The Grammar Translation Method and the Communicative Approach have both played of import functions in grammar instruction. Which is better. the Grammar Translation Method or the Communicative Approach? This paper aims to compare the controllability and feasibleness of these two attacks and happen out which one is more suited for grammar instruction in Taiwan. Two categories were selected and taught by the Grammar Translation Method and the Communicative Approach severally. The college admittance trial showed that they portion a similar degree of the overall English proficiency before the intercession. The pre-test demonstrated that there wasn’t any differentiation between the two categories in their grammatical competency. The post-test embodied that there was important difference in their grammatical competency between the two categories. The tonss of the pupils in the Experimental Class were higher than that in the Control Class. The consequence showed that grammar instruction in the model of the Grammar Translation Method is better than the Communicative Approach. Nevertheless. the Communicative Approach emphasizes eloquence and the Grammar Translation Method is concerned with truth. Fluency and truth are the mark for English acquisition. So the best manner to better the state of affairs is to unite both methods in learning English Grammar.
Keywords: Grammar interlingual rendition method. Communicative attack. Grammar learning 1. Introduction
1. 1 The current state of affairs of grammar learning for English big leagues in colleges Curricula for English Majors require that grammar instruction should be arranged as portion of the plan. As one of the needed classs. grammar has been taught to English big leagues in universities and colleges for old ages. It is known that “grammar is a set of regulations that define how words ( or parts of words ) are combined or changed to organize acceptable units of intending within a language” ( Penny. 2000 ) . Guaranting the truth of the sentences chiefly depends on the learner’s command of grammar. Grammar. which is an indispensable portion of a linguistic communication. is so of import that the instructors and pupils have ever attached great importance to grammar instruction and acquisition. For the above-named grounds. how to do grammar instruction and larning effectual and efficient is an of import undertaking for both English instructors and research workers.
Although college English instruction and larning research in Taiwan has undergone great alterations during the past decennaries. The current grammar instruction in colleges is still characterized by the acceptance of the traditional instruction method. which is known as the Grammar Translation Method. With this theoretical account. linguistic communication constructions are presented by the instructor. so practiced in the signifier of spoken or written exercisings. and so used by the scholars in less controlled speech production or composing activities. Although the traditional grammar learning method helps better the students’ command of the grammatical regulations. the pupils can non utilize these regulations flexibly and suitably in communicating. That is to state. the traditional grammar learning method has its disadvantages which prevent the pupils from developing their communicative competency. First. the traditional grammar learning method is teacher-centered. As a consequence. the bulk of the schoolroom clip is spent on the teachers’ luxuriant account of English grammar regulations. while all the pupils are either listening or taking notes.
Therefore small attending is paid to the development of English communicative competency. The pupils accept the English cognition passively in the processs set in front of clip by English instructors measure by measure. There is small usage of the English linguistic communication. The typical exercising is to interpret sentences from English into Taiwanese or frailty versa. to make full in the space with a proper word and to rectify mistakes in a sentence. So the pupils lack English communicative chances. Second. memorisation and rote acquisition are the basic acquisition techniques. which can non assist to elicit students’ involvement. construct their assurance or better their communicative schemes in English acquisition and even makes them fear English grammar acquisition. An alternate to the traditional grammar learning method is the Communicative Approach. The Communicative Approach makes linguistic communication learning as in real-world state of affairs. Grammar acquisition is emphasized by communicating through the attacks of ‘learning by doing’ . through students’ engagement or co-operative completion of learning undertakings between or among pupils and instructors. so grammar can be acquired of course by scholars. 1. 2 Significance of the research
For decennaries. English grammar learning in Taiwan has been greatly influenced by some traditional instruction methods. such as the Grammar Translation Method. the Direct Method. and the Audio-lingual Method. The Communicative Language Teaching or Communicative Approach was introduced into Taiwan in the late seventiess. Fostering the communicative competency is its cardinal end. Communicative competency is concerned non merely with what is grammatical but what is appropriate in a given societal state of affairs. Hymes ( 1972 ) proposes that linguistic communication should be taught in communicative state of affairss in order for scholars to accomplish communicative competency. Learners should non merely be equipped with linguistic communication cognition. but besides be capable of suitably utilizing the foreign linguistic communication in assorted state of affairss. However. it has been bit by bit assumed among the bookmans and instructors in Taiwan that communicative competency makes the ultimate aim of English Language instruction. and the Communicative Approach. if wholly and good conceived. does non affect the rejection of grammar. On the contrary. it involves acknowledgment of its cardinal mediating function in the usage and acquisition of linguistic communication ( Widdowson. 1978 ) . What English linguistic communication learning in Taiwan counts is to do a good dialogue between the traditional and modern instruction method ; to do a proper construct of communicative competency and develop a flexible communicative manner to formal direction in the schoolroom.
What is called grammatical competency has been regarded as a important constituent of learner’s communicative competency by many linguists ( Stern. 1992 ; Richards. 2004 ) . In add-on. the ups-and-downs of ELT in Taiwan in recent decennaries has given us contemplation on it. Many Chinese bookmans and experts have discussed and confirmed the possibilities of the combination of the Grammar Translation Method and the Communicative Approach and there is a turning rejoinder of the function of grammatical direction in the schoolroom. Based on the impression of communicative competency and the important function of grammar instruction. this paper purpose to happen out which one ( Communicative Approach and Grammar Translation Method ) is more suited for grammar instruction in College instruction in Taiwan.
2. Literature reappraisal
2. 1 Grammar instruction
2. 1. 1 Definition of grammar
In the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English with Chinese Translation. grammar is referred to as “study or scientific discipline of. regulations for. the words into sentences ( sentence structure ) . and the signifiers of words ( morphology ) ” . The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines grammar as “the survey of usage of the regulations by which words change their signifiers and are combined into sentences. ” In fact. grammar is “multi-dimensional” ( Batstone. 1994 ) and has multi-meanings. It is by and large thought to be a set of regulations for taking words and seting words together to do sense. Every linguistic communication has grammar. It has been held that if a linguistic communication is a edifice. the words are bricks and the grammar is the architect’s program. One may hold a million bricks. but do non do a edifice without a program. Similarly. if a individual knows a million English words. but he doesn’t cognize how to set them together. so he can non talk English ( Brumfit. 2000 ) . In other words. grammar is a model to depict linguistic communications. 2. 1. 2 Principles of grammar instruction
Looking at what rules can steer us in the instruction of grammar. Both Hedge and Thornbury ( 2001 ) give us some worthy replies. Hedge ( 2000 ) considers that the presentation of grammar to scholars should ease larning in many ways: It can supply input for detecting end product and accurate signifiers of English ; it can show high-frequency grammatical points explicitly to rush up acquisition ; it can supply information about the communicative usage of linguistic communication constructions by contextualizing them in spoken and written signifier ; it can give information implicitly through exposure to illustrations or explicitly through direction on the stylistic fluctuation of linguistic communication signifier.
Thornbury ( 2001 ) summarizes some regulations of pollex about the instruction of grammar: ( 1 ) the Rule of Context—teaching grammar in context. i. e. learning grammatical signifiers in association with significances ( The pick of one grammatical signifier over another is ever determined by the intending the talker or author wants to convey ) ; ( 2 ) the Rule of Use—teaching grammar in order to ease the learners’ comprehension and production of existent linguistic communication. instead than as an terminal in itself ; ( 3 ) the Rule of Economy—to carry through the regulation of usage. be economical ( conserving on presentation clip in order to supply maximal pattern clip ) ; ( 4 ) the Rule of Relevance-teach merely the grammar that pupils have jobs with ( get downing off by happening out what pupils already know. and don’t assume that the grammar of English is a entirely different system from the learners’ female parent lingua ) ; ( 5 ) the Rule of Nurture—teaching doesn’t needfully do learning—not in any way ( instead than happening as flashes of penetration. linguistic communication acquisition is more frequently than non a procedure of gradual estimate.
Alternatively of learning grammar. seek to supply the right conditions for grammar acquisition ) ; ( 6 ) the Rule of Appropriacy—interpret all the above regulations harmonizing to the degrees. demands. involvements. outlooks and larning manners of the pupils ( Giving a batch of prominence to grammar. or it may intend really learning grammar at all—in any up-front manner ) . Ellis defines the definition of grammar learning from a wide sense: Grammar learning involves any instructional technique that draws learners’ attending to some specific grammatical signifier in such a manner that it helps them either to understand it metalinguistically and/or procedure it in comprehension and/or production so that they can internalise it ( Ellis. 2006 ) . 2. 2 A brief study of Grammar Translation Method
2. 2. 1 The history of Grammar Translation Method
In the Western universe. “foreign” linguistic communication acquisition in schools was synonymous with the acquisition of Latin or Greek. Latin. thought to advance intellectuality through “mental gymnastics” . was merely until comparatively late held to be indispensable to an adequate higher instruction. Latin was taught by agencies of what has been called the Classical Method: focal point on grammatical regulations. memorisation of vocabulary and of assorted declensions and junctions interlingual rendition of texts. making written exercisings. ( Brown. H. D. . 1994 ) As other linguistic communications began to be taught in educational establishments in the eighteenth and 19th centuries. the Classical Method was adopted as the head means for learning foreign linguistic communications. Small idea was given to learning unwritten usage of linguistic communications. After all. linguistic communications were non being taught chiefly to larn oral/aural communicating but to larn for the interest of being “scholarly” or. in some cases. for deriving a reading proficiency in a foreign linguistic communication. Since there was small if any theoretical research on 2nd linguistic communication acquisition in general. or on the acquisition of reading proficiency. foreign linguistic communications were taught as any other accomplishment was taught. In the 19th century. the Classical Method came to be known as the Grammar Translation Method.
Grammar-Translation Method began in Germany. or more accurately. Prussia. at the terminal of the 18th century and established an about inviolable place as the favorite methodological analysis of the Prussia Gymnasien after their enlargement in the early old ages of the 19th century. The beginnings of the method do non lie in an effort to learn linguistic communications by grammar and interlingual rendition. these were taken for given anyhow. The original motive was reformer. the traditional scholastic attack among single scholars in the 18th century had been to get scholars a reading cognition of foreign linguistic communications by analyzing a grammar and using this cognition to the reading of texts with the usage of a dictionary. Most of them were extremely educated work forces and adult females who were trained in classical grammar and cognize how to use the familiar classs to new linguistic communications. However scholastic methods of this sort were non good suited to the capablenesss of younger school students and. moreover. they were self-study methods which were inappropriate for group instruction in the schoolroom.
The Grammar-Translation Method was an effort to accommodate these traditions to the fortunes and demands of schools. Its chief purpose was to do linguistic communication larning easier. The cardinal characteristic was the replacing of traditional texts by model sentences. Grammar-Translation was the progeny of German scholarship. the object of which. harmonizing to one of its lupus erythematosus charitable critics. was “to know everything about something instead than the thing itself” ( W H. D Rouse. quoted in Kelly 1969 ) .
2. 2. 2 Previous Related Researches into Grammar Translation Method The related researches are as follows:
( 1 ) Stern. H. H. ( 1992 ) in his book “Issues and Options in Language Teaching” indicates “a incompatible analysis. merely as the comparative linguistics surveies. is so really of import for the 2nd linguistic communication scholar. Therefore interlingual rendition in one signifier or another can play a certain portion in linguistic communication learning” . ( 2 ) Brown H. D. ( 1994 ) . in his Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. provinces “It does virtually nil to heighten a student’s communicative ability in the linguistic communication. ” ( 3 ) Cunningham. C. ( 2000 ) in the paper “Translation in the Classroom- a Useful Tool for Second Language Acquisition” indicates “while there may so be some negative effects from utilizing interlingual rendition. there is a topographic point in the acquisition environment for interlingual rendition. Translation can lend to the students’ acquisition of the mark linguistic communication. at all levels” .
( 4 ) Austin J Damiani ( 2003 ) in his paper “The Grammar Translation Method of Language Teaching” states “As a instructor. I liked utilizing the grammar interlingual rendition method because I could presume the intelligence of my pupils ; I could speak to them like the intelligent people that they are. and we could speak about the grammar and vocabulary that I was learning. In another method. I would hold had to utilize simple linguistic communication and familiar phrases to pass on in the mark linguistic communication. and even so. I could non be certain that my pupils knew and understood what it was that they were stating. ”
2. 3 The positive positions on the Grammar Translation Method
Duff. unlike the behaviourists. has a positive position of the function of the learner’s female parent lingua in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. He says that our first linguistic communication signifiers our manner of thought and. to some extent. shapes our usage of the foreign linguistic communication ( pick of words. word order. sentence construction. etc. ) . Translation helps us understand the influence of one linguistic communication on the other. e. g. . countries of possible mistakes caused by negative transportation from the first linguistic communication. Fully cognizant of the intervention. pupils will seek to avoid doing such mistakes when executing in the 2nd linguistic communication. When mistakes do occur. the pupils will be able to explicate why and seek non to do the same errors once more.
Chellapan ( 1982 ) in his paper “Translanguage. Translation and Second Language Acquisition” . points out: “Translation can do the pupil semen to closer clasps with the mark linguistic communication. A coincident consciousness of two media could really do the pupil see the points of convergence and divergency more clearly and besides polish the tools of perceptual experience and analysis ensuing in divergent thought. ” A incompatible analysis. as in the comparative linguistics surveies. “is so really of import for the 2nd linguistic communication scholar. Therefore. interlingual rendition in one signifier or another can play a certain portion in linguistic communication learning” ( Stern. 1991 ) . By following a incompatible survey attack. similar to the interlinear interlingual rendition employed in comparative linguistics. pedagogical interlingual rendition would non merely assist uncover the structural characteristics of L2 by agencies of Ll and expose the similarities and differences on assorted lingual degrees between the two linguistic communications to the scholar. but by stand foring these constructions of L2 in manner to accommodate to the norms of Ll. produces a clear TT ( Target Text ) for the learner’s easy mention.
2. 4 Communicative Approach ( CA )
In contrast to the Grammar Translation Method is the “revolutionary” Communicative Approach. which shifts attending from linguistic communication competency to communicative competency. Communicative Language Teaching ( CLT ) originated from Europe. with the increasing mutuality of European states in the sixtiess. CLT spread into Taiwan in the late seventiess. and has been applied in both advanced and cardinal instruction up to the present. Both American and British advocates now see it as an attack that aims to ( a ) make communicative competency as the end of linguistic communication instruction and ( B ) develop processs for the instruction of the four linguistic communication accomplishments. “The Communicative Language Teaching stresses the importance of supplying scholars with chances to utilize English for communicative intents and efforts to incorporate such activities into a broad plan of linguistic communication teaching” ( Howatt. 1984 ) . Harmonizing to this attack. instruction and acquisition are for communicating. It presupposes that linguistic communication ever occurs in a societal context. and it should non be divorced from its context when it is being taught. Learning in order to pass on is now platitude.
2. 4. 1 The background of Communicative Approach
In 1971 a group of experts began to look into the possibility of developing linguistic communication classs on a unit-credit system. a system in which acquisition undertakings are broken down into “portions or units. each of which corresponds to a constituent of a learner’s demands and is consistently related to all the other portions” ( Va Ek & A ; Alexander. 1980 ) . The group used surveies of the demands of European linguistic communication scholars. and in peculiar a preliminary papers prepared by a British linguist. Wilkins ( 1972 ) . which proposed a functional or communicative definition of linguistic communication that could function as a footing for developing communicative course of studies for linguistic communication instruction. Wilkins’s part was an analysis of the communicative significances that a linguistic communication scholar needs to understand and show. Rather than depict the nucleus of linguistic communication through traditional constructs of grammar and vocabulary. Wilkins attempted to show the systems of significances that lay behind the communicative utilizations of linguistic communication.
He described two types of significances: fanciful classs ( constructs such as clip. sequence. measure. location. frequence ) and classs of communicative map ( petitions. denials. offers. ailments ) . Wilkins subsequently reviewed and expanded his papers into a book called Notional Syllabuses ( Wilkins. 1976 ) . which had a important impact on the development of the Communicative Approach. The Council of Europe incorporated his semantic/communicative analysis into a set of specifications for a first-level communicative linguistic communication course of study. The threshold degree specifications ( Va Ek & A ; Alexander. 1980 ) have had a strong influence on the design of communicative linguistic communication plans and text editions in Europe. The work of the Council of Europe ; the Hagiographas of Wilkins ( 1976 ) . Widdowson ( 1999 ) . Brumfit ( 2000 ) . Keith Johnson ( 1999 ) . and other British applied linguists on the theoretical footing for a communicative or functional attack to linguistic communication instruction ; the rapid application of these thoughts by text edition authors ; and the every bit rapid credence of these new rules by British linguistic communication instruction specializers. course of study development centres. and even authoritiess gave prominence nationally and internationally to what came to be referred to as the Communicative Approach. Although the motion began as a mostly British invention. since the mid-1970s the range of CA has expanded widely.
2. 4. 2 Reasons for the Communicative Approach non suited for Chinese college pupils 2. 4. 2. 1 The negative positions on the Communicative Approach Widdowson ( 1999 ) says that “learners do non really readily deduce cognition of the linguistic communication system from their communicative activities. ”“Communicative Language Teaching ( CLT ) values. among other things. learner-centeredness. which is. giving the scholars more duty and engagement in the acquisition procedure. This is frequently achieved through find acquisition activities and through group work as opposed to the traditional teacher-fronted lesson. CLT besides takes a comparatively relaxed attitude towards truth in the belief that intending takes precedency over signifier. Finally. CLT has inherited the humanist position that linguistic communication is an look of personal significance. instead than an look of a common civilization. Such impressions. it is argued. derive from really Western beliefs about instruction and linguistic communication. Its critics argue that CLT is an inappropriate methodological analysis in those cultural contexts where the instructor is regarded as a font of wisdom. and where truth is valued more extremely than fluency” ( Thornbury. S. . 2003 ) .
The Communicative Approach has come under onslaught from instructors for being prejudiced in favour of native-speaker instructors by demanding a comparatively uncontrolled scope of linguistic communication usage on the portion of the pupil. and therefore anticipating the instructor to be able to react to any and every linguistic communication job which may come up. In advancing a methodological analysis which is based around group and brace work. with teacher intercession kept to a lower limit during. state. a role-play. the Communicative Approach may besides pique against educational traditions which it aimed to replace. The Communicative Approach has sometimes been seen as holding eroded the expressed instruction of grammar with a attendant loss among pupils in truth in the chase of fluency” ( Harmer J. . 2003 ) .
Harmonizing to Ma Yinchu and Huang Jinyan ( 1992 ) . its other demerits besides deserve our attending: ( 1 ) It makes greater demands upon the professional preparation and accomplishment of the instructors. The instructor has to cognize when to take portion and when to stand aside. In footings of readying and professional accomplishment in cognizing when and how to steer or go forth the pupils entirely. it demands really much more energy and adaptability from the instructor. The instructor besides needs to be more confident in utilizing the foreign linguistic communication. ( 2 ) It does non offer the instructor the security of the text edition. Whereas. with more traditional attacks. it is adequate for the instructor to follow the text edition. here it is necessary for him to choose. adapt and contrive the stuffs he uses. ( 3 ) Because it appears to travel against traditional pattern. it frequently meets with resistance. particularly from older instructors and scholars ( Ma Yinchu & A ; Huang Jinyan. 1992 ) .
Besides. harmonizing to Xu Yingcai ( 1991 ) . linguistic communication is like an ocean consisting of. so to talk. so many syntactic and lexical inside informations every bit good as so many functional and fanciful possibilities that evidently no 2nd linguistic communication scholar is able to cover them all in his or her survey. This is particularly true of the pupils trained under the Communicative Approach. since they are bound to sentences’ peculiar maps. Therefore. they are sometimes inescapably required to show what they have ne’er come across in their survey. In this instance. they are forced to make something of their ain. As they lack the cognition of grammar. they are likely to do grammatically wrong sentences. Therefore. the Communicative Approach encourages some grammatical inaccuracy. In add-on to the above-named disadvantages. direct rectification of speech mistakes is normally avoided if they do non earnestly impact the communicative intents.
This sort of pattern may take to fossilisation of learner’s mistakes. 2. 4. 2. 2 The Reasons for the Communicative Approach is non accepted by Chinese college pupils However. the application of the communicative linguistic communication attack in Asia states hasn’t provided expected consequences. Burnaby and Sun’s survey ( 1989 ) claimed that instructors in China found it hard to utilize communicative linguistic communication attack because of the category sizes. resources and equipment. Sano et Al. ( 1984 ) point out that the participants in the survey did non experience a pressing demand to utilize English. so that the end of communicative competency seemed excessively distant for them. Ellis ( 1994 ) . who studied communicative linguistic communication attack in Vietnam. besides confirmed that the category size. grammar-based scrutinies. and deficiency of exposure to reliable linguistic communication as restraints on utilizing communicative linguistic communication attack.
There are three grounds why communicative attack is non accepted by Asiatic pupils. ( 1 ) Harmonizing to Larson-Freeman ( 1986 ) . the most obvious features of CLT is that everything that is done with a communicative attack. In CLT. There is supposed to be a assortment of activities which provide pupils chances to pattern pass oning meaningfully in different contexts. Nevertheless. pupils in Taiwan intend to tie in games and similar activities with amusement and are disbelieving of their usage as acquisition tools. Students. Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education who have learned English in a teacher-centered attack. have been used to go toing categories on reading and grammar constructions. It is non unusual to hold inquiries like “Could you explain the sentence for me. Could you translation this sentence into Chinese? ” . “Why is the past perfect tense used here? ” Students are eager to understand every word in the context and particular grammar construction. As a consequence. most of the clip is spent on the teacher’s luxuriant account of linguistic communication points and small attending is paid to the preparation of students’ communicative competency.
( 2 ) Communicative competency is indispensable for those who want to analyze in an English-speaking state. Lu ( 2004 ) . a high school instructor who applied the communicative attack in his category. points out that the communicative attack can non be used in China because life in China and hearing and talking Chinese all twenty-four hours. believing in English is impossible as few people have chances to interact with aliens. The state of affairs is same here in Taiwan ; most of the pupils do non necessitate to utilize English except in the English category and most of the pupils in universities have ne’er had a opportunity to see any English-speaking states so that they have small cognition about English allow entirely the civilization of English-speaking states. If the instructor insists on inquiring the pupils to discourse or talk out without allowing them understand the cultural facets of the linguistic communication they are supposed to utilize. it is improbable for pupils to pass on freely in category.
( 3 ) The communicative attack might hold been proved to be the best manner of preparation pupils in ESL scholars. However. it doesn’t run into the demands of scholars in distant lands. who learn English for a different intent and who have no hope of of all time sing the mark state and no desire to follow the mark civilization. 3. Methodology
3. 1 Purpose of the Experiment
The followers are concrete descriptions of all the intent for the experiment: The first research aims to detect whether scholars in the experimental category can do a important advancement in grammar acquisition after sing an experimental semester. The 2nd research is designed for the intent of seeing through the experimental semester whether scholars in the experimental category can do more advancement in grammar acquisition than those in the control category. The 3rd research aims to happen out whether the Grammar Translation Method is more effectual in bettering learners’ larning assurance. and motive than the Communicative Approach?
3. 2 Subjects
In the experiment. two categories were selected from Applied Foreign Language Department as the Experimental Class and Control Class. The accomplishment of the college admittance trial showed that they portion a similar degree of the overall English proficiency. The two categories were taught by the Grammar Translation Method and the Communicative Approach severally. and they both have grammar lessons three times a hebdomad. 3. 3 Instruments and the Design
( 1 ) Pre-test: Pre-test is used to prove the subjects’ grammatical competency before the experiment. The proving paper for the pre-test includes 50 multiple picks with a full grade of 100. If the pupil gets one of them correct. he/she will acquire 2 Markss. Otherwise. he/she will acquire 0. The contents of the proving paper include the undermentioned grammatical points: No. 1-10 are to prove the subjects’ imperatives ; No. 11-20 are to prove the subjects’ inactive voice ; No. 21-30 are to prove the subjects’ prenominal clause ; No. 31-40 are to prove the subjects’ infinite verbs ; No. 41-50 are to prove the subjects’ subjunctive temper.
( 2 ) Post-test: Post-test is used to prove the subjects’ grammatical competency after the experiment. The proving paper for the post-test includes 50 multiple picks with a full grade of 100. If the pupil gets one of them correct. he/she will acquire 2 Markss. Otherwise. he/she will acquire 0. The contents of the proving paper include the undermentioned grammatical points: No. 1-10 are to prove the subjects’ imperatives ; No. 11-20 are to prove the subjects’ inactive voice ; No. 21-30 are to prove the subjects’ prenominal clause ; No. 31-40 are to prove the subjects’ infinite verbs ; No. 41-50 are to prove the subjects’ subjunctive temper.
( 3 ) Questionnaire: The questionnaire used after the instruction experiment is to research students’ attitude and reaction to the learning attack they receive during the twelvemonth. It includes some multiple-choice inquiries. The inquiries are about the students’ sentiments about grammar acquisition and instruction. their English grammar larning involvement. motive and assurance after the experiment. Before pupils answer the inquiries in the questionnaires written in English. the instructor and writer will explicate the inquiries carefully to vouch that the pupils have a thorough apprehension of the inquiries and the consequences will reflect the idea of pupils truthfully. The questionnaires will be completed by all the topics. 42 from experimental group and 44 from control group. After the completion of the questionnaires. the information will be collected and analyzed.
