Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions concerning the Role of

Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USA: Colombia

Author(s): Renate A. Schulz
Source: The Modern Language Journal , Summer, 2001, Vol. 85, No. 2 (Summer, 2001),
pp. 244-258
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1192885

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Wiley are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Cultural Differences in Student and
Teacher Perceptions Concerning the
Role of Grammar Instruction and
Corrective Feedback: USA-Colombia
RENATE A. SCHULZ

University of Arizona
Department of German Studies
Tucson, AZ 85721
Email: [email protected]. edu

A questionnaire administered to 607 Colombian foreign language (FL) students and 122 of
their teachers, as well as to 824 U.S. FL students and 92 teachers, elicited student and teacher
perceptions concerning the role of explicit grammar instruction and corrective feedback in
FL learning. Data comparisons indicated relatively high agreement between students as a
group and teachers as a group across cultures on the majority of questions. A number of
discrepancies were, however, evident between student and teacher beliefs within each culture,
as well as in comparisons of the two groups across cultures, particularly regarding the role of
formal grammar instruction in language learning. Given that discrepancies in student and
teacher belief systems can be detrimental to learning, it is important that teachers explore
their students' perceptions regarding those factors believed to enhance the learning of a new
language and make efforts to deal with potential conflicts between student beliefs and instruc-
tional practices.

Foreign language (FL) educators and applied lin- bown, & Spada, 1999); and there are those who see
guists examining the effectiveness of various ap- little if any benefit in devoting valuable classroom
proaches for FL teaching are not all in agreementtime to the analysis and practice of particular
about whether explicit grammar instruction or er- grammatical patterns or to providing feedback to
students' errors (Hammond, 1988; Krashen,
ror correction, or both, are essential or even help-
ful in learning a new language. There are those 1985, 1999; Semke, 1984; Terrell, 1977; Truscott,
scholars who believe that grammar instruction 1999). The latter group sees classroom FL learn-
and corrective feedback are necessary in adoles- ing as quite similar to first language learning, in
cent and adult classroom language learning
that the principles of Universal Grammar deter-
(Hammerly, 1985; Higgs & Clifford, 1982; Valette,
mine the order, as well as the eventual level, of lan-
1991); there are those who believe that-if doneguage mastery, and that comprehensible input
appropriately--grammar instruction and error and opportunities to negotiate meaning in a sup-
correction can be helpful in enhancing and accel-
portive learning environment are all that are nec-
erating adolescent and adult FL learning essary for language learning to occur.
(Doughty & Williams, 1998; Lalande, 1982; Light- Recent professional literature is leaning toward
bown, 1998; Long & Robinson, 1998; Lyster, Light- a reevaluation of the strong anti-grammar pro-
nouncements of some advocates of communica-
The Modern LanguageJourna4 85, ii, (2001) tive approaches to language teaching. Doughty
0026-7902/01/244-258 $1.50/0 and Williams (1998) and Lee and Valdman
@2001 The Modern Language Journal
(2000), for instance, included a number of voices

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Renate A. Schulz 245

who that compared student/teacher

advocate a focus beliefs in Ameri- o
the can and non-American
for need
formal FL learning contexts.
gra
need to An exploratory studyhow
rethink published by the author
aw
atic (Schulz, 1996)
language examined the beliefs of U.S. post-
patterns s
municative classroom.
secondary FL students and teachers regarding
tured thatthe the efficacy
role of grammar instruction and error correc-
and tion in language learning.
corrective The results revealed
feedback
pect of that U.S. FL learners were in general
language, learn favorably
ing, for instance,
disposed to grammar instruction andage,
even highly
learning favorably disposed and
style), toward error correction.
inst
Lightbown, and
These findings Spada
held true with little variation, re-
studies thatgardless ofprovide
the language studied. Such general "e
feedback isagreement regarding the benefits of grammar
pragmaticall
fective, and, innot some
study was, however, evident among U.S. FL c
The purpose of
teachers. Not only did this stu
teachers vary considerably
weigh in either for
in their opinions regarding or
the effectiveness of a ag
on form(s) in
focus on forms, classro
depending on the language
Rather, itstaught, but findings also revealed considerable
objective wa
teacher differences between students and teachers re-
perceptions rela
lieve explicit grammar
garding perceptions of the role of grammar and i
rection play
error correctionin learni
in FL learning.
young adult. A
During the Spring numb
semester 1997, this re-
searchers have pointed
searcher had the opportunity to replicate the
play important an
U.S. study in Colombia, while onrole
a Fulbright fel- i
learning strategies,
lowship in that country. The purpose ofand
the rep-
1993; Green, 1993;
lication was to Horw
determine whether student and
1995; Mantle-Bromley, teacher perceptions about the value of formal
ford, 1989; Wenden,
grammar 19
study and error correction in FL learn-
keep theseing beliefs differed in another culture, andor pe
whether simi-
planning larly striking discrepancies betweenactiv
classroom student and
activities need to
teacher perceptions would be
be found pe
in a differ-
minds as conducive
ent cultural context. The following is a to
descrip- l
Teacher perceptions
tion of the study and a report of the results. re
are learned also play a
determine a teacher's w
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY
with new approaches. M
stance, attributed the lack of success of earlier
Research Questions
pedagogical methods and innovations to the dif-
ficulty in fundamentally changing the belief sys- As mentioned above, the research questions
tem of all those involved in the educational enter- were:

prise. Studies by Fox (1993) and Salomone

(1998), moreover, illustrated the conflicts be- 1. What are the perceptions of posts
tween what teaching assistants (TAs) are taught in Colombian English as a Foreign
teacher development courses regarding the role (EFL)/FL students and teachers regar
of grammar in FL teaching and what they believe role of explicit grammar study and err
on the basis of their own experiences. Fox pre- tion in learning a FL?
dicted that differences between TA beliefs and 2. Do perceptions differ between Co
theoretical models of communicative teaching FL students and teachers?
would clearly lead to incongruities in teaching. 3. How do the perceptions of Colombian FL
Relatively few studies have examined cross-cul- students and teachers compare with the percep-
tural differences in student and teacher percep- tions of their U.S. counterparts?
tions regarding the effectiveness of instructional 4. What are the major similarities or differ-
approaches or teacher roles. McCargar (1993)ences in perceptions held by the two cultural
examined the role expectations of English as a groups (Colombia and U.S.) and by the two sub-
Second Language (ESL) students and their cultures within each group (students and teach-
American teachers, but no studies could be found ers)?

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 246 The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001)
A fifth question, based on
daryaeducational
small, qualitative,
institutions during her stay in
follow-up study with Colombian teachers
BogotA. In order focused
to prevent possible bias in teach-
ers' responses,
on the sources of teacher beliefs, the questionnaire was
specifically: Why adminis-
did the teachers believe that
tered atgrammar
the beginning of or errorTeach-
the workshops.
ers marked their
correction enhanced or hindered FL responses
learning? directly on the
questionnaire for later manual tabulation.
Participants The Colombian student data were collected by
participating teachers who administered the
The teachers in the Colombian study consisted questionnaire mostly to intact classes. Although
of 122 FL instructors at eight different postsecon- teachers were provided with written instructions
dary institutions in Bogoti.1 Of the instructors, for the administration of the student question-
97 (79.5%) taught EFL, 12 (9.8%) taught French, naire, no effort was made to enforce standardized
10 (8.2%) taught Spanish as a FL, 2 (1.6%) administration procedures. Students recorded
taught German, and 1 (1.6%) taught Russian. their responses on a computer answer sheet pro-
Fourteen (11.5%) instructiors indicated that they vided for that purpose.
were currently teaching more than one language. The U.S. data had been collected at the Univer-
Given that many of the teachers responded sity of Arizona with similar questionnaires, using
anonymously and the teacher questionnaire did intact classes for students and a mail survey for
not ask for gender identification, the exact ratio teachers. In this earlier study, teachers also re-
of male to female respondents is unknown. The corded their responses directly on the question-
large majority of teacher respondents were, how- naire, and all students, except the German
ever, female. Because many of the responding group, responded on computer answer sheets.
teachers taught at more than one institution, the
results were not broken down by institution. RESULTS
The students were 607 Colombian FL students
in predominantly EFL courses at the same institu- It should be noted that the data were simplified
tions. Roughly 33% of the students were maleby collapsing the 5-point scale used to elicit re-
and 67% were female. sponses (agree strongly, agree, undecided, dis-
The U.S. teacher and student samples used for agree slightly, disagree strongly) into a 3-point
comparison came from the 1996 study men- scale (agree/strongly, undecided, disagree/
tioned above (Schulz, 1996) and consisted of 824 strongly). Also, the data obtained from the Co-
FL students (French, German, Italian, Spanish, lombian EFL and FL teachers were collapsed int
Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian) and 92 one category. Of the 36 comparisons made (12
FL teachers (the same languages plus ESL and questions with 3 response options each), in only
Latin) at the University of Arizona. 7 cases was the discrepancy in agreement between
Colombian EFL teachers and teachers of other
Data Collection Instruments FLs greater than 2%. In no case was the discrep-
ancy in responses greater than 4%. U.S. teacher
The data collection instruments for the follow- and student data were also collapsed for the pur-
up study in Colombia consisted of adaptations of pose of this cross-cultural comparison study, that
the two questionnaires-one for teachers and is, teachers and students were no longer differen-
one for students-used in the original U.S. study. tiated by language taught or studied. Those read-
The questionnaires had 5-point scales in the Lik- ers interested in a breakdown of results by lan-
ert format (agree strongly, agree, undecided, dis- guage should consult the original study (Schulz,
agree slightly, disagree strongly). Both the 1996).
teacher and student questionnaires in the Colom- In addition to a computer-generated frequency
bian study were written in Spanish whereas the study for the student data using Crosstab, Chi-
U.S. versions were in English. Most of the ques- Square Tests of Independence were conducted to
tions on both forms were similarly worded to determine whether U.S. student responses dif-
permit later comparison. fered significantly from Colombian student re-
sponses. The results were statistically significant
Data Collection Procedure for all items at the .05 level of confidence.
Chi-Square Tests of Independence were also
Most of the Colombian teacher data were col- used to examine possible differences in responses
lected at teacher development workshops, which between males and females in both the U.S. and
the researcher presented at various postsecon- Colombian student samples. The tests revealed

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Renate A. Schulz 247

no significant similar format and report student and teacher

differences
sponses amongperceptions regarding
the corrective feedback.
U.S. Ta- stu
bian students,bles 13A, 13B, and 13C report student prefer-
significant d
and female ences regarding teacher versus peer correction.
responses were f
12 items reported here. Fe
more strongly than did ma
Differences in Perceptions between U.S. and
activities were
Colombian FL Studentsmore impo
practice; they also expressed
correction than did males. Looking only at the student comparisons (lines
Given that chi-square tests do not lend them- 1 of Tables 1 through 7), we see that only items
selves easily to meaningful interpretations with reported in Tables 2, 4, and 5 among the seven
research questions such as those addressed in this items dealing with the role of grammar in FL
study, the remaining discussion of results is based learning (see tables for wording of statements)
on percentages of responses for the relevant show discrepancies higher than 10%. The largest
groups, as reported in Tables 1 through 13. It discrepancy (30%) was found for Item 4 (Table
should be noted that the statements in the tables 4): "I like the study of grammar." Although 76%
use the wording from the original U.S. student of the Colombian students marked "agree
questionnaire. The teacher versions of the state- strongly" or "agree" for that item, only 46% of the
ments in both English and Spanish, as well as the American students did so, which indicates that
Spanish student version, can be found in the Ap- Colombian students have a considerably greater
pendix. affinity for a focus on forms.
As mentioned already, Chi-Square Tests of In- Item 2, "My FL improves most quickly if I study
dependence calculated for the two student and and practice the grammar" shows a discrepancy
teacher groups indicated that--in a statistical in opinion of 29%. Again, Colombian students,
sense--we are indeed dealing with two different with a 77% agreement rate, clearly have greater
populations, as far as the perceptions of the role faith in the benefit of grammar study than do
of grammar and error correction in FL learning U.S. students, with a 48% agreement rate, al-
are concerned. However, if we limit our focus to though U.S. student responses were far from
the "agree/strongly agree" responses on the negative.
scale, it is evident that not all statements elicited Item 5, "There should be more formal study of
large differences in opinion between U.S. and grammar in my FL courses," showed a 25% dis-
Colombian respondents. For purposes of this crepancy rate between U.S. and Colombian stu-
study, any discrepancy of 10% or less in student dents and indicated that about half of the Colom-
and teacher perceptions was considered insuffi- bian students (51%) would like more grammar,
cient for pointing to meaningful cultural differ- whereas only about one quarter (26%) of the
ences between the groups. Americans wanted increased focus on forms.
Tables 1 through 7 summarize responses (ex- Interestingly, there was little discrepancy (i.e.,
pressed in percentages) for perceptions regard- 10% or less) in perceptions for the remaining
ing the role of grammar for both students and items. A large majority of both U.S. and Colom-
teachers of the two cultures. They also show the bian students (80% and 82%, respectively) be-
discrepancy rate in the responses between stu- lieved that the formal study of grammar is essen-
dents and teachers. Tables 8 through 12 follow a tial to eventual mastery of a FL (see Table 1).

TABLE 1
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Grammar

#1: The formal study of grammar is essential to eventual mastery of a foreign language.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %
Students 607 823 82 80 2 10 15 -5 8 5 3
Teachers 121 92 59 64 -5 17 20 -3 24 15 9
Dis % 23 16 -7 -5 16 10

Note. Col = Colombia; Dis = d

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 248 The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001)
TABLE 2
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Grammar

#2: I believe my foreign language improves most quickly if I study and practice the grammar of the
language.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %
Students 606 823 77 48 29 19 33 -14 4 19 -15
Teachers 120 92 71 38 33 16 20 -4 13 36 -23
Dis % 6 10 3 13 9 17

Note. Col = Colombia; Dis

TABLE 3
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Grammar

#3: The study of grammar helps in learning a foreign language.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %
Students 607 824 93 85 8 4 12 -8 3 3 0
Teachers 120 92 84 74 10 9 16 -7 7 7 0
Dis % 9 11 -5 -4 4 4

Note. Col = Colombia; Dis

TABLE 4
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Grammar

#4: I like the study of grammar.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %
Students 607 824 76 46 30 14 26 -12 10 28 -18
Teachers 121 92 30 18 12 21 47 -26 48 35 13
Dis % 46 28 -7 -21 38 7
Note. Col = Colombia; Dis = disc

TABLE 5
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Grammar

#5: There should be more formal study of grammar in my FL/L2 courses.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %
Students 607 823 51 26 25 27 36 -9 23 37 -14
Teachers 119 92 31 21 10 21 25 -4 48 53 -5
Dis % 20 5 6 11 25 16
Note. Col = Colombia; Dis = disc

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Renate A. Schulz 249

TABLE 6
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Grammar

#6: I usually keep grammar rules in mind when I write in a FL or read what I have written.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %
Students 606 823 58 68 -10 24 25 -1 17 7 10
Teachers 121 92 35 27 8 18 39 -21 47 32 15
Dis % 23 41 6 -14 30 25
Note. Col = Colombia; Dis = disc

TABLE 7
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Grammar

#7: It is more important to practice a FL in real-life situations than to study and practice grammatical
patterns.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %
Students 605 824 66 69 -3 18 19 -1 16 12 4
Teachers 119 92 82 80 2 8 7 1 11 9 8
Dis % -16 -11 10 12 5 7
Note. Col = Colombia; Dis = disc

TABLE 8
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Error Correction

#8: I dislike it when I am corrected in class.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %
Students 606 824 4 4 0 6 9 -3 90 87 3
Teachers 121 92 28 22 6 21 24 -3 51 48 3
Dis % -24 -18 -15 -15 39 39
Note. Col = Colombia; Dis = discrepancy

TABLE 9
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Error Correction

#9: Teachers should not correct students when they make errors in class.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %
Students 605 824 3 2 1 3 4 -1 95 94 1
Teachers 121 92 35 33 2 17 18 -1 48 48 0
Dis % -32 -31 -14 -14 47 46
Note. Col = Colombia; Dis = discrepancy

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 250 The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001)
TABLE 10
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Error Correction

#10: I feel cheated if a teacher does not correct the written work I hand in.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %

Students 607 824 74 65 9 6 21 -15 20 13 7

Teachers 122 92 88 80 8 5 18 -13 8 1 7
Dis % 14 15 1 3 12 12

Note. Col = Colombia;

TABLE 11
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Error Correction

#11: When I make errors in speaking this language, I would like my teacher to correct them.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %

Students 607 824 97 90 7 2 9 -7 1 2 -1

Teachers 118 92 39 30 9 21 28 -7 40 41 -1
Dis % 58 60 -19 -19 39 39

Note. Col = Colombia; Dis = d

TABLE 12
Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Error Correction

#12: When I make errors in writing this language, I would like my teacher to correct them.

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %

Students 607 824 98 97 1 1 3 -2 1 1 0

Teachers 119 92 93 92 1 0 8 -8 8 0 8
Dis % 5 5 1 -5 7 1

Note. Col = Colombi

TABLE 13
Student/Teacher Attitudes Toward Error Correction

Agree/Agree Disagree
N Strongly % Undecided % Slightly/Strongly %
Col U.S. Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis % Col U.S. Dis %

13A. I prefer to be corrected by my fellow students in small group

of the entire class.
603 484 15 13 2 31 26 5 54 61 -7
13B. I learn a lot when my teacher corre
604 485 90 70 20 6 23 -17 4 7 -3
13C. I learn a lot when my teacher corre
605 471 94 86 8 4 12 -8 2 2 0

Note. The U.S. student sample does no

discrepancy in ratings; Col = Colomb

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Renate A. Schulz 251

Another 90% of the Colombian

very students versus 70% of the m
strong
spectively) agreed
U.S. students indicated that they learned that a lot
helps in learning
from teacher correction of their peers.a FL"
Colombian students fav
Also, a strong segment
Differences in Perceptions between U.S. and
U.S. students and
Colombian FL Teachers 58%
claimed that they keep
when they Comparing
write the responses of in a
U.S. and Colom- F
written (see Table
bian teachers to Items 1 through 7 6). (lines 2 of Th
voted to the role
Tables 1 through 7) on the role of of
grammar, onegr
Table 7) dealt with
finds sizeable discrepancies in opinions attit
(i.e., dis-
point grammar
crepancies larger thanpractice.
10%) on only two ques-
strong positive attitud
tions. The largest disagreement was for Question
pressed by2: 33%both
more of the ColombianU.S.
teachers than U.S. an
the majority
teachers agreed with in both
the statement, "Generally
thought that practicing
speaking, students' communicative ability im-
was more important th
proves most quickly if they study and practice the
of grammatical patterns
grammar of the language." The other item show-
Of the five items
ing a discrepancy in rating of moredealin
than 10% was
error correction
question 4, "Students generally(see
like the study of Ta
showed discrepancies
grammar"; 48% of the Colombian teachers dis- in
and Colombian
agreed versus only 35% student
of the U.S. teachers.
there was no meaningf
Questions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 showed a discrepancy
definition rate of 10% or less. It shouldbetwee
above) be noted, however,
perceptions regarding
that for all but one of the questions showing a t
tive feedback. For
discrepancy, the those
Colombian teachers were some-
some disagreement
what more favorably inclined toward grammar (que
discrepancy of 9% and
study than their U.S. counterparts. The only ex- 7
lombian students had
ception was Item 1, "For adolescents or adults, a
error correction,
the formal study of grammar which
is essential to the
stronger belief
eventual masteryin of a FL/L2 the
when languagerol
ing. The strongest studen
learning is limited to the classroom." Only 59%
on the questionnaire can
of the Colombian teachers versus 64% of the U.S.
and 12. Only 4%
teachers agreed in
with that statement. both
like of being As was the corrected
case when comparing responses of
of U.S. students versus 95% of their Colombian the two student groups on the items dealing with
counterparts disagreed with the statement, error correction (see Tables 8 through 12), U.S.
"Teachers should not correct students when they and Colombian teacher responses showed rela-
make errors in class" (see Table 9); and 97% ver- tively little disagreement. Discrepancies ranged
sus 98% of the U.S. and Colombian students, re- from 1% (Item 12) to 9% (Item 11). Forty-eight
spectively, expressed a preference for having their percent (U.S.) versus 51% (Colombian) dis-
written work corrected (see Table 12). agreed with the statement that students dislike
For the data presented in Table 13, only student error correction (see Table 8); an equal number
responses were available. The three items re- of U.S. and Colombian teachers (48%) disagreed
ported on in Table 13 attempted to elicit opinions with the statement that teachers should not cor-
regarding the value of peer correction versus rect students when they make errors in class; 80%
teacher correction. Both the majority of U.S. stu- versus 88% felt that students feel cheated if a
dents and Colombian students (61% and 54%, re- teacher does not correct the written work they
spectively) indicated that they preferred teacher hand in; 41% versus 40% disagreed with the state-
correction to peer correction. A sizeable majority ment, "Generally, when students make errors in
in both groups also felt that they learned much speaking the target language, they should be cor-
from direct teacher correction of their own errors rected" (see Table 11); and 92% versus 93%
(86% vs. 94%), as well as from teacher correction agreed that, "Generally, when students make er-
of their peers (70% vs. 90%). Overall, there was rors in writing the target language, they should
close agreement between U.S. and Colombian stu- be corrected" (see Table 12).
dents, with the exception of Question 13B, where To facilitate a visual overview of all the data,

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 252 The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001)

Tables 14 and 15 provide athan 10%, and only two

summary ofofpercent-
the comparisons be-
age differences between U.S. tween U.S.
and and Colombian
Colombian teachers showed
stu-dis-
dents, U.S. and Colombian teachers, and U.S. agreement of over 10%, five of the seven items in
students and teachers, as well as Colombian stu- Table 14C (1, 3, 4, 6, and 7) and Table 14D (1, 4,
dents and teachers. Tables 14A, 14B, 14C, and 5, 6, and 7) showed discrepancies in opinions
14D provide numerical results for questions 1 ranging up to 41% (6 in Table 14C).
through 7, which deal with perceptions regarding Eighty percent of the U.S. students versus only
the role of grammar, while Tables 15A, 15B, 15C, 64% of their teachers agreed that the formal
and 15D present the numerical results for ques-study of grammar is essential for eventual FL mas-
tions 8 through 12, which deal with error correc- tery; 85% of the students versus 74% of the teach-
tion. ers believed that the study of grammar helps in
FL learning; 46% of the students versus 18% of
the teachers thought students like the study of
Differences in Perception between FL Students and
Teachers grammar; 68% vs. 27% believed that students
kept grammar rules in mind when writing in the
The striking discrepancies between U.S. FL stu-FL; and 69% versus 80% thought that communi-
dents and teachers in their perceptions regarding cative activities were more important than gram-
the role of grammar and error correction in lan-mar practice.
guage learning were previously noted (Schulz, The discrepancy rates between U.S. student
1996). As evident in Summary Tables 14C and and teacher responses for the items dealing with
14D, meaningful differences (i.e., discrepancieserror correction also show striking disagree-
higher than 10%) between students and teachersments. As can be seen in Summary Table 15C,
within the same culture were generally more fre-four of five items (8, 9, 10, and 11) showed a
quent than between either U.S. and Colombian discrepancy rate that ranged from 15% to 60%.
students as a group or their teachers as a groupOnly Item 12, "When making errors in writing, I
(Tables 14A and 14B). Whereas only three of thewould like my teacher to correct them," revealed
seven items comparing U.S. and Colombian stu-relatively high agreement among U.S. students
dent responses showed discrepancies of moreand teachers (97% and 92%, respectively). For

TABLE 14

Summary of Student/Teacher Attitudes toward the Role of Grammar

Item #

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
% % % % % % %

14A. U.S./Colombian Stu

U.S. Students 80 48 85 46 26 68 69
Col. Students 82 77 93 76 51 58 66
Discrepancy +2 +29 +8 +30 +25 -10 -3
14B. U.S./Colombian Teacher Comparisons
U.S. Teachers 64 38 74 18 21 27 80
Col. Teachers 59 71 84 30 31 35 82
Discrepancy -5 +33 +10 +12 +10 +8 +2
14C. U.S. Student/Teacher Comparisons
U.S. Students 80 48 85 46 26 68 69
U.S. Teachers 64 38 74 18 21 27 80
Discrepancy -16 -10 -11 -28 -5 -41 +11
14D. Colombian Student/Teacher Comparisons
Col. Students 82 77 93 76 51 58 66
Col. Teachers 59 71 84 30 31 35 82
Discrepancy -23 -6 -9 -46 -20 -23 +16

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Renate A. Schulz 253

TABLE 15

Summary of Student/Teacher Attitudes toward Error Correction

Item #

8 9 10 11 12
Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
% % % % %

15A. U.S./Colombian S
U.S. Students 4 2 65 90 97
Col. Students 4 3 74 97 98
Discrepancy 0 +1 +9 +7 +1
15B. U.S./Colombian Teacher Com
U.S. Teachers 22 33 80 30 92
Col. Teachers 28 35 88 39 93
Discrepancy +6 +2 +8 +9 +1
15C. U.S. Student/Teacher Compar
U.S. Students 4 2 65 90 97
U.S. Teachers 22 33 80 30 92
Discrepancy +18 +31 +15 -60 -5
15D. Colombian Student/Teacher Compar
Col. Students 4 3 74 97 98
Col. Teachers 28 35 88 39 93
Discrepancy +24 +32 +14 -58 -5

the other items, 4% of

helps in FL the
learning" students vers
(93% of the students and
the teachers thought
84% ofthat students
the teachers). dislik
For Item 1, "grammar is
corrected in class (Item 8); 2% versus 33% essential for FL mastery," 82% of the Colombian
agreed that teachers should not correct studentsstudents and 59% of their teachers agreed; for
when they made errors in class (Item 9); 65% Item 4, "students like the study of grammar," 76%
versus 80% agreed that students felt cheated if of the students versus only 30% of the teachers
teachers did not correct their written work (Itemindicated agreement; for Item 5, indicating the
10); and 90% of the students versus 30% of the need for more grammar study, 51% of the stu-
teachers agreed that students should be cor-dents versus 31 % of the teachers agreed; for Item
rected when they make errors in speaking (Item6, acknowledging students' use of a grammatical
11). Particularly this last item should give causemonitor, 58% of the students versus 35% of the
for reflection to those educators who are con- teachers responded positively; and for Item 7,
cerned that student expectation and teacher 66% of the students versus 82% of the teachers
practice be in agreement and who are reluctantgave preference to communicative over gram-
to engage in error correction in class. mar-focused activities.
The pattern of disagreement between students Discrepancies between Colombian students
and teachers in their perceptions regarding the and teachers for the items dealing with error
role of grammar (Items 1 through 7) was even correction (see Summary Table 15) closely re-
stronger in the Colombian data than in the U.S. sembled the American pattern. The discrepancy
data (see Tables 14C and 14D). As is the case inrates for Items 8, 9, 10, and 11 were 24%, 32%,
the U.S. data for comparisons of student and 14%, and 58%, respectively.
teacher perceptions, five of seven items showed a
discrepancy rate of over 10%, that ranged from
Differences in Perceptions between Colombian
16% (7) to 46% (4). Only two items revealed high
Students and Teachers as a Group and U.S. Students
agreement: Item 2, "FL competence improves
and Teachers
most quickly through the study of grammar"
(77% of the Colombian students and 71% of A comparison of discrepancy rates reported in
their teachers) and Item 3, "the study of grammar Summary Tables 15C and 15D, dealing with per-

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 254 The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001)
ceptions regarding error corrections Comparing theof strength
U.S. of discrepancies be-
stu-
dents and teachers as a group tweenand
studentsColombian
and teachers from each of the two
stu-
dents and teachers as a group cultures
showed(Tables 15C
noand 15D), one
large notes that
dif-
ferences between the two cultures. In no instance the sums of percentages expressing discrepancies
was there more than a 6% difference in the dis- in beliefs were quite close (129 for the U.S.
crepancy rates between the two cultural cohorts. groups and 133 for the Colombian groups).
The picture becomes more complex, however,
when one looks at Tables 14C and 14D, which DISCUSSION
show the discrepancy rates between U.S. students
and teachers as a group and Colombian students Generally speaking, the data provide evide
and teachers on statements dealing with the roleof a strong positive belief on the part of the
of grammar in FL learning. Items 4, 5, and 6 dents of both cultures that explicit gramm
showed the largest discrepancy rate between thestudy and corrective feedback play a positive
two cultures, but Item 2 was interesting as well.in FL learning. Sizeable majorities of stude
Although the overall difference in discrepancyagreed that the formal study of grammar is e
rates was only 4%, Colombian students and teach- tial to eventual mastery of a FL (Item 1); that
ers were much more convinced that a FL im- study of grammar helps in learning a FL (Item
that they usually keep grammar rules in m
proves most quickly if students study and practice
grammar rules than were their American coun- when they write in a FL or read what they
terparts. Over 70% of both Colombian students written (Item 6); that they would like to be
(77%) and teachers (71%) agreed whereas under rected in class (Items 8 and 9); that they
50% of Americans (48% of the students andstrongly 38% about having their written work
of the teachers) indicated agreement for that rected by the teacher (Items 10 and 12); and
item. Similar differences in perception were evi- want to be corrected when they make er
they
in speaking as well (Item 11).
dent for Item 4 ("students like the study of gram-
mar"); 76% of Colombian students versus 30%Although
of the majority of teachers in b
their teachers, but only 46% of U.S. students and
groups agreed that grammar instruction hel
18% of their teachers agreed with the statement.
language learning, agreement was less st
To compare the overall strength of disagree-
among the teachers than among the studen
ments within and between groups (student/stu-
Both students and teachers did, however, cle
dent, teacher/teacher, U.S. student/teacher,indicate
and that grammar study was not all there
Colombian student/teacher), the researchermastering
cal- a FL (Item 7). Particularly the teac
(more than 80% of the teachers vs. less than
culated a numerical index by adding the discrep-
of the
ancy percentages for all comparisons reported in students) felt that real-life communica
Summary Tables 14A through 14D andtasks 15A play a very important role as well.
through 15D. Thus, examining differences in Overall,
the the data show that the Colombian
four data comparisons presented in Tablesdents,
14A as well as their teachers, were more fav
throughl4D, which deal with the role of gram-
ably inclined toward traditional language te
mar instruction in FL learning, the teachers as awhich indicates stronger beliefs regard
ing,
group (U.S. and Colombian) appeared to be thethe efficacy of explicit grammar instruction
error
most cohesive in their beliefs regarding the rolecorrection.
of grammar in FL learning (sum of discrepancies
It is interesting that of the 12 items for which
equaled 80), followed by the students as a group
both student and teacher data were available, 9 of
(sum of discrepancies equaled 107). The sum theofitems (1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) showed
discrepancies between U.S. students and teachers
highly similar beliefs between the students across
was 122, compared to 143 for Colombiancultures,
stu- and 10 of the items (1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
dents and teachers, and indicates that the differ-
11, 12) showed similar beliefs between both
ences in perceptions about the role of grammar
groups of teachers (i.e., with a discrepancy rate of
and corrective feedback were strongest in10% theor less). Student and teacher agreement did
Colombian group. not, however, always go in the same direction.
For the items dealing with beliefs about error
Whereas student agreement on the items men-
correction (Summary Tables 15A through tioned15D), was always expressed in sizeable majori-
the students as a group (U.S. and Colombian)ties, the teacher data indicated majority agree-
had the strongest overall agreement (sum of dis-only for Items 1, 3, 7, 10, and 12. For the
ment
crepancies equaled 18), followed by the teachers
remaining 5 items on which teachers across cul-
as a group, with a sum of discrepancies oftures
26. held similar opinions (5, 6, 8, 9, and 11)

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Renate A. Schulz 255

fewer than mentioned inhalf

the report of the initialof U.S. study t
pressed their (Schulz, 1996), theagreeme
strong favorable attitude to-
There was considerab
ward grammar and corrective feedback shown by
tween cultures students could be attributable to at least three
concer
mar study accelerate
factors: Perceptions could be the result of the way
(Item 2). Whereas bot
FLs are taught or tested (i.e., with predominantly
teachers strongly
form-focused, discrete-point tests) or both; bel per-
served such ceptions could also anbe due to a myth, acce passed on
American fromcounterpar
generation to generation of learners, re-
make such claims. Item 4 showed considerable garding the usefulness of grammar study; or they
differences within and between cultures. Al- could be based on actual personal experiences
though a strong majority of the Colombian stu-
that convinced the majority of learners that their
dents indicated agreement with the statement, learning has been helped by rule awareness and
"I like the study of grammar," neither the corrective
re- feedback.

sponses of their American counterparts, Be nor that as it may, students, regardless of cul-
those of the teachers in either culture reached tural origin, appear to share certain beliefs about
the 50% mark. the functions of formal education. They see the
Of the items dealing with error correction (Ta- teacher as an expert knower whose role is to
bles 8 throughl2), only Item 12, dealing with explain and provide feedback. This stance is evi-
corrections of written assignments, showed dent in the responses of students about their pre-
strong agreement between students and teach- ferred source of corrective feedback, reported in
ers. Indeed, for Item 11, which dealt with the Table 13. Brandl (1995) also summarized a
desirability of correcting oral errors in the class- number of studies suggesting "that learners pre-
room, there were discrepancy rates of 58% to fer the teacher's involvement in the error correc-
60% between the two Colombian groups and the tion process" (p. 197).
two U.S. groups. Clearly, such sizeable discrep- Although one would expect considerable
ancies in perception between students and teach- agreement among the members of a profession
ers in both cultures regarding the value of error regarding approaches to developing knowledge
correction need remediation if we believe that and skills in their discipline, FL teachers, as a
such discrepancies in belief systems influence group, show sizeable discrepancies in their belief
learning. systems. Sources of teacher beliefs are quite com-
The strong preference for corrective feedback plex. Without doubt, teachers' preparation and
expressed by both American and Colombian stu- in-service development (including professional
dents duplicated results of studies with ESL stu- readings) play a role; so does their own profes-
dents conducted by Cathcart and Olsen (1976), sional experience in observing student success
Chenoweth, Day, Chun, and Luppescu (1983), rates with particular forms of instruction. But
and McCargar (1993), as well as with German their own language learning experience (i.e., the
students conducted by Wipf (1993). The study way they were taught) has surely colored their
reported by McCargar (1993), which was the only perceptions as well.
study examining disagreements between interna- In a small, informal follow-up study with 10
tional ESL students and their American teachers Colombian EFL teachers, using interview proce-
as far as error correction is concerned, revealed dures to explore the sources for their beliefs, all
that ESL teachers clearly disagreed with the state- teachers interviewed expressed their conviction
ment, "Language teachers should correct every that they themselves had benefited from gram-
student error" (p. 198), whereas all studentmar instruction in their own language learning.2
groups (except the Japanese) clearly agreed. For As far as their teaching experience was con-
the statement, "Language teachers should point cerned, no one claimed a 100% success rate with
out a student error without correcting it" (p. all students; nevertheless, all agreed that many of
198), ESL teachers mildly agreed, whereas stu- their students were helped by a focus on forms
dents (with the exception of the Korean group) and that many students demanded language
clearly disagreed. analysis. Although the Colombian teachers inter-
It is, of course, interesting to conjecture about viewed proclaimed to follow communicative ap-
possible reasons for the differences in percep- proaches in their classrooms, none of them cited
tions between students and teachers in general, second language acquisition (SLA) literature to
and between students and teachers of the two support their beliefs. Interestingly, some Arizona
different cultures in particular. As was previously FL teachers with whom I had similar conversa-

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 256 The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001)

beliefs and
tions anchored their opinions in perceptions of those who do or will do
the professional
literature rather than in their own learning
the actual teaching, or
it will lessen the effectiveness
teaching experience.3 Givenof their
the efforts.
conflicting find-
ings in the research literature regarding the role
of grammar or corrective feedback, practicing
teachers may wonder whetherNOTES it is wiser to put
their faith in the anecdotal evidence cited by the
Colombian teachers or in the conflicting procla-
1 Teachers and students from the following postsec-
mations of theorists in Applied Linguistics.
ondary institutions in Bogota participated in the study
Universidad Nacional, Universidad Distrital, Universi-
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY dad de los Andes, UniversidadJaveriana, Universidad l
Salle, Universidad Antonio Narifio, Politechnico Gran-
As Horwitz (1988) stated, "Americans appearEscuela de Administraci6n de Negocios.
colombia,
to hold strong beliefs about how languages 2 A study
are by Fox (1993) revealed that 75% of TAs
(who
learned" (p. 283). It appears that they are all the
not had experienced some preservice training in
only ones with such beliefs. Even Krashencommunicative
(1999) language teaching) disagreed or even
admitted that postsecondary studentsstrongly
of a new disagreed with the statement that "Learning a

language are accustomed to formal foreign

grammar language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of
grammar rules" (p. 321). However, 57% of the TAs
learning and expect it. As already stated (Schulz,
indicated that grammar learning had been essential t
1996), and as numerous FL educators and re-
their own language learning. Conversely, 45% atteste
searchers agree, any sizeable discrepancy into the essential nature of free conversation practice, but
teacher and student perceptions regarding theonly 20% found group work and 26% found pair work
efficacy of instructional practices can be detri-
necessary.
mental to learning, regardless of the methodo- 3 It should be mentioned, however, that the conversa-
logical convictions of the teacher (Fox, 1993;
tions with Arizona FL teachers took place in the context
Green, 1993; Horwitz, 1988, 1990; McCargar, of a teacher development course.
1993; Wenden, 1986). Mantle-Bromley (1995) ac-
knowledged that some students may come to FL
instruction "with certain attitudes, beliefs, and REFERENCES

expectations that may actually prove harmful to

their success in the classroom" (p. 383). Lan-
Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students' pref
guage learning could thus be hindered if stu- ences for error feedback options and response
dents have specific beliefs regarding the role of Modern Language Journal, 79, 194-211.
grammar and corrective feedback and if their Cathcart, R. L., & Olsen, J. E. W. B. (1976). Teacher
expectations are not met. It is up to the teacher and students' preferences for correction of class-
to examine his or her students' perceptions re- room conversation errors. In J. F. Fanselow & R
garding those factors they presume to enhance H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '76 (pp. 41-53)
classroom language learning and to make certain Washington, DC: TESOL.
that either student perceptions or instructional Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E., & Luppes
S. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of ESL stu
practices are modified to avoid conflicts between
dents to error correction. Studies in Second Lan-
the two. If teacher behaviors do not mesh with
guage Acquisition, 6, 79-87.
student expectations, learner motivation and a
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form
teacher's credibility may be diminished. This con- in classroom second language acquisition. New York:
sideration is particularly important when teach- Cambridge University Press.
ing students of another culture, given that their
Fox, C. A. (1993). Communicative competence and be-
language learning experiences and classroom ex- liefs about language among graduate teaching as-
pectations may be quite different from those of sistants in French. Modern Language Journal, 77,
American students. 313-324.
Green,J. M. (1993). Student attitudes toward communi-
Fox's (1993) recommendation that TA trainers
cative and non-communicative activities: Do en-
in multisection instructional programs require
joyment and effectiveness go together? Modern
TAs to examine their own assumptions about lan-
Language Journal, 77, 1-10.
guage and language learning can be extended to
Hammerly, H. (1985). An integrated theory of language
teacher development in general. Regardless of teaching. N. Burnaby, BC, Canada: Second Lan-
the methodological convictions of those in guage Publications.
charge of teacher development, if there is incon-
Hammond, R. M. (1988). Accuracy versus communica-
gruity between the guidance they provide and the tive competency: The acquisition of grammar in

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Renate A. Schulz 257

the second language

Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realis-
408-417. tic beliefs: Links to proficiency. Modern Language
Higgs, T. V., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward Journal 70, 372-386.
communication. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, McCargar, D. F. (1993). Teacher and student role expec-
competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. tations: Cross-cultural differences and implica-
57-79). Skokie, IL: National Textbook. tions. Modern LanguageJournal, 77, 192-207.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learn- Musumeci, D. (1997). Breaking tradition: An exploration of
ing of beginning university foreign language stu- the historical relationship between theory and practice in
dents. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294. second language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Horwitz, E. K. (1990). Attending to the affective domain Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strate-
in the foreign language classroom. In S. Magnan gies: A synthesis of studies with implications for
(Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.
(pp. 15-33). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Confer- Salomone, A. M. (1998). Communicative grammar
ence on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. teaching: A problem for and a message from inter-
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students' and teachers' beliefs national teaching assistants. Foreign Language An-
about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, nals, 31, 552-566.
28, 71-92. Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and impli- perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89-102.
cations. London: Longman. Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign
Krashen, S. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A re- language classroom: Students' and teachers' views
view of some recent studies. Foreign Language An- on error correction and the role of grammar. For-
nals, 32, 245-257. eign Language Annals, 29, 343-364.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign
experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
140-149.
Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second
Lee,J., & Valdman, A. (2000). Form and meaning: Multiplelanguage acquisition and learning. Modern Lan-
perspectives. Boston: Heinle. guage Journal, 61, 325-336.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in
Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrong with oral grammar
focus on form. In C. Doughty &J. Williams (Eds.), correction? Canadian Modern Language Review, 55,
Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition 437-456.
(pp. 177-196). New York: Cambridge University
Valette, R. M. (1991). Proficiency and the prevention of
Press.
fossilization--An editorial. Modern Language Jour-
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: nal, 75, 325-328.
Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty &J. Wenden, A. L. (1986). What do second-language learn-
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second ers know about their language learning? A second
language acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cam- look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics,
bridge University Press. 7, 187-201.
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). A Wipf, J. (1993, May). Error correction in theforeign language
response to Truscott's "What's wrong with oral classroom: A student perspective. Paper presented at
grammar correction." Canadian Modern Language the Pacific Northwest Council on Foreign Lan-
Review, 55, 457-467. guages Conference, Eugene, OR.

APPENDIX

The appendix lists the actual wording of the questions as they appeared on the U.S. Student Ques
U.S. Teacher Questionnaire (B), the Colombian Student Questionnaire (C), and the Colombian Tea
naire (D).

1A. The formal study of grammar is essential to eventual mastery of a foreign language.
lB. For adolescents or adults, the formal study of grammar is essential to the eventual mastery of
language learning is limited to the classroom.
IC. El estudio formal de la gramaitica es esencial para un eventual dominio de un idioma extranj
1D. Para que los adolescentes y adultos eventualmente puedan Ilegar a dominar un idioma extra
de la gramaitica es esencial, sobretodo si el aprendizaje se limita a la experiencia en el sal6n de
2A. I believe my foreign language improves most quickly if I study and practice the grammar of a
2B. Generally speaking, students' communicative ability improves most quickly if they study
grammar of the language.
2C. Siento que mejoro mucho en mi idioma extranjero cuando estudio y practico la gramaitica.
2D. En terminos generales, las habilidades comunicativas del estudiante mejoran si ellos estudia
gramaitica del idioma extranjero.

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 258 The Modern Language Journal 85 (2001)
3A. The study of grammar helps in learning a foreign language
3B. The study of grammar helps in learning a FL/L2.
3C. El estudio de la gramattica contribuye al aprendizaje de un
3D. El estudio de la gramaitica ayuda al aprendizaje del idioma
4A. I like the study of grammar.
4B. Students generally like the study of grammar.
4C. Me gusta estudiar gramaitica.
4D. A los estudiantes, en general, les gusta estudiar gramttica.
5A. There should be more formal study of grammar in my fo
5B. Generally, there should be more formal grammar study in
5C. Deberia haber mis estudio de la gramaitica en mis clases d
5D. En general, se deberia estudiar la gramaitica mis formalme
que se estudia actualmente.
6A. I usually keep grammar rules in mind when I write in a for
6B. Students usually keep grammar rules in mind when they wr
6C. Cuando escribo en un idioma extranjero o cuando leo lo
gramaticales.
6D. Por lo general, los estudiantes se acuerdan de las reglas gramaticales cuando escriben en el idioma extranjero
(o segundo idioma) o cuando leen lo que escribieron.
7A. It is more important to practice a foreign language in real-life situations (i.e., ask and answer questions, engage
in role-plays or other simulations, etc.) than to study and practice grammatical patterns.
7B. It is, generally, more important to practice a FL/L2 in situations simulating real life (i.e., interview, role plays,
etc.) than to analyze and practice grammatical patterns.
7C. Es mis importante practicar un idioma extranjero en situaciones parecidas a las de la vida real (preguntas y
respuestas, dramatizaciones u otras simulaciones) que estudiar y practicar la gramtitica.
7D. En general es mts importante practicar el idioma extranjero o segundo idioma en situaciones que simulen la
vida real (entrevistas, dramatizaciones, etc.) que analizar y practicar la gramattica.
8A. I dislike it when I am corrected in class.
8B. Most students dislike it when they are corrected in class.
8C. No me gusta que me corrijan en clase.
8D. A la mayorfa de los estudiantes les molesta que los corrijan en clase.
9A. Teachers should not correct students when they make errors in class.
9B. Teachers should not correct students' pronunciation or grammatical errors in class unless these errors
interfere with comprehensibility.
9C. Los profesores no deben corregir a los alumnos cuando cometen errores en clase.
9D. Los profesores no deberian corregir los errores gramaticales o de pronunciaci6n que los estudiantes cometen
en clase, a menos que estos interfieran con la comprensi6n.
10A. I feel cheated if a teacher does not correct the written work I hand in.
10B. Most students feel cheated if a teacher does not correct the written work they hand in.
10C. Me molesta cuando mi profesor(a) no corrige los trabajos que le entrego.
10D. A la mayoria de los estudiantes les molesta cuando los profesores no corrigen los trabajos que ellos han
entregado.
11A. When I make errors in speaking this language, I would like my teacher to correct them.
11 B. Generally, when students make errors in speaking the target language, they should be corrected.
11C. Cuando cometo errores al hablar en el idioma me gusta que mi profesor(a) me corrija.
11D. Por lo general, si un estudiante comete un error al hablar en el idioma extranjero se le debe corregir.
12A. When I make errors in writing this language, I would like my teacher to correct them.
12B. Generally, when students make errors in writing the target language, they should be corrected.
12C. Cuando cometo errores al escribir en un idioma extranjero me gusta que mi profesor(a) me corrija.
12D. Por lo general, si un estudiante tiene errores en un trabajo escrito, estos deben ser corregidos.
13A. I prefer to be corrected by my fellow students in small group work rather than by my teacher in front of the
entire class.

Spanish version: Prefiero que mis compafieros de clase me corrijan en grupos pequefios a que me corrija mi
profesor(a) en frente de toda la clase.
13B. I learn a lot when my teacher corrects the errors made by my fellow students in class.
Spanish version: Aprendo mucho cuando mi profesor(a) corrige los errores que cometen mis compafieros de
clase.

13C. I learn a lot when my teacher corrects the errors I make in class.
Spanish version: Aprendo mucho cuando mi profesor(a) me corrige los errores que cometo en clase.

This content downloaded from

137.92.99.84 on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:15:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms