Analyzing the Alignment Between Grammar Knowledge and General English Proficiency Levels of High School Students: A Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v11i4p161Keywords:
Grammar, English Proficiency Level, Placement Tests, International ExamsAbstract
The aim of this study is to indicate that the factors affecting the learning of English by young generations have diversified considerably. Learning the grammatical structure, which is very effective among traditional foreign language learning methods, has fallen into the background in new generations. Therefore, there is a great inconsistency between the general English level of the students and their grammar knowledge. Students who can easily understand while watching any movie fall behind in grammar knowledge. In this study, students were given a placement test to measure their grammatical knowledge. In addition, a story book at B2-C1 level was asked to them to read and an exam was given from this book. In order to further measure the English level of the young learners, a quiz from a movie that was intended to measure their level was applied to them. Thus, the difference was revealed. Although grammar falls into the background in learning English, this appears to be a problem in international exams such as the SAT. This study was done with 20 of the 11th and 12th grade students at Rise International School in Erbil. Finally, the grades of the students on the SAT English were evaluated. It was concluded that since grammar attracts less attention of the students than it must do as far as official exams are concerned, they exhibit relatively low success in English section of SAT than Mathematics especially because of lack of grammar knowledge. As a result, students should be encouraged to deal more with grammar to increase their success in international exams.
References
Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner‐centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher‐learner interaction in the second‐language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?. Tesol Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35.
Bilgin, R., & Bingol, M. (2022). Intentional Vocabulary Learning Vs Incidental Vocabulary Learning for Beginner Students: Tishk International University Preparatory School Case. Canadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 2(3), 54-71.
Chang, S. C. (2011). A contrastive study of grammar translation method and communicative approach in teaching English grammar. English language teaching, 4(2), 13.
Chung, S. F. (2017). A communicative approach to teaching grammar: theory and practice. The English Teacher, 18.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?. Annual Review of applied linguistics, 31, 182-204.
Dik, S. C. (2021). Functional grammar (Vol. 7). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(4), 431-469.
Duff, P. A., Ferreira, A. A., & Zappa-Hollman, S. (2015). Putting (functional) grammar to work in content-based English for academic purposes instruction. Teaching and learning English grammar: Research findings and future directions: A festschrift for Betty Azar, 139-158.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2014). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Jespersen, O. (2003). Essentials of English Grammar: 25th impression, 1987. Routledge.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaharuddin, A. (2018). The communicative grammar translation method: a practical method to teach communication skills of English. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), 4(2), 232-254.
Kamola, S., & Feruza, M. (2021). Advantages and disadvantages of audio-lingual method in teaching. ACADEMICIA: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 11(4), 1408-1415.
Krashen, S. (1992). The input hypothesis: An update. Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art, 409-431.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2014). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 48(2), 263–280.
Leddo, J., Sengar, A., Liang, I., & Chilumula, R. (2020). Improving sat writing and language scores by using metacognitive strategies. International Journal of Advanced Educational Research, 5 (1), 24, 26.
McBride, K. (2017). Digital tools for teaching grammar: Improving engagement and accuracy. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 28–45.
Mart, Ç. T. (2013). Teaching grammar in context: why and how? Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(1).
Mazher, U., Ahmed, M., & Aslam, M. (2015). Grammar Translation Method in ELT: Hindering the development of communicative skills at secondary level. Journal of literature, languages, and linguistics, 6(1), 65-72.
Msanjila, Y. P. (2005). Problems of writing in Kiswahili: a case study of Kigurunyembe and Morogoro secondary schools in Tanzania. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 14(1), 11-11.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. The modern language journal, 78(3), 313-326.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahman, M. M., Islam, M. S., Karim, A., Chowdhury, T. A., Rahman, M. M., Seraj, P. M. I., & Singh, M. K. M. (2019). English language teaching in Bangladesh today: Issues, outcomes and implications. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1-14.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2019). Second language acquisition. In An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 111-127). Routledge.
Sreehari, P. (2012). Communicative Language Teaching: Possibilities and Problems. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 87-93.
Terrell, T. D. (1991). The Role of Grammar Instruction in a Communicative Approach. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 52.
Valdez, P. M. (2016). English for academic and professional purposes. Quezon City: Phoenix.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, F. (2010). The Necessity of Grammar Teaching. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 78-81.
Wilkinson, R. (2013). English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges, 324(10.21832), 9781847698162-005.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies
International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies applies the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic Licence (CC BY-NC 2.0)
