also wish to thank the participating teach-
imposed often has more chances of being ers and students, as well as Alicia Colson,
used purposefully. Carine Fahmy, Nicolas Dalmasso, Didier
• Only teach grammar when it is really nec- Julien, and Michael Zuniga for their role as
essary. All too often grammar points are research assistants.
taught because they are listed in the cur-
riculum. Students should first feel the Notes
need (on their own or through planned 1. The didactic triangle is a concept that is
specific exposure) to study a grammar well documented, especially in the French
point. They must see how their hard and German literature (e.g., Astolfi, Davot,
work will bring their interlanguage a Ginsburger-Vogel, & Toussaint, 1997;
step ahead. Grammar structures are not Houssaye, 1988; Künzli, 1998). It is usu-
all equally teachable. Formal and func- ally drawn with the teacher, the student,
tional complexities as well as the scope and the content as its pillars or poles. The
of the grammar element are just a few content, in our case an L2 or FL, stands
482 FALL 2011

at one point of the triangle. At another the questionnaire in at least two ways:
point is the learner, who interprets that through focus groups held before the
content his or her way according to his or creation of the questionnaire to deter-
her experience, interest, concerns, cogni- mine current themes or concerns on the
tive skills, and set of beliefs. The teacher issue of grammar learning and teach-
stands at the other pole and in turn uses ing, and through the use of open-ended
his or her own experience, interest, con- questions. We carefully documented the
cerns, professional skills, and visions of context (which Kalaja and Ferreira Bar-
the subject matter and of the teaching celos, 2003, considered as very impor-
and learning process to deliver the con- tant to take into account in studies on
tent. The three pillars of the triangle act beliefs) through classroom observations
in interrelation with the context in which (Simard & Jean, in press) as part of our
the teaching and learning are taking place. larger study on grammar instruction. We
Of particular interest for the present arti- used some qualitative data (open-ended
cle is the relationship between the learner answers in Part C of the questionnaire)
and the teacher, which is often referred to to back up the information obtained
as the didactic contract (Brousseau, 1998). though the Likert-type questions.
It takes into account the behavior expected 3. Regular L2 classes (as opposed to
from the learner by the teacher, and the immersion classes, which involve teach-
behavior expected from the teacher by the ing subject matters in French, or wel-
learner. coming classes, which teach French to
2. We are cognizant of the fact that the use newcomers before they integrate into
of questionnaires in research on beliefs the mainstream) are called core L2
has been criticized recently (Kalaja & classes in Quebec. Core L2 English and
Ferreira Barcelos, 2003) as too restric- French classes are compulsory from the
tive in the sense that they do not allow first year of primary school to the end of
participants to use their own voices, as secondary school. The number of hours
they “restrict respondents’ choices by per year students attend core L2 classes
framing the answers according to a pre- varies from around 40 to 175, depending
established set of statements” (Ferreira on the grade level and the school. The
Barcelos, 2003, p. 15). Ferreira Barcelos Quebec school system is organized so
suggested that research on beliefs takes that students spend 6 years in primary
a new direction by using metacognitive school and 5 years in secondary school.
and contextual approaches (interviews, Students interested in attending uni-
self-reports, observations, case stud- versity will have to do 2 years of junior
ies, diaries, etc.) instead of a normative college after completing their secondary
approach (questionnaires and quan- school degree.
titative data). The suggested move in 4. We administered the first version of the
research brings very interesting informa- questionnaire to 180 first- to last-year
tion as evidenced in research by Alanen high school students and 8 teachers.
(2003), Hosenfeld (2003), Sakui and Comments about the administration of
Gaies (2003), etc. However, this type of the questionnaire were collected by the
research can only be conducted with a research assistants at that time. They
very limited number of participants and reported questions and difficulties that
as such is not always suitable to gather arose during the trial. Items were then
data on a large scale in cases where one analyzed in terms of missing responses
wants to get a larger view of a situation. and range of responses to further check for
In our case, we would argue that stu- possible flaws in the questions (Dörnyei,
dents and teachers were given a voice in 2003, p. 68). An internal consistency
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 483

analysis could not be performed as such, with large samples it is not uncommon for
because of the diverse topics used in the the test to provide statistically significant
survey and the limited number of ques- results (pp. 265–266). Following her rec-
tions related to each topic. However, it was ommendation to consider the effect sizes,
possible to ascertain consistency by com- we noticed that they were rather small.
paring questions that were related to each Therefore, we decided that examining the
other; for example, questions about the distribution of answers produced more
use of grammar exercises in Parts A and B meaningful insight into students’ and
of the questionnaire, and about receptiv- teachers’ beliefs and perceptions.
ity in general to grammar instruction in 6. For reasons of space, and because very
Parts A and C. Because results were of the little difference was observable in rela-
same nature on these topics, they offered tion to gender and age, we do not pre-
some measure of reliable internal consist- sent the raw data.
ency. After this initial analysis, we revised
some questions (simplified or shortened)
so that they could be more easily under- References
stood, especially by the youngest learners. Alanen, R. (2003). A sociocultural approach
We also adjusted instructions. In addition, to young language learners’ beliefs about
contrary to a number of studies reviewed language learning. In P. Kalaja & A. M. Fer-
earlier that used a large number of items in reira Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New
research approaches (pp. 55–85). New York:
their surveys and applied different statis- Springer.
tical measurements, we decided that with
Alcorso, C., & Kalantzis, M. (1985). The
our younger participants it was best to use learning process and being a learner in the
a limited number of questions, each tar- AMEP. Report to the Committee of Review
geting one main area of concern. Our trial of the Adult Migrant Education Programme.
period taught us that younger learners Canberra: Department of Immigration and
spend a considerable amount of time on Ethnic Affairs.
each question and often have a hard time Astolfi, J.-P., Darot, É., Ginsburger-Vogel,
deciding between the choices given. Y., & Toussaint, J. (1997). Mots-clés de la
didactique des sciences: Repères, définitions,
5. We performed t tests and other inferential bibliographies. Paris and Brussels: DeBoeck.
statistic analyses on the data, but these did
Bacon, S. M. C., & Finnemann, M.D. (1992).
not provide information that was more Sex differences in self-reported beliefs about
informative than the descriptive results in language learning and authentic oral and writ-
relation to the types of answers we were ten input. Language Learning, 42, 471–495.
interested in. For example, even though Barkhuisen, G. P. (1998). Discovering learn-
most answers showed statistically signifi- ers’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/
cant differences at <.0001 between ESL learning activities in South African context.
and FSL participants for Part A of the TESOL Quarterly, 32, 85–107.
questionnaire when we performed a t test Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R.
(differences we hypothesized were due to (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about inciden-
the high number of participants and the tal focus on form and their classroom prac-
tices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243–272.
low variance possible with a Likert scale),
we did not think that the results of the Bernat, E., & Lloyd, R. (2007). Exploring
the gender effect on EFL learners’ beliefs
t test were worth presenting or consider- about language learning. Australian Journal
ing in this context because they did not of Educational & Developmental Psychology,
help provide more informative answers 7, 79–91.
to our questions. In this respect, Larson- Bratt Paulston, C. (1972). Structural pattern
Hall (2010), discussing the use of a t test drills: A classification. In H. B. Allen & R. N.
with Likert-scale data, mentioned that Campbell (Eds.), Teaching English as a second
484 FALL 2011

language: A book of readings (pp. 129–138). Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about lan-
New York: McGraw-Hill. guage learning of beginning university foreign
language students. Modern Language Journal,
Brindley, G. (1984). Needs analysis and objec-
72, 283–294.
tive setting in the adult migrant education
programme. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Edu- Hosenfeld, C. (2003). Evidence of emergent
cation Service. beliefs of a second language learner: A diary
Brousseau, G. (1998). Théorie des situations study. In P. Kalaja & A. M. Ferreira Barce-
didactiques. Grenoble: La pensée sauvage. los (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research
approaches (pp. 37–54). New York: Springer.
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus
on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit? Houssaye, J. (1988). Le triangle pédagogique:
System, 30, 433–458. Théorie et pratiques de l’éducation scolaire.
Bern: Peter Lang.
Calvé, P. (1994). Comment faire de la gram-
maire sans trahir le discours: Le cas des Jean, G. (2005). Intégration de la grammaire
exercices grammaticaux. Canadian Modern dans l’enseignement des langues secondes:
Language Review, 50, 636–645. Le cas des exercices grammaticaux. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 61, 519–542.
Canadian Parents for French. (2004). The
state of French-second-language education in Kalaja, P., & Ferreira Barcelos, A. M. (Eds.).
Canada in 2004. Ottawa: Author. (2003). Beliefs about SLA: New research
approaches. New York: Springer.
Chavez, M. (2007). Students’ and teachers’
assessments of the need for accuracy in the Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’
oral production of German as a foreign lan- beliefs about language learning. Foreign Lan-
guage. Modern Language Journal, 91, 537–561. guage Annals, 28, 71–84.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second Künzli, R. (1998). The common frame
language research: Construction, administra- and the places of didaktik. In B. B. Gunden
tion and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or cur-
Erlbaum. riculum: An international dialogue (pp. 29–45).
New York: Peter Lang.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on
form in classroom second language acquisition. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing sta-
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. tistics in second language research using SPSS.
New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S.
(2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-
419–432. on-form and corrective feedback in commu-
nicative language teaching: Effect on second
Etherington, S. (2006, June). Changing beliefs language learning. Studies in Second Language
about grammar: A study of Chinese EAP learn- Acquisition, 12, 429–448.
ers. Paper presented at the annual conference
of the American Association for Applied Lin- Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form
guistics, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. and second language learning. Studies in Sec-
ond Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in
oral work. Foreign Language Annals, 5, 583– Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A.,
593. Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., et al. (2009). Sec-
ond language learners’ beliefs about error
Ferreira Barcelos, A. M. (2003). Researching instruction and error correction. Modern Lan-
beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja guage Journal, 93, 91–104.
& A. M. Ferreira Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about
SLA: New research approaches (pp. 7–33). New Long, M. (1983). Does second language
York: Springer. instruction make a difference? A review of
research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.
Hawkey, R. (2006). Teacher and learner per-
ceptions of language learning activities. ELT Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred curricu-
Journal, 60, 242–252. lum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horwitz, E. (1985). Using student beliefs Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and
about language learning and teaching in the educational research: Clearing up a messy
foreign language methods course. Foreign construct. Review of Educational Research, 62,
Language Annals, 18, 333–340. 307–331.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 485

Peacock, M. (1998). The links between learner Siebert, L. (2003). Student and teacher
beliefs, teacher beliefs, and EFL proficiency. beliefs about language learning. The ORTESOL
Perspectives: Working Papers, 10, 125-159. Journal, 21, 7–39.
Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. J. (2003). A case Simard, D., & Jean, G. (in press). Drawing L2
study: Beliefs and metaphors of a Japanese learners’ attention to form: An exploration of
teacher of English. In P. Kalaja & A. M. Fer- French and English L2 teachers’ pedagogical
reira Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New techniques. Language Learning, 61, in press.
research approaches (pp. 153–170). New York:
Spratt, M. (1999). How good are we at know-
Springer.
ing what learners like? System, 27, 141–155.
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and gram-
language classroom: Students’ and teachers’
mar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
view on error correction and the role of gram-
mar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343–364. Yorio, C. A. (1986). Consumerism in second
language learning and teaching. Canadian
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in stu-
Modern Language Review, 42, 668–687.
dent and teacher perceptions concerning the
role of grammar instruction and corrective
feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Submitted July 15, 2010
Journal, 85, 244–258. Accepted March 7, 2011

APPENDIX A

Results of the Likert Items of the Survey (questions 1–14)

TABLE A1
Question 1 Results

Student Q1: How would you rate your ability to speak French/English accurately
(i.e., without grammatical errors)?
Teacher Q1: How would you rate your students’ ability to speak French/English
accurately (i.e., without grammatical errors) in consideration of their level?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 990 N 5 1314 N 5 25 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Excellent 10.61  9.36  4 0
4 Very good 28.69 21.91 40 31.58
3 Good 42.12 43.76 40 47.37
2 Not so good 15.15 21.61  8 21.05
1 Poor  3.43  3.35  8 0
486 FALL 2011

TABLE A2
Question 2 Results
Student Q2: How much do you like learning grammar in French/English
(understanding rules, finding explanations, doing grammar exercises orally or
in writing)?
Teacher Q2: How much do your students like learning grammar (understand-
ing rules, finding explanations, doing grammar exercises orally or in writing)?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 990 N 5 1317 N 5 24 N 5 19
% % % %
5 I/They like it a lot.  1.31  5.39 0 0
4 I/They like it.  9.19 19.51 11.50  5.26
3 It doesn’t bother me/them. 37.37 40.39 33.33 47.37
2 I/They don’t like it much. 29.49 25.28 45.83 42.11
1 I/They don’t like it at all 22.63  9.42  8.33  5.26

TABLE A3
Question 3 Results
Student Q3: According to you, how important is it to express oneself accurately
(i.e., without grammatical errors) in a second language like French/English?
Teacher Q3: According to you, how important is it to express oneself accurately
(i.e., without grammatical errors) in a second language like French/English?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 989 N 5 1321 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Very important 20.53 49.05 26.92 15.79
4 Important 43.38 42.24 65.38 47.37
3 Somewhat important 26.49  7.12  7.69 36.84
2 Not very important  8.09  1.36 0 0
1 Not important at all  1.52  0.23 0 0
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 487

TABLE A4
Question 4 Results
Student Q4: How important is it to learn grammar in order to speak better in
French/English?
Teacher Q4: How important is it to learn grammar in order to speak better in
French/English?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 990 N 5 1320 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Very important 29.80 37.42 11.54 21.05
4 Important 39.80 43.71 73.08 47.37
3 Somewhat important 21.72 14.70 11.54 26.32
2 Not very important  7.58  3.26  3.85  5.26
1 Not important at all  1.11  0.91 0 0

TABLE A5
Question 5 Results
Student Q5: How important is it to learn grammar in order to write better in
French/English?
Teacher Q5: How important is it to learn grammar in order to write better in
French/English?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 987 N 5 1317 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Very important 61.09 66.51 65.38 57.89
4 Important 27.56 28.17 34.62 31.58
3 Somewhat important  8.71  4.40 0  5.26
2 Not very important  2.03  0.68 0  5.26
1 Not important at all  0.61  0.46 0 0
488 FALL 2011

TABLE A6
Question 6 Results
Student Q6: How important is it for you to practice French/English grammar
through specific grammar exercises rather than simply through speaking or
writing?
Teacher Q6: How important is it for you to have your students practice French/
English grammar through specific grammar exercises rather than simply
through speaking or writing?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 986 N 5 1313 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Very important  9.13 14.32 23.08 31.58
4 Important 34.28 40.90 57.69 42.11
3 Somewhat important 38.64 31.99 19.23 15.79
2 Not very important 15.01  8.99 0  5.26
1 Not important at all  2.94  3.81 0  5.26

TABLE A7
Question 7 Results
Student Q7: According to you, how important is it to learn grammar rules in
French/English?
Teacher Q7: According to you, how important is it for your students to learn
grammar rules?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 987 N 5 1318 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Very important 18.95 34.60 23.08 36.84
4 Important 40.12 50.68 53.85 36.84
3 Somewhat important 29.58 11.15 19.23 21.05
2 Not very important  8.51  2.58  3.85 0
1 Not important at all  2.84  0.99 0  5.26
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 489

TABLE A8
Question 8 Results
Student Q8: How difficult do you find understanding grammar rules in French/
English?
Teacher Q8: In general, how difficult do your students find understanding
grammar rules?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 987 N 5 1318 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Very difficult  9.75  5.49 23.08  5.26
4 Difficult 20.30 14.48 38.46 26.32
3 Somewhat difficult 29.95 24.70 34.62 31.58
2 Not very difficult 30.25 34.07  3.85 36.84
1 Not difficult at all  9.75 21.27 0 0

TABLE A9
Question 9a, 9b, and 9c Results

Student Q9a: Have you ever been asked to discover a French/English grammar
rule from examples provided to you?
Teacher Q9a: Have you ever asked your students to discover a grammar rule
from examples you provided to them?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 979 N 5 1307 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
Yes 61.08 28.62 80 73,68
No 38.92 71.38 20 26,32
Student Q9b: If so, how difficult was it?
Teacher Q9b: If so, how difficult was it for them?
N 5 597 N 5 314 N 5 22 N 5 14
5 Very difficult  7.71  8.92  5 0
4 Difficult 20.27 23.89 45 14.29
3 Somewhat difficult 36.52 28.98 35 64.29
2 Not very difficult 30.65 28.66 15 21.43
1 Not difficult at all  4.86  9.55  0 0
490 FALL 2011

TABLE A9 (Continued)
Question 9a, 9b, and 9c Results
Student Q9c: How useful was it for your comprehension?
Teacher Q9c: How useful was it for your students’ comprehension of the rule?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 998 N 5 379 N 5 20 N 5 14
5 Very useful 10.87 22.16 25 14.29
4 Useful    38.8 41.16 55 57.14
3 Somewhat useful 32.44 22.43 20 28.57
2 Not very useful 13.21  6.60  0 0
1 Not useful at all  4.68  7.65  5 0

TABLE A10

Question 10 Results
Student Q10: How useful, in general, do you find the mechanical-type exer-
cises used in French/English class (for example, providing verbs in the correct
tenses, transforming affirmations into questions, etc.)?
Teacher Q10: How useful, in general, do you find the mechanical-type exercises
(drills) used in language class to get students to practice grammatical rules?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 988 N 5 1318 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Very useful 17.11 28.07 11.54  5.26
4 Useful 41.60 49.77 34.62 42.11
3 Somewhat useful 27.33 15.71 42.31 36.84
2 Not very useful 11.03  4.40 11.54 10.53
1 Not useful at all  2.94  2.05 0  5.26
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 491

TABLE A11

Question 11 Results
Student Q11: How interesting do you find these exercises?
Teacher Q11: In general, how interesting do you find these exercises?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 989 N 5 1317 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Very interesting  1.42  3.19 0 0
4 Interesting 10.21 25.59 11.54 21.05
3 Somewhat interesting 27.91 35.76 53.85 52.63
2 Not very interesting 35.69 22.32 26.92 15.79
1 Not interesting at all 24.77 13.14  7.69 10.53

TABLE A12

Question 12 Results
Student Q12: How much would you like to be able to express yourself in
French/English as a French-/English-speaking person?
Teacher Q12: How much do you think your students would like to be able to
express themselves as a native?
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 959 N 5 1308 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
5 Very much. 41.19 69.27 11.54 26.32
4 I/They would like it. 33.83 19.80 46.15 42.11
3 It would be nice but not 15.85  8.18 26.92 15.79
essential.
2 It is not one of my/their  5.63  1.61 15.38 15.79
goals.
1 I/They really do not want it.  2.50  1.15 0 0
492 FALL 2011

TABLE A13

Question 13 Results
Student Q13: When do you feel that your teacher should correct the grammar
errors that you make while speaking? (More than one answer is possible here.)
Teacher Q13: When do you feel you should correct the grammar errors that
your students make while speaking? (More than one answer is possible here.)
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 990 N 5 1314 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
4 All the time. 30* 53.58 30.77 15.78
3 Only when I/they cannot make 50.51 40.72 53.85 68.42
myself/themselves understood.
2 Only when the error is on 31.89 22.91 46.15 52.63
something we/they should know
or when the grammar point is the
focus of the lesson.
1 Never.  3.94  1.98 0  5.26
* Percentages of participants who gave that answer. Totals are more than 100% because
more than one answer was allowed.

TABLE A14

Question 14 Results
Student Q14: Which grammatical errors do you feel your teacher should correct in
your written work (compositions, tests, etc.)? (More than one answer is possible here.)
Teacher Q14: Which grammatical errors do you feel you should correct in your students’
written work (compositions, tests, etc.)? (More than one answer is possible here.)
Results
Scale FSL ESL FSL ESL
Students Students Teachers Teachers
N 5 990 N 5 1314 N 5 26 N 5 19
% % % %
4 All the errors.  65.86* 67.81 34.62 36.84
3 Only the errors that make 23.84 21.69 46.15 52.63
understanding difficult.
2 Only the errors that are related to a 17.98 22.91 61.54 57.89
grammar point we should know or that
has been the focus of previous lessons.
1 Grammatical errors should not be  1.72  1.14 0 17.98
corrected.
* Percentages of participants who gave that answer. Totals are more than 100% because more
than one answer was allowed.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS · VOL. 44, NO. 3 493

APPENDIX B

Students’ and Teachers’ Opinions About Two Different Types of Exercises: Form-
Only and Form-and-Meaning

Form-only (mechanical) Form-and-meaning

exercises exercises
Interesting

Interesting
Familiar

Difficult
Difficult

Familiar
Useful
Useful

% % % % % % % %
FSL 5 23.51  4.24  3.33 53.58 10.49  5.55  2.22 14.93
Students 4 39.46 15.04 10.49 26.64 37.44 20.79 10.39 32.49
N 5 993 3 24.12 30.88 28.66 12.61 32.09 34.21 26.54 30.07
2  7.77 27.55 36.02  4.14 12.71 23.41 37.94 15.54
1  3.03 20.18 19.27  0.71  3.83 12.41 19.37  3.43

ESL 5 25.36  8.18  2.42 37.02 18.47  7.65  2.27 20.51

Students 4 52.01 36.71 8.48 36.64 52.69 35.35  9.99 39.36
N 5 1328 3 14.99 31.26 21.95 14.61 18.47 31.64 25.89 21.12
2  3.94 14.46 34.22  6.36  5.90 16.43 32.70 13.02
1  1.67  7.49 30.89  3.48  2.80  7.19 27.25  4.24

FSL 5 30.77 11.54 0 15.38 15.38 19.23  3.85  3.85

Teachers 4 24.62 23.08 15.38 65.38 57.69 53.85  7.69 50
N 5 26 3 15.38 30.77 19.23  3.85 19.23 23.08 34.62 30.77
2 11.54 26.92 53.85  7.69  3.85 0 42.31 11.54
1  3.85  3.85  7.69  3.85 0 0  7.69 0
ESL 5 21.05 10.53 0 21.05 26.32 15.79  5.26 21.05
Teachers 4 47.37 31.58 10.53 42.11 52.63 57.89 10.53 52.63
N 5 19 3 15.79 21.05 36.84 26.32 15.79 21.05 52.63 15.79
2 10.53 26.32 42.11 10.53  5.26  5.26 26.32 10.53
1  5.26 10.53 10.53 0 0 0  5.26 0
  Likert scale:
  5 5 very useful, interesting, difficult, familiar.
  4 5 useful, interesting, difficult, familiar.
  3 5 somewhat useful, interesting, difficult, familiar.
  2 5 not very useful, interesting, difficult, familiar.
  1 5 not useful, interesting, difficult, familiar at all.
494 FALL 2011

APPENDIX C

Answers to the question: “Which word comes immediately to your mind when
you hear the word grammar?”

Students Teachers
ESL FSL FSL ESL
Neutral answers N 5 460* N 5 615 N 5 17 N58
(e.g., workbook, exercises) 73% 69% 65% 36%
Negative answers N 5 167 N 5 255 N58 N57
(e.g., useless, too difficult, boring) 26% 28% 31% 32%
Positive answers N 5 10 N 5 32 N51 N57
(e.g., easy, interesting) 2% 4% 4% 32%
Total N 5 633 N 5 895 N 5 26 N 5 22
* Number of comments made followed by the percentage of that specific type of comments as
compared to the two others.