Citation
A study of communicative grammar instruction for Korean second language learners' writing and skills in English

Material Information

Title:
A study of communicative grammar instruction for Korean second language learners' writing and skills in English
Creator:
Yang, Sung Hwa, 1971-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 222 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
English teachers ( jstor )
Foreign language learning ( jstor )
Grammar ( jstor )
Language ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Learning experiences ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Writing ( jstor )
Writing instruction ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Instruction and Curriculum -- UF ( lcsh )
Instruction and Curriculum thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1999.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 218-221).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sung Hwa Yang.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
030368409 ( ALEPH )
69106197 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











A STUDY OF COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION FOR KOREAN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS'
WRITING SKILLS IN ENGLISH











BY

SUNG HWA YANG














A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1999












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



This dissertation has been a year collaboration crafted and supported by many people, none of whom accept simple solutions for complex problems. My deep appreciation goes to all the teachers and the Korean students who participated in this study. Three grammar classroom teachers of this intensive English language program of one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America permitted me to observe their classes and participated voluntarily in the interviews. Four reading/writing class teachers of the intensive English language program gave me access to Korean students' writing samples. Seven Korean students participated in the interviews providing me with the perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over the study's period. They also showed me their writing samples over time faithfully. I appreciate most their willingness to speak thoughtfully and honestly during the interview processes.

Words cannot express the gratitude I feel toward Dr. Clemens Hallman. As my supervisor and committee chair throughout my graduate study at the University of Florida, he invited me into the professional conversation, encouraging me to work harder in my major area of study. He always guided me in the right direction. He was the first faculty member to believe in my ability and





ii








to show an interest in the ethnographic case study in an intensive English language program. He was kind, enthusiastic, and intelligent.

In addition, I was extremely fortunate to work with an exemplary doctoral committee, a veritable goldmine of expertise. It was a very supportive committee. Their collective wisdom guided my research skills and their individual kindness fostered more fundamental beliefs. Dr. David Miller guided me to do a qualitative study when I first discussed with him the nature of the study. With his correct guidance, I succeeded in conducting the study with the right research method.

Dr. Roger Thompson taught me what kind of data I should collect and how to analyze the collected data for this study. He inspired me with the ideas of English education for second language learners in his courses, especially in the 'Second Language Acquisition' course. In that course, I first formulated an idea for doing a study of communicative grammar. His gentle ways of suggestion helped me to accept his ideas.

Dr. Jane Townsend guided my growth as a qualitative researcher. From her I learned how to use many different tools appropriate to the task. She nudged me to make my wonderings visible. Conversations with her inspired and guided me, helping me formulate questions. Her own research served as a model for mine, demonstrating the art and quality possible in educational research. I admire her wit and wisdom. She was a very supportive but critical teacher for me.

On a personal note, I owe my deepest thanks to my family whose belief in me has helped me to believe in myself. Jae Chul Yang and Jung Won Baeck, my loving and very devoted parents, have always been proud of their daughter and


iii








supported her study from the far distance of South Korea. My kind parents-in-law who funded my graduate study here in the University of Florida deserve my deepest appreciation. I finally thank my husband for his patience and help throughout my graduate study.










































iv














TABLE OF CONTENTS




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................. ...................... ii

ABSTRACT ........... ................................... vii

CHAPTERS

I INTRODUCTION................................................... 1

B ackground ........................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ...................................................... 4
Research Questions ................................................... ..................... 5
Significance of the Study .............................................. 6
Definition of Terms .................................... ........................ 8

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................... 11 I

Grammar Pedagogies ............................................ 11
Learning Style and Culture................................. 21
Communicative Approaches to Teaching English ................ ................... 30
Sum m ary .............................................................................. ................ 40

3 M E T H O D ................. ................................................................................... 43

Setting of the Study.. .............................................. ............... 44
Participants ............................................................................. .................... 45
Data Collection ......................................... 48
Data Analysis ........................... ................ 55

4 COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION .................................. 59

The Beginning Level Grammar Classroom ................. ......................... 59
The Intermediate Level Grammar Classroom ..................................... 65
The Advanced Level Grammar Classroom ................... ...... .......... 78
Sum m ary ............................................................................ ........ .... .......... 86

5 THE NATURE OF KOREAN STUDENTS' LANGUAGE LEARNING ... 88




V









C hu l Soo Song ................................................................... ................... 89
Ki Young Kwak ........... ....... ......... ..... .......... ....... 97
Soon Hee Cho. ...................................... 103
Young Soo Park... ............... .... ............ ............................... .. 109
Young Hee Jun .................................... .......... 116
Chul Ho Park ........................... ......... .... 124
Hyun W oo Choi ............................ ...................... 133
Summary ........... .................................. 141

6 WRITING SKILLS' DEVELOPMENT ........................................ 150

The Beginning Level W riting Samples ................................................... 151
The Intermediate Level Writing Samples ........................................ 156
The Advanced Level Writing Samples................................. 163
Summary ............................................ 185

7 SUM M ARY AND DISCUSSION .................. ........................................... 191

Summary of the Results ......................................... 192
Discussion .......................................... 199
Im plications...................................................................... .................. 205

APPENDICES

A INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOLS .................. ................. 212

B INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ........................................................................ 216

REFEREN CES .................. ........................ ............................ ......... 218

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................. ................ 222



















VI














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A STUDY OF COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION
FOR KOREAN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS' WRITING SKILLS IN ENGLISH By

Sung Hwa Yang

May 1999

Chair: Dr. Clemens L. Hallman
Major Department: Instruction & Curriculum



The academic skill of writing is a major concern area of English educators in South Korea. This study, conducted over a 7-month period in an intensive English language program of one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America, investigated the nature of six Korean students' writing development in relation to their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program.

Communicative grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program was described in detail as these Korean students' major English language learning in the intensive language program. This description was done through the analyses of the grammar class textbooks, the researcher's field notes taken during the grammar classroom observations, the audio-taped



vii








transcripts of real classroom lessons, and the three grammar teachers' interviews. Seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program were described through two in-depth interviews with them. Writing samples over a 7-month period in which these Korean students attended the program were collected under their reading/writing teachers' permissions and their permissions.

Results indicate that an inductive approach to grammar presentation where cases are presented first and then rules are presented, diverse authentic educational materials, and communicative grammar practice activities either in spoken or in written form were used in the grammar classes of the intensive English language program. The six Korean students showed development over time in their writing skills in terms of grammar, vocabulary, organization, content, and length. Significant factors that may have influenced these students' writing skills' development over time were found to be the Korean students' positive reactions to the communicative grammar instructional process and its teachers, the amount of reading done outside the program, and the amount of spoken interactions done both in and outside the program. The communicative grammar instruction and the integrated skills instruction could have implications for educational programs in South Korea.










viii












CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION



Background



The researcher's major field of study is Teaching English to Speakers of

Other Languages (ESOL). There are several important areas of concern for second language educators to worry about. They are the four language skills which are listening, speaking, reading, writing, in addition to grammar. Explicit and implicit grammatical abilities are directly related to second language students' reading and writing abilities. Therefore, effective grammar instruction is needed (CelceMurcia, 1985).

During the past 25 years, several approaches to English grammar instruction have been available to second language educators and second language students. However, none of them (Ellis, 1993) provided effective student learning outcomes. A new and innovative approach to grammar instruction that has appeared is the "communicative approach." In this approach, grammar is taught within meaningful contexts through real communication between language teachers and students (Mitchell & Redmond, 1993; Savignon, 1991). Several studies (Krashen, 1982; Prabhu, 1987; Swain, 1985) have advocated its effectiveness over other approaches.





2


The researcher's ethnicity is Korean. In South Korea, where English is

taught as a foreign language, effective grammar instruction is desperately needed. In South Korea, English is taught in middle and high schools as a foreign language curriculum. It is taught as a subject matter. Korean teachers who majored in English education at the Teachers' College in a university in South Korea teach the 'English' subject matter in middle and high schools. The English language is approached first through a detailed analysis of its grammar rules, followed by an application of this knowledge to the task of translating sentences and texts out of the target language into Korean. Therefore, memorizing grammar rules and facts is required in order to understand and manipulate the morphology and syntax of the foreign language which is English. In this way, the first language is maintained as the reference system in the acquisition of the second language (Stem, 1983). In this curriculum, reading out loud the textbook of the 'English' subject and reciting the memorized dialogues presented in the textbook consist of the speaking tasks. Listening to the text contents through audio-tapes played by the teacher consists of major listening tasks. Reading is done through the grammar translation work, and writing is done mainly through grammar exercises and translations of Korean into English.

Vocabulary selection is based solely on the readings of the English textbook, and words are taught through bilingual word lists, dictionary study, and memorization. The grammar rules are presented in the English textbook. The sentence is the basic unit of teaching and language practice. Much of the lesson is devoted to translating sentences out of the target language into Korean. Accuracy








is emphasized, and students are expected to attain high standards in translation. Grammar is taught deductively, that is, by presentation and study of grammar rules, which are then practiced intensively through pattern drills and through translation exercises. The students' and the instructor's native language which is Korean is the medium of instruction because the lessons are conducted in Korean. Effective grammar instruction is highly needed in South Korea because during the past 25 years, Korean students educated mainly in "grammar-translation" methods and "audiolingual" pattern drills produced low student learning outcomes on measures of the four English skills. The goal of English education in South Korea is to develop the students' ability to use English both in written form and in oral form (Canale & Swain, 1980). And traditional grammar instruction through "audiolingual" pattern drills and "grammar-translation" methods resulted in low student motivation and low student learning outcomes in both written and oral forms of English (Ellis, 1993).

Low student motivation existed in the traditional grammar instruction

because grammar was thought to be boring and uninteresting work which did not have anything to do with the students' own lives. Pattern drills and grammar translation work used in the traditional grammar instruction were too difficult and boring for the students (Richards & Rodgers, 1986), and therefore the traditional grammar instruction resulted in low student motivation. And research showed that low student learning motivation resulted in low student learning outcomes (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Therefore, an innovative "communicative" grammar








instruction may give some hope for Korean English educators to improve Korean students' academic skill of writing in English.

The researcher will describe the "communicative" grammar instruction

provided in an intensive English language program of one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America using diverse means, will explore seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program, and will investigate the nature of these Korean students' writing development over time in relation to all factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. The results of this study, then, may provide insight into the possibilities for "communicative" grammar instruction in South Korea as a new approach, and may provide insights into other factors that may influence Korean students' writing skills' development.



Statement of the Problem



The first research objective was to find what the approaches, the materials, and the activities were in the grammar classes for speakers of English as a second language in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. The purpose was to describe in detail what happens in "communicative" grammar instruction.





5


The second research objective was to explore seven Korean students'

perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program.

The third research objective of this study was to find the nature of these

Korean students' writing development over time in relation to all factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills.



Research Questions



The following research questions were examined in this study:

1. What were the approaches, the materials, and the activities in the grammar

classes for speakers of English as a second language in one major university's

intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United

States of America?

2. What were seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language

learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a

7-month period?

3. What was the nature of these Korean students' writing development over a 7month period in which they attended the intensive English language program?

What factors may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills?










Significance of the Study



This study investigated the "communicative" grammar instruction provided in an intensive English language program of one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. This investigation had a descriptive purpose, and this detailed description of significant instructional features there may provide some ideas about a possible implementation of the "communicative" grammar instruction in South Korea as a new English grammar pedagogy. Korean English language educators experienced ineffective English grammar teaching methods until now (Ellis, 1993); therefore, they need a new and effective method of teaching English grammar which may be "communicative" grammar instruction. This rationale is the first significance of the study.

Second, this study investigated what all seven Korean students attending the beginning, the intermediate, and the advanced grammar classes in the intensive English language program thought about the "communicative" grammar instructional process and their teachers. This study also investigated what their learning strategies were working with the "communicative" grammar instruction provided for them as a second research objective. Additionally, this study explored six Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program.

Several research studies (Krashen, 1977; Oxford, Hollaway, & HortonMurillo, 1992) suggest that language learning styles and culture are closely related.








Those studies elaborated this finding by saying that students' language learning experiences in a specific culture influence how a student from that culture goes about learning a second language in a different culture. Based on these findings, it was assumed that adult Korean students who had already been educated pretty much linguistically (English as a foreign language) using pattern drills and rote memorization skills (Lado, 1964; Richards & Rodgers, 1986) would also use these learning strategies working with the "communicative" grammar instruction they received here. Also it was assumed that different language learning experiences make second language learning students resistant to a new language instructional approach in a different culture (Oxford, Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992). Therefore, investigating how adult Korean students react to a new instructional approach here in the intensive English language program may provide insights on the possibilities for an implementation of "communicative" grammar instruction in South Korea. This rationale is the second significance of the study.

Third, this study aimed to investigate the nature of six Korean students' writing development over the time period in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. Explicit and implicit grammatical abilities are directly related to second language learners' reading and writing skills (CelceMurcia, 1985). Therefore, both explicit and implicit grammatical abilities developed in "communicative" grammar instruction were assumed to develop Korean students' writing skills in English; several past grammar pedagogies in South Korea failed to develop their academic skills in English (Ellis, 1993;





8


Gardner & Lambert, 1972). The exploration of six Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program in this study may provide some insights on factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills over time. These insights may help improve Korean students' writing skills in the near future in South Korea. This is the third significance of the study.

Many studies have been done in the area of communicative language

instruction (Ellis, 1992; Krashen, 1982; Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Prabhu, 1987), and they all investigated communicative language instruction and oral language proficiency with grammatical abilities. Therefore, the current study may also contribute theoretically to the literature on communicative language instruction by exploring the possible interplay between "communicative" grammar instruction and writing skills.



Definition of Terms



"Communicative" grammar instruction refers to instruction where grammar and communication are focused on at the same time to develop proficient second language users (Mitchell & Redmond, 1993). Contextualized grammar exercises like role-plays and discussion activities in small groups where students can use their newly learned grammatical skills to communicate with others are used in this kind of grammar instruction as spoken grammar practice activities. Also there are written grammar practice activities in this instruction. Writing their own stories





9


using the newly learned grammar skills to communicate with an instructor and writing movie reviews in small groups using the newly learned grammatical skills to communicate with one another and with the instructor are some examples of such activities.

Language learning strategies are behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed, and enjoyable (Oxford, 1989).

Cognitive academic language skills underlie the ability to manipulate

language in decontextualized academic situations. Therefore, these language skills usually involve reading and writing skills in the second language. These skills are usually used in decontextualized situations and are cognitively very demanding because students must think academically and find meanings only through second language texts (Cummins, 1980).

Basic interpersonal communication skills are the manifestation of language proficiency in everyday communicative contexts. These language skills are called the conversational language skills or social language skills in situations where people can interact with each other through contextual clues by facing each other (Cummins, 1980).

Language learning style is the general approach students use to learn a new subject or tackle a new problem (Oxford, Ehrman, & Lavine, 1991). Therefore, language learning styles form the overall patterns that give general direction to learning behavior. Dunn and Griggs (1988) describe language learning style as the





10


biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for some and terrible for others.












CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE



Chapter 2 is organized into four major components: (a) grammar

pedagogies, (b) learning style and culture, (c) communicative approaches to teaching English, and (d) overall summary of the literature reviewed.



Grammar Pedagogies



In this first section of the review of literature, past English grammar

pedagogies are reviewed and the need for the present study is explored. There have been several methodological trends in second and foreign language teaching of English. The first approach to teaching English grammar was the grammartranslation approach (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). In this approach, very difficult English texts were selected, and teachers and students contributed most of their time to translating the English texts into the students' and the teacher's first language. This approach mostly was used in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), a situation where the language instructor and the students shared their first language. Therefore, grammar was difficult work for the students and it was also boring work to do. Students learning English grammar in this approach have not been shown to attain much learning outcome.



11





12


A second approach was the audiolingual approach. The audiolingual

approach (Lado, 1964) represented the first attempt by U.S. structural linguists to influence the teaching of modern foreign languages. Grammatical structures were very carefully sequenced from basic to more complex. The audiolingual proponents assumed that language learning was habit formation and overlearning. Therefore, mimicry of forms and memorization of certain sentence patterns were the main activity types in this approach to have the second or foreign language learning students acquire English grammar rules inductively. A variety of drill types was used to minimize students' errors, and errors were seen as the result of interference from the students' first language.

The cognitive code approach was the third approach to appear for English grammar teaching. This approach was influenced by the work of linguists like Chomsky (1959) and was a reaction to the behaviorist features of the audiolingual approach. In this approach, language learning was viewed as rule acquisition rather than habit formation. Therefore, lots of pattern drills used in the audiolingual approach were not used but errors that students made were seen as very important to infer the students' developmental stages to reach the target language English grammar. Error analysis and correction, therefore, were the main classroom grammar teaching and learning activities. The source of errors was seen not only as transfer from the first language but also as the internal complexities of the target language. Still grammar was taught directly as already decided facts in transmission from the teacher to students. There was no real communication work using English grammar in these approaches. By real





13


communication work, the researcher means use of newly learnt grammar points in communication between the teacher and students and students to students themselves.

Ellis (1993) studied the structural syllabus mostly used in traditional

grammar approaches like the grammar-translation approach and the audiolingual approach, and second language acquisition. He suggested that a structural syllabus where learners were presented explicit grammar rules and their immediate production of the newly learned grammar items was required had a learnability problem. This learnability problem means that learners are often unable to learn the structural properties they are taught because the manner in which they are taught does not correspond to the way learners acquire them. This inability to learn the grammatical features through immediate production was because the structural syllabus required immediate mastery of newly learned grammatical forms which the learners were not ready to master yet. A developmental sequence of grammatical structure's acquisition was proposed by Krashen (1977), and it was really hard for learners to acquire grammatical items through immediate required production of them.

Therefore, a new role for a structural syllabus is its subsidiary role rather than a major role in grammatical instruction. Ellis said that comprehension of newly taught grammar items rather than production should be the main activity in an English grammar class. He said that this comprehension work of grammar develops intake facilitation, and this work facilitates the work of noticing the gap in learners' grammar, and then grammatical development happens. He said that





14


this intake facilitation works much better for second language acquisition than the development of implicit knowledge through audiolingual production work. Therefore, a comprehension and meaning-based syllabus where input for comprehension is carefully planned and structured to ensure that a learner is systematically exposed to specific grammatical features was needed based on his study. This meant that learners acquire their second language much better through a meaning-based syllabus which is designed to provide learners with opportunities for communicating in the second language. A notional-functional syllabus and a task-based syllabus belonged to this meaning-based syllabus. Therefore, a structural syllabus needed to be used alongside some kind of meaning-based syllabi where lots of comprehension work rather than required production work was emphasized and learners were provided with opportunities for real communication using newly learned grammar items after language comprehension work.

Lightbown (1985), in his review of second language acquisition research, showed two very important and interesting second language acquisition research generalizations supported by different researchers and groups of researchers working in different places and using a variety of research methods to study the performance of learners who represented a number of native languages and target languages. The first of them was the finding that practice does not make perfect. This generalization pointed out the ineffectiveness of lots of meaningless production tasks usually used in traditional grammar teaching approaches represented by the grammar-translation method and the audiolingual method.





15


Lightbown showed the findings that learners appeared to forget forms and structures which they had seemed previously to master and which they had extensively practiced.

The second generalization of research was the finding that knowing a language rule does not mean one will be able to use it in communicative interaction. This generalization pointed out the ineffectiveness of only rule teaching approach without meaningful explanation about the grammar rule and communicative practice using that grammar rule. Therefore, this generalizable finding meant that those explicit rule only teaching approaches have no real life communication transfer of grammar rules that a teacher taught and learners learned in some way.

The fourth approach that appeared to teach English grammar was the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983) influenced by Krashen's (1981) input hypothesis. This approach assumed that comprehension precedes production, and comprehensible input, using lots of meaningful contexts, facilitates learners' acquisition of grammar. Also error correction was not seen as necessary, and it was assumed that learners as they progress in their acquisition of English grammar correct themselves. After experiencing the silent period of language acquisition in which second language learners only do the language comprehension work, it was assumed in this approach that learners experience also the production stages from early speech to speech emergence as they get more and rich comprehensible input a little bit above their current level of ability.








Therefore, grammar was taught inductively in this approach, but there is no current strong supporting evidence that grammar is taught very well in this way.

The fifth, and the most recent approach to teaching English grammar, is the Communicative approach. This approach came to the fore in the mid 1970s and originated in the work of functional linguists in Britain (Halliday, 1973). Language is viewed as an instrument of communication in this approach. Communicative competence which is composed of grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980) is emphasized, and grammatical competence is seen as only one component of the whole nature of communicative competence. Therefore, grammar is taught in realistic everyday meaningful contexts such as students' own real lives outside the language classroom through real communication between language instructors and the students. In this approach, a grammatical syllabus (structural syllabus) is not used but instead a task-based syllabus, a content-based syllabus, and a notional-functional syllabus are used to teach English grammar contextually, meaningfully, and communicatively. These syllabi claim that communication is the goal of second or foreign language instruction, and a language course using one of these syllabi is not organized around grammar but around subject matter, tasks/projects, or semantic notions and pragmatic functions.

Savignon (1991) investigated the important features of what has come to be known as communicative language teaching (CLT). She said in this work that Communicative approach to language teaching is an international effort to





17


respond to the needs of present-day language learners in many different contexts of learning. Language use is the meaning making process through collaboration of the participants, and the terms that best represent the collaborative nature of what goes on are interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning. The communicative competence needed for participation includes not only grammatical competence but also pragmatic competence.

Savignon indicated the weakness of completely separated model of four skills of language use and the shortcomings of audiolingual methodology. With the Communicative approach to language teaching, there is now general acceptance of the complexity and interrelatedness of skills in both written and oral communication, and there is now the important need for learners to have the experience of communication and to participate in the negotiation of meaning to develop their communicative competence. An initial concern with sentence-level morphosyntactic features before the Communicative approach now expanded to include pragmatics, taking into account a host of cultural, gender, social, and other contextual factors.

Savignon advocated the use of real communication in a language classroom to teach English language by showing the research result where learners who had practiced communication in lieu of laboratory pattern drills for one hour a week in the 18-week, five-hour-per-week program performed with no less accuracy on discrete-point tests of structure compared to the control group who had received mostly the structural approach. Also this experimental group's communicative competence as measured in terms of fluency, comprehensibility, effort, and





18


amount of communication in a series of four unrehearsed communicative tasks significantly surpassed that of learners who had had no such practice. Activities like games, role plays, pair and other small-group activities gained their popularity for real communication work in Communicative language teaching approach.

Savignon pointed out that in the CLT approach, grammar is also thought to be very important besides the functional language ability of learners because communication cannot take place in the absence of structure or grammar. The most important thing in this CLT approach to grammar is the fact that researchers who advocated the CLT approach made efforts to situate grammatical competence within a more broadly defined communicative competence. Therefore, grammar teaching through real communication practice where other aspects of communicative competence are also exercised is very important work in this Communicative approach to language teaching.

The replacement of language laboratory structure drills with meaningfocused self-expression was found to be a more effective way to develop communicative ability with no loss of morphosyntactic (grammatical and structural) accuracy. For the development of communicative ability, research findings overwhelmingly supported the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience. Savignon said that grammar is important, and learners seemed to focus best on grammar when it related to their communicative needs and experiences. She also said that in these Communicative approaches to grammar, explicit attention to form should be paid not only to sentence-level





19


morphosyntactic features but also to broader features of discourse, sociolinguistic rules of appropriacy, and communication strategies themselves. Therefore, the researcher's job in this study was to investigate how the above Communicative approach to grammar was done at the intensive English language program's grammar classrooms in one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America.

To foster second language learners' communicative competence, grammar should never be taught as an end in itself like the structural syllabus used in the previous approaches. Also English grammar cannot be seen as a system that simply emerges on its own given sufficient comprehensible input and practice, which was the view of the Natural Approach above. Instead, to proponents of the communicative competence, it should always be taught with reference to meaning and social factors within a quite realistic and meaningful discourse (Celce-Murcia & Hilles, 1988).

Grammar is a resource for creating meaning through texts and a resource for successful communication. Therefore, it should be taught to do this very important job of developing the second language students' communicative competence. Second language educators' current job is to find effective ways to teach grammar in this way. Therefore, the grammar approach used at the intensive English language program in one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America warranted investigation.

Mitchell and Redmond (1993) advocated strongly the need for

communicative grammar instruction. This was because, to develop proficient





20


second language users, second language educators should not focus on grammar or communication in the second language classrooms, but on grammar and communication. As instances of a communicative grammar instruction, these researchers advocated the use of lots of examples of contextualized grammar exercises, a guided inductive lesson using the target language, and the use of many instances of the same structure to suggest ways of introducing grammar into the communicative classroom. They said that because much of the current research favors more explicit teaching of grammar and since textbooks remain grammatically oriented, it is necessary to combine grammar and communication in order to produce more proficient language users. These researchers strongly advocated the real life communicative contextualization of any grammatical structure to foster second language learners' understanding of the form, and to develop their newly emerging communicative ability using the newly learned grammatical structure.

About the issue of how grammar should be taught communicatively,

Mitchell and Redmond advocated the explicit exemplification of grammar by calling attention to the structure and then the provision of many examples in a communicative way. They argued for this because few adult learners seem willing or able to pick up or acquire a second language grammar implicitly as they did the grammar of their native tongue, nor do they have the time. They argued that the grammar presentation should be straightforward with clear explanation on it, and it should be aided for students' understanding by the use of gestures, diagrams, and well-thought-out contextualized examples. The final step was in-class guided





21


practice which aids students in using the new grammar to communicate. These researchers' argument about communicative grammar instruction was very viable in terms of fostering both grammar and communication, and therefore the present researcher wanted to observe the grammar classrooms at the intensive English language program in one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America to find the significant features of communicative grammar instruction. These findings may extend the present literature on English grammar pedagogies, and also may help prepare for real implementation of communicative grammar instruction in South Korea in the near future.



Learning Style and Culture



In this section, studies of language learning style and strategies in relation to cultural background are reviewed and the need for the present study is explored. The second work of the researcher as a future Korean teacher trainer for better English instruction was to explore Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program with a special focus on their experiences in the grammar classrooms. This exploration works on the topic of learning style and culture, and the issue of whether learning styles can be changed if they usually and mostly are formed based on the cultural background of the learner.

Keefe and Languis (1983) defined learning style as that consistent pattern of behavior and performance by which an individual approaches educational





22


experiences. They thought of it as the composition of characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment. They said, "it is formed in the deep structure of neural organization and personality that molds and is molded by human development and the cultural experiences of home, school, and society" (p. 1). They defined the learning style above as based on the possibility of revision if necessary.

Research by Ramirez and Castaneda (1974) suggested that learning style is related to world view and that certain learning styles tend to be predominant in certain cultures. They indicated that Mexican Americans tend to be relatively field dependent or global in orientation. Furthermore their research suggested that bilingual individuals tend to be bicognitive. That is, they said that fluent speakers of Spanish and English tend to have greater cognitive flexibility than monolinguals, being able to move back and forth between global and analytical orientations as needed.

Worthley (1987) discussed the relationship between culture and individual learning styles and suggested that although diversity among individuals within any culture is the norm, these individuals show a common pattern of perception when the members of that culture are compared to the members of another culture. He further suggested that the above conclusions were based on several research studies, and a cultural personality is more than a myth or stereotype.

Cohen (1969) studied the learning styles of African American children and youth. Their learning styles were described as relational, as opposed to the





23


analytical style rewarded in American schools. Compared to the research on learning styles of other U.S. ethnic groups, there were not a very good number of studies of Asian American learners. Yoshiwara (1983) studied particularly Japanese American students' learning styles and found that they are hard working, high achieving, relatively nonverbal, and seek careers in math and science.

There was a very interesting study of the effects of cultural background on second language learning students' reading comprehension. Kang (1992) studied Korean students' cultural interference in second language reading comprehension. Ten Korean graduate students were the subjects in this study, and this study investigated the effects of culture-specific background knowledge and inferences upon second-language readers' comprehension of the English text. Ten adult Korean second-language readers were asked to think aloud as they read a short story from another culture and then answer a detailed set of post-reading questions. A qualitative analysis was done on the subjects' verbal report protocols and post-reading answers to obtain data on the inferences generated, the knowledge structures underlying these inferences, and the effect of activated background knowledge and inferences upon comprehension of a second language text. The results of this study indicated that the activation and generation of culture-specific schemata and inferences at times significantly affected subjects' comprehension of a second language text. Therefore, this study showed the dangerous potential for second or foreign language readers to interpret culturally





24


unfamiliar text in terms of their own culture-specific background knowledge, often resulting in misinterpretations of the content.

In addition, this study revealed very important pedagogical implications for second language reading instructions to remove this very dangerous activation of previous primary cultural background knowledge and inferences made from it. Those pedagogical implications suggested in this study were that second language reading instructors should provide pre-reading activities that can help ESL (English as a second language) students activate or develop appropriate background knowledge to utilize in the interpretation of assigned readings. Also it was suggested that second language reading instructors should help develop the metacognitive abilities of second language students to monitor and evaluate their own comprehension as they process a text, and strategies to deal with inconsistencies between their inferences or interpretations and information in the text.

There was another interesting study comparing cross-culturally students'

study habits or learning strategies (Moreno & Di Vesta, 1991). Learning strategies were described here in this study as the Cognitive Skills Inventory (CSI). The first of them was the integration factor where summarizing, organizing, guessing, and application strategies were included. The second of them was the repetition factor where lots of repetition and memorization strategies were included. The third of them was the monitoring factor where self-evaluation and metacognitive strategies were included. The fourth of them was the coping factor where affective strategies were included.





25


The subjects in this study were three quite different cultural groups. They were monolingual English-speaking American students, bilingual Puerto Rican students, and monolingual Spanish students. These students responded on the above CSI. Results showed that the study, reading, and learning processes reported on the CSI by learners from somewhat different cultures were similar. The possible reason was suggested in this study that it was because the students, although they were from different countries, shared similar educational opportunities and educational values. All groups were from university populations. The researchers suggested that the values of university education were shared by the inhabitants of these settings. They also suggested that the instructional systems used, including delivery systems and testing procedures, were very similar in all three settings.

But the authors revealed, in the end of the study, very important

implications about the possibility of different strategy use by different educational approaches, different generations, and by different educational environments. Therefore, they said that the strategies used by younger and older citizens, the strategies used by students in traditional and modem educational settings, and the strategies used by students in a distance learning environment as compared with strategies used by students in residence at universities might be potential sources of differences, both within a given country and between countries. This study, overall, reported the importance of educational background when students from different cultures show their use of learning strategies.





26


There was a major study reporting cross-cultural ESL/EFL (English as a

foreign language) language learning styles (Oxford, Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992). In this study, very different learning styles were attributed to cultural differences. Learning styles were defined as the general approaches students use to learn a new subject or tackle a new problem. It was assumed in this study that learning styles and related learning strategies have a strong cultural component. The researchers gave an example to support this argument. They said, "in China, the nature of the script develops children's ability to recognize patterns and memorize by rote, while children in Germany are brought up to believe that anything easy to understand is probably dubious and unscientific" (p. 440).

The researchers of this study presented eight major language learning style dimensions which seemed to be the most significant for ESL/EFL learning. They were global and analytic, field-dependent and field-independent, feeling and thinking, impulsive and reflective, intuitive-random and concrete-sequential, closure-oriented and open, extroverted and introverted, and visual, auditory, and hands-on (this is a combination of tactile and kinesthetic). And the researchers said that although culture is not the single determinant and although many other influences intervene, culture often does play a significant role in the learning styles unconsciously adopted by many participants in the culture.

Oxford et al. (1992) found that Hispanic ESL/EFL students are more global than analytic in learning style. They are highly field-dependent rather than fieldindependent, and in general are more overtly feeling- than thinking-oriented. Sometimes they appear more impulsive than reflective. Oxford et al. found that





27


Japanese ESL/EFL students like highly structured, deductive classes with frequent corrections of small details, indicating an analytic tendency. They might be classified as more thinking- than feeling-oriented.

On concrete-sequential and intuitive-random learning styles and strategies, the researchers said that concrete-sequential styles among ESL/EFL students are encouraged by a number of cultures that stress rote memorization rather than "meaningful learning." And therefore, Korean students and Arabic-speaking students whose educational systems and general cultures foster rote memorization skills tend to have much more concrete-sequential learning styles than intuitiverandom learning styles. And the researchers said that many ESL/EFL students come from cultures where ambiguity is not tolerated well and where a closureoriented style is encouraged. Korean students are from one of those cultures. They view a teacher to be the authority and are disturbed if this does not happen. Japanese students often want rapid and constant correction, and do not feel comfortable with multiple correct answers. Arabic-speaking students often see things in black/white and right/wrong terms and sometimes refuse to compromise. To these students, written texts take on an "always correct" aura, and the teacher who accepts more than one answer as right seems weak or ignorant. Hispanic students were described as having a great desire for negotiation and flexibility because they are thought to have a concern for social harmony.

In regards to extroversion/introversion dimension of learning style, Oxford et al. (1992) said that Arabic-speaking students of ESL/EFL are typically more gregarious, overtly verbal, and interested in a whole-class extroverted mode of





28


instruction. Likewise, Hispanic students in general are highly social, cooperative (on homework and class work), desirous of a close relationship with the teacher as a role-model and friend, and responsive to social goals more than to impersonal rewards. These were all strong indicators of extroverted tendency among Hispanics in general. In comparison, Oxford et al. said that Japanese and Korean students are often quiet, shy, and reticent in ESL/EFL classrooms indicating a reserve that is the hallmark of introverts. These ethnic groups were thought to have a traditional cultural focus on group membership, solidarity, and face-saving, and to deemphasize individualism.

About sensory preferences of learning style, there was an excellent study by Reid (1987). Reid's investigation of sensory learning style preferences found that Korean students were the most visual of all, significantly more so than U.S. and Japanese students. Arabic and Chinese students were also strongly visual. Japanese students in the Reid's study were the least auditory, with this result being significantly different from Arabic and Chinese students. Thai, Malay, and Spanish students were also auditory, though slightly less so than Arabic and Chinese. Most ESL students in the Reid's study strongly preferred kinesthetic (movement-based) learning, and the strongest in this area were Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Thai students. Even U.S. university students (native English speakers) strongly liked kinesthetic learning. Native speakers of English were significantly less tactile (touch-oriented) than Arabic, Chinese, Korean, and Spanish speakers. Most nonnative speakers of English were highly tactile in their learning preferences.





29


Krashen (1977) said that second language learning adults differed

depending on if they were able to use monitors for language learning. That is, he said that some learners benefited more from conscious rule learning using monitors quite a lot, whereas other learners benefited more from communicative spontaneous language use for their language learning. By monitor, he meant the language learned system which inspects and alters the output of the language acquired system based on the grammaticality if there is enough time to do that. The most interesting fact in his study was that language learners differed in their approach to their own language learning based on their previous educational experiences of language learning. Therefore, conscious rule learning and heavy monitor use language learning groups were much more likely to choose those approaches to language learning than other learners because they were accustomed to those approaches in their previous language learning experiences. On the other hand, those communicative spontaneous language use group and use of "feeling" group instead of monitor use for language learning were more likely to choose those approaches to language learning because they were educated that way in their previous language learning experiences.

There was also a very interesting study investigating if the-Asian-learneras-a-rote-learner stereotype is a myth or reality. Watkins, Reghi, and Astilla (1991) found that a similar structure of learning processes was used for each different cultural learners of Nepalese, Filipino, Hong Kong, and Australian through learning process questionnaires. Moreover, in this study students who reported deeper and more achievement-oriented approaches to learning tended to





30


be more successful academically and to have higher academic self-esteem in each culture. Therefore, there was no evidence in this study that students of different cultures who received different educational approaches to learning differed in their learning processes due to their culture. Little evidence was found to support the contention that Asian learners were more prone to rote learning than were the Australians. Therefore, this study confronts the above Krashen's (1977) study talking about the influences of previous language learning experiences on students' current approaches to language learning. Based on these research studies, the researcher was motivated to investigate how Korean students who had been educated in South Korea using a grammatical structural syllabus react to the innovative grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program.



Communicative Approaches to Teaching English



In this section, studies of communicative language instruction and language proficiency are reviewed and the need for the present study is explored. The researcher's third concern was an investigation of the nature of six Korean students' writing development over time in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. Six Korean students' perspectives on the communicative grammar instructional process, their grammar teachers, and their own English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive





31


language program may provide some insights into factors that may have influenced any change in their writing skills. Previous approaches to grammar instruction (especially the grammar-translation approach and the audiolingual approach to grammar instruction) did not work for Korean students' English language learning outcomes (Ellis, 1993), and therefore Koreans might need a new approach to teaching grammar which is maybe the Communicative approach.

There have been several research studies of communicative language

instruction. Oxford, Lavine, and Crookall (1989) studied the relationship between language learning strategies and the Communicative language approach. This study was the only one investigating the learning strategies related to the Communicative language approach. These researchers said that the principles of a Communicative approach to language learning and teaching foster the use of appropriate and positive learning strategies. The principles of a Communicative approach to language teaching and learning are first, the attainment of communicative competence as the main goal; second, dealing communicatively with forms and errors; third, an orientation which integrates the four language skills; and fourth, a focus on meaning, context, and authentic language.

Also Oxford et al. (1989) showed six categories of important direct and indirect learning strategies. There are three direct learning strategies and three indirect learning strategies. The direct strategies are memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. The indirect strategies are metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. These researchers emphasized that the already stated four main principles of a Communicative





32

approach to language teaching and learning foster the above six good language learning strategies. Oxford et al. finally suggested classroom implications of utilizing these language learning strategies in the Communicative approach. The first of these implications was a change of classroom organization from the traditional teacher as a transmitter of knowledge and learner as a receiver of knowledge to teacher and learner as partners in learning. And they said in this change, those language learning strategies would be very effectively utilized for facilitation of language learning. The second implication was use of more realistic communication patterns and processes; the third implication was use of active learning modes by incorporating lots of active small group and pair learning activities; and finally the fourth implication was the need for strategy training. The most important point in this study was the use and incorporation of the above six language learning strategies in the Communicative approach to language teaching and learning to develop language learners' ultimate goal in learning English as a second or foreign language, which is communicative competence.

Prabhu (1987) developed a program known as the Communicational Teaching Project (CTP), and this project compared the traditional-languagetaught control group in the structural-oral-situational method with the experimental task-based approach to language teaching for measures of linguistic competence. The subject used was a number of secondary schools at Bangalore and Madras in India with beginning learners of L2 English. The results showed





33


tentative support for the experimental group which used the Communicative approach using the task-based syllabus.

Several studies showed the findings that communicative classrooms

developed learners' oral skills and fluency but did not develop very well their syntactic and grammatical ability. Krashen (1982) has claimed that immersion classrooms succeeded in developing very high levels of L2 proficiency of discourse skills and speaking fluency, but they were not able to develop high grammatical competence in the long run. Krashen found that immersion students acquired high levels of competency in the second language (while they might not reach native-like levels, they outperformed peers who have had standard foreign language classes), they made normal progress in school doing as well in subjectmatter as monolinguals, and they did not fall behind peers in first language development. Krashen attributed this success of immersion programs to rich comprehensible input and low affective filter provided in those programs. Therefore, immersion programs showed what is possible linguistically from subject-matter teaching when social and psychological problems were eliminated or reduced. They provided strong empirical evidence that subject-matter teaching can not only teach subject-matter but the language it is taught in as well, as long as the input is made comprehensible although they were not able to have second language learning students achieve full native speakers' grammatical proficiency.

Krashen (1982) also said that those content or theme based adult level ESL programs are really beneficial for adult second language learners. In these programs, for example, students participate in units covering "life situations"





34


topics that last from two to four weeks. Examples included the use of community services (post-office, library, etc.), consumer education, employment (covering classified ads, employment agencies, unions, etc.), family life (e.g. wedding invitations, birthday parties, etc.), citizenship (e.g. traffic and parking tickets, voting, taxes, etc.), and other "life situations." Teachers can use guest speakers, films, field trips, and commercial materials in helping students understand the "mechanics of life" in a new country. And Krashen said that no evidence was yet available confirming the utility of such a program. But he said that second language acquisition theory advocating lots of comprehensible input, acquisitionlearning distinction, and affective filter hypothesis and experienced language teacher insight/intuition on "ideas that work" predicted that such programs would be of great use for language acquisition, in addition to their obvious practical value, as long as the input was comprehensible.

Spada and Lightbown (1989) also found that an intensive ESL course which was taught using communicative methods where lots of tasks and learner interaction were emphasized produced little evidence of syntactic development. The students in this study were only 50 percent accurate in their use of plural -s and only 20 percent accurate in their use of V + -ing.

There was a very important study reporting on Communicative language teaching approach in most intensive English language teaching programs. Lightbown and Spada (1990) studied focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching, and their effects on second language learning. The developing oral English of approximately 100 second language learners (four





35


intact classes) was examined in the study. The learners were native speakers of French (aged 10-12 years) who had received a five-month intensive ESL course in either grade five or grade six in elementary schools in Quebec. A large corpus of classroom observation data was also analyzed.

The purpose of the research was to examine relationships between classroom instruction and interaction, and the learners' developing second language (L2) ability (specifically in terms of some aspects of grammatical accuracy in this case). Therefore, this research dealt with the research question "To what extent is form-focused instruction beneficial to classroom learners of a second language within communicative contexts?" In this study, experimental intensive programs and control regular programs were compared on measures of second language proficiency. Experimental intensive programs were taught within a Communicative approach to second language teaching, while control regular programs were taught using an audio-lingual approach to second language teaching. But the experimental intensive programs were different among themselves depending on the amount of form-focused activities and error correction within communicative contexts.

Overall, the results were very positive. The children in the intensive

programs developed significantly higher levels of comprehension ability than learners in the regular programs. They also achieved greater fluency in their oral production, and, although they had still much to learn, they achieved considerably higher levels of fluency and communicative confidence in using the second language than the amounts achieved in the regular programs at the primary level.





36


The researchers' classroom observation data confirmed that the children in the experimental intensive programs receive instruction that is "communicative" in nature, instruction that focuses on meaning-based activities, opportunities for the negotiation of meaning in group work, and the provision of rich and varied comprehensible input. Errors were viewed as a necessary part of the developmental process, and the classroom observation showed that error correction by the teachers was relatively rare.

Among the intensive experimental programs, the class in which the greatest amount of time overall was spent on form-related instruction, that is, instruction that explicitly dealt with grammar, vocabulary, phonology, or syntax while still maintaining the overall focus of the class on communicative activities produced the highest grammatical accuracy in learners' oral English. The teacher of this class almost never taught "grammatical lessons" and rarely presented rules about the target language. Instead, his/her form-focused behaviors were almost always reactions to learners' errors or to student requests for assistances with some aspects of language use. And the class in which almost no form-focused instruction was provided produced the lowest accuracy on all the language features examined in the analysis of spontaneous language samples. The teacher in this class was the one who virtually never focused on grammar. When language was in focus, it was generally because the teacher was reacting to vocabulary difficulties that students were experiencing. The students' comprehension skills were still very good in this class.





37


The overall findings of this study showed that clearly, students in the

intensive ESL programs acquired a great deal of English through communicative interaction in the classroom. What the researchers of this study were suggesting was, "some components of the language might not only be amenable to instructional intervention, but might depend on it for further development and improvement" (p. 443). The results presented in this study provided further support for the hypothesis that form-based instruction within a communicative context contributes to higher levels of linguistic knowledge and performance. The findings of this study suggested, "accuracy, fluency, and overall communicative skills are probably best developed through instruction that is primarily meaningbased but in which guidance is provided through timely form-focus activities and correction in context" (p. 443). Therefore, this study strongly advocated the advantages of communicative grammar instruction over other approaches to grammar instruction. But still there is not yet a definite study exploring the Communicative approaches to language instruction and writing skills of second language learners.

There was an interesting study investigating the effects of communicative language instruction on second language learners' sociolinguistic development. Ellis (1992) studied the development of two language learners' requests which are the illocutionary acts over time in a communicative language classroom. It was assumed in this study that second language acquisition can take place as a result of learning how to communicate in the L2. And it was assumed less clear in this study whether the kind of communication that occurs in a classroom is sufficient





38


to ensure development of full target language competence. This study examined the extent to which the opportunities for communication in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom result in the acquisition of one particular illocutionary act-requests. A total of 410 requests produced by two male child learners (one boy was 10 years old, and the other was 11 years old) over 15-21 months were examined in the study. The language aims of the unit of the classroom examined in this study were to develop basic interpersonal communication skills in English, and then the proficiency to use English for studying school subjects. Some of the lessons consisted of formal language instruction directed at specific linguistic points (grammar and vocabulary), and the children interacted as much among themselves as they did with the teacher. And there was no attempt made to teach specific language functions such as requests. English in this classroom served not only as the pedagogic target but also as the means for conducting the day-by-day business of the classroom-giving and checking instructions, making arrangements, dealing with breaches of discipline, socializing, and so forth.

The results of this study suggested that although considerable development took place over this period, both learners failed to develop either the full range of request types or a broad linguistic repertoire for performing those types that they did acquire. The results showed also that the learners failed to develop the sociolinguistic competence needed to vary their choice of request to take account of different addressees. Ellis (1992) explained about these results that although the classroom context fostered interpersonal and expressive needs in the two





39


learners, it did not provide the conditions for real sociolinguistic needs. Ellis said, "the communicative classroom environment was insufficient to guarantee the development of full target language norms of requests, possibly because the kind of "communicative need" that the learners experienced was insufficient to ensure development of the full range of request types and strategies" (p. 20). He distinguished the three types of communicative need. The first was the interpersonal need, and this was the need when a learner has a felt need to perform a speech act in order to give or obtain information or goods/services. The second was the expressive need, and this was the need when a learner has a personal need to realize a speech act using different formal means. This need reflects a general desire for variety for its own sake, analogous with the desire to have a selection of clothes to choose from. And the third need was the sociolinguistic need, and this was the need when a learner has the need to vary the use of the formal means at his or her disposal in accordance with situational factors in order to realize social meanings associated with such concepts as politeness.

This classroom environment, where the two male language learners were students provided them with no clear sociolinguistic need because the two boys were already very familiar to the classmates and the language teacher, and the requests they produced were very routine in nature. Overall, this study suggested that the detailed study of how specific illocutionary acts are performed over time in pedagogic settings is a promising line of inquiry for investigating the





40


relationship between classroom communication and second language acquisition (especially the sociolinguistic acquisition).

The current study in which the researcher investigated the nature of six Korean students' writing development over time in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to all factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills may fill a gap in studies investigating communicative language instruction. The current study does this job by being provided with Korean students' perspectives on communicative grammar instructional process, their grammar teachers, and their own English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program that may have influenced any change in their cognitive academic language skills (writing skills) that are different from the basic interpersonal communication skills (Cummins, 1980). An exploration of these factors that may have influenced any change in the Korean students' writing skills will provide English educators in South Korea with some pedagogical implications for improving Korean students' writing skills in the near future.



Summary



Past grammar pedagogies reviewed talked about the grammar-translation method, the audiolingual method, the cognitive code approach, the Natural Approach, and the Communicative approach. Grammar and communication development at the same time is the goal in communicative grammar instruction





41


(Mitchell & Redmond, 1993), and so communicative competence where grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence exist is the goal of communicative language teaching (Savignon, 1991). Communicative competence is the most important goal of any language pedagogy, and the language teaching approaches before the Communicative approach did not address this goal. That has been the problem of previous language pedagogies. Therefore, communicative grammar instruction where grammar and communicative abilities are taught together for the development of second language learners' communicative competence may deserve investigation as a possible new approach to grammar instruction in the near future in South Korea.

Several studies of language learning style, language learning strategies, and culture have reported that second language learners' cultural background and previous educational approach have a significant influence on their approach to second language learning (Krashen, 1977; Moreno & Di Vesta, 1991; Oxford, Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992). Korean students were described to use rotememorization language learning strategies, to be highly visual language learners, to be authority-figure (i.e., a teacher) oriented, and to resist a new approach to language teaching to which they were not accustomed in their previous language learning experiences (Oxford, Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992). Therefore, an exploration of Korean second language learners' views on grammar, its instruction, their language learning strategies, and their perspectives on the communicative grammar instructional process and their teachers in the intensive





42

English language program setting of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America may suggest a new theory about Korean second language learners.

Studies of communicative language instruction and language proficiency have suggested that that type of instruction develops second language learners' oral fluency and discourse skills but does not develop very well their grammatical ability (Ellis, 1992; Krashen, 1982; Spada & Lightbown, 1989). Focus on form in the context of communicative language instruction, however, produced grammatical accuracy in addition to fluency of language use (Lightbown & Spada, 1990). There has been no study exploring communicative language instruction and reading/writing skills. Therefore, the current study investigating the nature of selected Korean students' writing development over time in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in their writing skills might contribute to the research literature on communicative language instruction and extend it. Then, some pedagogical implications may be drawn in terms of English education in South Korea in the near future.












CHAPTER 3
METHOD



In this study the researcher investigated what the approaches, the materials, and the activities were in the English grammar instruction provided in one major university's intensive language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America to get insights about possible implementation of the instruction in South Korea in the near future. Second, this study explored seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program with a special emphasis on their experiences in the communicative grammar instruction. Third, this study investigated the nature of these Korean students' writing development over time in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. The researcher used qualitative methodology and collected data over two school semesters (during the Spring and the Summer C semesters of the intensive English language program in 1998, which was almost a 7-month period) from a variety of sources. Only the data for a description of the grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program were collected during one school semester of the Summer C, 1998.





43





44


By and large, the methods used to analyze classroom lessons, Korean students' experiences with communicative grammar instruction and of their English language learning both in and outside the intensive language program, and the writing skills' change over time in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills were descriptive and interpretive. Since the study focused on grammar instruction, seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a 7-month period, and their writing skills change in relation to all of these experiences, the resulting analysis may be characterized as a case study using ethnographic techniques. This chapter describes the selection of the research site and participants, explicates the research method, defines its relevance to the research questions, and defends the research reliability and validity.



Setting of the Study



The main setting of this study was one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. For the first research objective which was an investigation of grammar instruction in the program, this research was done in the grammar classrooms different by proficiency level (the beginning, the intermediate, and the advanced grammar classrooms).





45


For the second research objective which was an exploration of seven

Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the program with a special emphasis on their experiences in communicative grammar instruction, this study was done outside the classrooms of the intensive English language program. Because this second research objective was fulfilled through interviews with Korean students, the setting was a courtyard in the program.

For the third research objective which was an investigation of the nature of these Korean students' writing development over time in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in their writing skills, this study was done outside the classes of the program by getting six Korean students' writing samples done over time in the reading/writing classes of the intensive English language program.



Participants



The participants of this study comprised three different groups of people (the participants' names mentioned in this study are all pseudonyms). The first participant group of this study was composed of three grammar class instructors from the beginning, the intermediate, and the advanced grammar classes. The first grammar class instructor who participated in this study was Emmy Krempasky, who taught the beginning level grammar class during the Summer C semester of 1998. The second grammar class instructor was Bev Paeth, who taught the





46


intermediate grammar class in the program during the Summer C semester of 1998. The last grammar class instructor was Sue Johnson, who taught the advanced grammar class in the program during the Summer C semester of 1998. These grammar class instructors participated in the study by giving permissions to the researcher to observe their grammar classrooms, and by being interviewees talking about their educational approaches and what they did in their classrooms to teach English grammar. This interview process provided the researcher with the teachers' own perspectives on what was going on in communicative grammar instruction.

The second participant group in this study was composed of all seven Korean students who attended the grammar classes during the Summer C semester of 1998 in the intensive English language program (among the seven Korean students, two students did not attend the Spring semester of 1998, one student attended the Fall semester of 1997, and the remaining four students attended the Spring semester of 1998). Two students were at the beginning proficiency level of the grammar class. Also, two students were at the intermediate level of the grammar class. The remaining three students were at the advanced levels of the grammar class. These seven Korean students, varying in ages, gender, and educational background, participated in this study by reporting their perspectives on communicative grammar instruction and their teachers, their learning strategies and learning styles working with the grammar instruction they received, and by providing the researcher with their perspectives on their English





47


language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program.

These Korean students also participated in this study by showing their

writing samples over time from the last Spring semester of 1998 until the end of the Summer C semester of 1998. Those writing samples were different in genre: Some were personal journals, others were essays, and still others were research papers. Genres were different depending on the students' proficiency level of their reading/writing classes which was similar to those students' grammar class proficiency level. The two students who attended the beginning level of the grammar class also attended the beginning levels of the reading/writing class in the program. In those beginning level reading/writing classes, students wrote personal journals about their everyday lives and experiences. In the intermediate level reading/writing class which one student who attended the intermediate grammar class attended, students wrote both personal journals and essays. In the advanced level reading/writing class which three students in the advanced grammar classes attended, students wrote personal journals, essays, resumes, and research papers.

The last participant group of this study was composed of four

reading/writing class instructors (two instructors taught the beginning level reading/writing classes, one instructor taught the intermediate level reading/writing class, and the last one taught the most advanced reading/writing class) during the Summer C term of 1998 in the program, who taught the above six Korean students in their classes (one Korean student who attended the





48


intermediate grammar class refused to show the researcher her writing samples over time). These reading/writing instructors gave the researcher permission of getting access to the Korean students' writing samples by telling the researcher that she should ask the writing samples directly of the Korean students. The six Korean students gladly showed their writing samples over time to the researcher.



Data Collection



For the first purpose of this study, which was a description of

communicative grammar instruction, the researcher's field notes taken during the three grammar classroom (different by proficiency level) observations, audiotaped recordings of the grammar classroom lessons, three grammar class textbooks, and three grammar class teachers' interviews were sources of data. Data for this first purpose of the study were collected only during the Summer C term of 1998.

For the second purpose of this study, which was an ethnographic observation of Korean students taking the grammar, the oral skills, the reading/writing, and the English interaction classes during the Spring and the Summer C terms of 1998 in the intensive English language program, interviews (two consecutive interviews--the first interview during the middle of the Summer C term and the second follow-up interview nearly at the end of the Summer C term) were used to get Korean students' perspectives on communicative grammar instruction, their learning strategies and learning styles working with the grammar





49

instruction, and the perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a 7-month period.

For the third purpose of this study, which was an investigation of the nature of the six Korean students' writing development over a 7-month period in which they attended the program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in their writing skills, their writing samples over time from the last Spring semester of 1998 until the end of the Summer C term of 1998 were collected.

Field notes. Field notes were composed of the program's three grammar classroom observation notes, the interview notes of three grammar classroom teachers who taught the grammar class during the Summer C term of 1998, and the two consecutive interview notes with seven Korean students who attended the grammar class during the Spring and the Summer C terms of 1998.

The researcher visited three grammar classrooms (the beginning level, the intermediate level, and the advanced level) in the program during the Summer C term of 1998 two or three times a week with the permission from the teachers. She took very diligent field notes observing the class proceedings, focusing mainly on the materials, the activities that the teachers asked their students to do to learn new grammar items and practice newly learned English grammar, the approaches that the teachers used to teach grammar, and the teachers' and the students' discourse to teach and learn grammar. During the interviews with three grammar class teachers and with seven Korean students, the researcher wrote down key words from the interviews and this process amounted to many pages of field notes.





50


Textbooks. The researcher borrowed the grammar textbooks used in the

three different (by proficiency level) grammar classes from the instructors whom she interviewed, and photocopied them. Therefore, one textbook was the beginning level grammar textbook used in Krempasky's grammar classroom. The title was 'Focus on Grammar: A Basic Course for Reference and Practice,' from Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, copyrighted 1994. Another textbook the researcher borrowed was high intermediate grammar textbook used in Paeth's grammar classroom titled 'Grammar in Context, Book 3 (Second Edition),' from Newbury House Publishing Team at Heinle & Heinle (copyrighted 1996). The other textbook was used in the advanced grammar classroom during the Summer C term of 1998, in Johnson's classroom. The title was 'The Advanced Grammar Book,' from Heinle & Heinle Publishers, copyrighted 1991. These three different textbooks which were used in the three grammar classrooms during the Summer C semester of 1998 were borrowed from the instructors and photocopied in the middle of the semester by the researcher. The researcher looked closely over these textbooks in addition to the three grammar classroom observation data to get more insights and thick descriptive data on communicative grammar instruction.

Audio-taped transcripts. The researcher audio-taped the grammar class lessons different by proficiency level during the Summer C term of 1998. She audio-taped mainly English grammar acquisition activities that the teacher asked his/her students to do during the class and the teachers' and the students' discourse to teach and learn grammar. This audio-taping amounted to five times





51


of tape recording during the Summer C term of 1998. The researcher transcribed these audio-taped recordings word by word in detail.

The researcher also audio-taped the interviews with three grammar class

instructors and the two consecutive interviews with seven Korean students during the Summer C term of 1998. She then transcribed the audio-taped recordings of interviews with the three grammar class instructors. For the audio-taped recordings of interviews with seven Korean students, because the interviews with Korean students were done in Korean (the Korean students preferred to be interviewed in Korean, rather than in English), the researcher transcribed the interview data translating at the same time in English.

Interviews. Interviews focusing directly on the research questions 1 and 2 were conducted with the first and the second participant groups of this study throughout the duration of the project. Data were collected on-site during interviews from June 9 to June 16 in 1998 with three grammar class instructors who were the first participant group of this study.

Interviews with the grammar class teachers of the intensive English language program were done mainly to get their own perspectives on what actually happened in the grammar instruction provided in the program, and their views on Korean students working in their own classrooms. Therefore, the interview questions were all open-ended in nature: They were composed of three different parts. The first part was a brainstorming or background question to induce the next question; it was about grammar teachers' own beliefs in the role of grammar in second language acquisition and the way it is acquired best. The





52


next question was about their everyday practices and future plans to teach grammar in their own classrooms; what activities they provided for their students and how they corrected students' grammatical errors. The last question was about culture: The researcher asked if the teachers experienced any cultural conflict in teaching English grammar in their own ways, and their opinions on Korean students doing their job in those teachers' classrooms (interview protocols Appendix B). Each teacher was asked a common set of questions above in the form of a one-to-one, conversational discussion. To minimize distractions, teacher interviews were tape recorded using a small machine and long playing tapes. Teacher interviews were conducted in private, and the average interview took about an hour.

Interviews with seven Korean students who were the second participant group of this study were done two consecutive times during the Summer C term of 1998. The first interview was done from June 16 to July 1 in 1998. Open-ended questions of the first interview centered on seven Korean students' own beliefs in English grammar acquisition and instruction, their perspectives on communicative grammar instruction they received and their teachers, and their learning strategies used to practice grammar (interview protocols Appendix B). This first interview data answered the research question 2.

The second interview with Korean students was done with the six Korean students who faithfully provided the researcher with their writing samples over time (one female Korean student at the intermediate grammar class level, Soon Hee Cho, refused to provide the researcher with her writing samples over time).





53


The second interview took an ethnographic perspective. It was done from July 9 to July 24 in 1998. Open-ended questions of the second interview centered on Korean students' reading and writing activities both in their reading/writing classrooms and out of that classroom, the nature of their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program setting, and their personalities and hobbies (interview protocols Appendix B). Each Korean student was asked a common set of questions in the form of a one-to-one, conversational discussion. To minimize distractions, the two interviews were tape recorded using a small machine and long playing tapes. Both interviews were conducted in private. The first interview with Korean students took about an hour in average, and the second interview took about 40 minutes in average. All the interview data were audio-recorded and transcribed in detail word by word.

Writing samples. Six Korean students agreed to show the researcher their writing samples over time from the last Spring semester of 1998 until the end of the Summer C term of 1998. Writing samples were mostly written in their reading/writing classes, and some of them were written in the oral skills class and in the grammar class. Among the six Korean students who provided the researcher with the writing samples, three Korean students provided the researcher with their writing samples for two school semesters. They were Chul Ho Park (a male Korean student aged 24 years old), Young Hee Jun (a female Korean student aged 23 years old), and Young Soo Park (a male Korean student aged 26 years old). All the other three Korean students were Chul Soo Song (a male Korean student aged 24 years old), Ki Young Kwak (a male Korean student





54


aged 34 years old), and Hyun Woo Choi (a male Korean student aged 24 years old).

Chul Soo Song and Ki Young Kwak were at the beginning levels of the

grammar and the reading/writing class during the Summer C term of 1998. Young Soo Park was at the intermediate level of the grammar and the reading/writing class during the Summer C term of 1998. Chul Ho Park, Young Hee Jun, and Hyun Woo Choi were at the advanced levels of both the grammar and the reading/writing class during the Summer C term of 1998. Except the three Korean students who provided the researcher with their writing samples for two school semesters, the remaining three Korean students provided the researcher with their writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998.

Writing samples were diverse in genres: Essays, personal journals, resumes, research papers, and reading reviews were covered in the collected samples. At the beginning levels of the reading/writing class, mostly personal journals were written by students. At the intermediate levels of the reading/writing class, essays and personal journals were written. In the advanced reading/writing classes, research papers, reading reviews, essays, and personal journals were written. Both at the intermediate and the advanced levels of the reading/writing class, process writing utilizing first draft, second draft, and final draft was done a lot. The researcher collected all of these Korean students' writing samples over time to investigate the nature of these six Korean students' writing development over a 7month period in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing





55


skills. And this job, in addition to the interview data, answered the research question 3 above.



Data Analysis



Data analysis in this study was an inductive process relying on the

"sufficient presentation of evidence and careful consideration of alternative interpretations" (Yin, 1994, p. 103). Theoretical sensitivity acquired during the research process and balanced by the researcher's personal and professional knowledge of the technical literature enabled the researcher to recognize what in the data was important and to give it meaning (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995). Conducted in stages corresponding to the research questions, the analysis focused primarily on field notes (compiled from the grammar classroom observation and interviews), audio-taped transcripts (both of the grammar classrooms and of all interviews), and Korean students' writing samples over time.

Communicative grammar instruction. To answer the first research question, what were the approaches, the materials, and the activities in the grammar classes for speakers of English as a second language in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America (see Chapter 4), one school semester's (Summer C term of 1998) three grammar classroom observation measures were looked over thoroughly to seek patterns of the grammar instruction provided in the program. Communicative grammar instructional approaches, materials, activities, and teachers' and





56


students' discourse different by proficiency level were represented in the field notes, audio-taped classroom lesson transcripts, three grammar teachers' interviews, and through grammar class textbook analyses. Data collected in this way were coded into categories salient to interaction in the setting and relevant to the evolving first research question (Watson-Gegeo, 1988).

Korean students. To explore seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a 7-month period with a special emphasis on their experiences in communicative grammar instruction (see Chapter 5), the researcher looked closely over the two interview data with six Korean students and the one interview data with one Korean student. The researcher treated these data as seven individual cases, and she grouped the two interview questions into five distinctive areas to answer the research questions 2 and 3. Under seven Korean students' pseudonyms which are seven distinctive cases, she described in detail (based on the transcribed interview data), by citing the Korean students' direct words, the answers to those five distinctive interview questions. The researcher explored each as a separate case, taking account of unique aspects of individual cases (Merriam, 1988) and analyzing the embedded units (Yin, 1994). Descriptive interpretations were constructed explaining each Korean student's perspectives on his/her English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program.

Writing skills. To answer the third research question, what was the nature of these Korean students' writing development over a 7-month period in which





57


they attended the intensive English language program and what factors may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills (see Chapter 6), the researcher first looked seriously over the collected Korean students' writing samples over time from the last Spring semester of 1998 to the end of the Summer C term of 1998. She decided which grammatical items she should look at depending on the different proficiency level of Korean students' reading/writing skills to see their writing skills development over time. After deciding them by analyzing all six Korean students' first writing samples, she examined very closely if those items developed over time in terms of accuracy of use in the remaining writing samples.

Then, to decide what factors may have influenced any change in their

writing skills over time, the researcher's observation measures of the grammar instruction in the program (field notes, grammar teachers' interview data, audiotaped transcripts, and the grammar class textbooks) and the transcribed interview data with seven Korean students were analyzed together with the writing samples data. Comprehensive data treatment, which means that the analysis must be carried out on all the materials or data collected (Mehan, 1979), was done to answer the research question 3. Patterns were determined by this process, and a final theory about Korean students' writing skills development was constructed. The explanation-building process reflected "theoretically significant propositions" (Yin, 1994, p. 111).

Reliability and validity of results. The findings in this particular study of Korean second language learners' writing skills' development in relation to their





58


English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America resulted from inquiry and not personal bias. Sufficient data-base evidence existed to support and confirm interpretations. To ensure trustworthiness, the data of this study were collected from different sources which have different insights and perspectives like the researcher's field notes, interviews, and audio-taped transcripts of actual classroom happenings. Use of participants' names (although they are pseudonyms) and other identifying descriptors served to hold the research accountable, and compatibility between the researcher's constructions and the participants' realities also ensured a high degree of truth value.

The consistency and meaningfulness of the research results were attained from triangulation of multiple data sources (including field notes, interviews, audio-taped transcripts, textbook materials, and writing samples) collected over a 7-month period. Triangulation-the putting together of information from different data sources and/or data collected through different research methods such as participant-observation, interviewing, network mapping, and surveys (Fielding & Fielding, 1986)--was an important strategy for arriving at valid (or "dependable") findings in ethnographic work (Diesing, 1971). Plausibility of the study--a study that produced theory grounded in the data--makes it applicable to other contexts "generalizable to theoretical propositions (analytic generalization, which means generalizing theories)" (Yin, 1994, p. 10).












CHAPTER 4
COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION



To answer the first research question, what were the approaches, the

materials, and the activities in the grammar classes for speakers of English as a second language in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America, the researcher sorted the data about communicative grammar instruction collected into three different parts based on the proficiency level of grammar instruction provided in the program. Therefore, grammar classroom observation field notes, audio-taped classroom lesson transcripts, textbook materials, and interviews with grammar class instructors were divided into three separate areas or sections of the beginning, the intermediate, and the advanced grammar instructional levels. The researcher, thus, in the following three separate sections, describes what happened in three communicative grammar instruction different by proficiency level.



The Beginning Level Grammar Classroom



At this level of class, word order, the copula and subject-verb agreement, tense and aspect, modals, negation, yes-no questions, nouns, pronouns and possessives, wh-questions, articles, preverbal adverbs of frequency, infinitives



59





60


and gerunds, the passive voice, prepositions, adjectives, comparatives, and superlatives were taught. Usually, the grammar lessons in this beginning level grammar classroom were composed of three lesson sequences: The first was introduction part, the second was focused practice part, and the third was communication practice part. In the first part, the instructor introduced the students to the grammar points or items that they were going to learn on that day or that week. In the second, focused practice part, the students usually did some drills on a specific grammar point by doing lots of focused exercises from the textbook. The second, focused practice part was doing exercises in the textbook, but those grammar exercises were meaningful and contextualized exercises to practice the newly learned grammar. In the last communication practice part, the students applied what they had learned grammatically into real life everyday communication contexts, so that they were able to use what they had learned in real life situations.

Introduction. In this part, the teacher first introduced her students to a

dialogue where simple present tense, present progressive, adverbs of frequency, and expressions of frequency were used (the researcher decided to present lessons teaching simple present tense, present progressive, adverbs of frequency, and expressions of frequency as an example of the beginning level grammar instruction). She asked her students first to listen to that dialogue played through an audio-tape, and to read the dialogue in the textbook. Then there followed the comprehension check work: Students read several statements written about the content of the dialogue in the following, "1. At the beginning of the conversation,





61


Yoko is cleaning," "2. At the beginning of the conversation, Carol is reading a

magazine," "3. Yoko is moving Carol's clothes and papers," "4. Carol's socks are on Yoko's desk," "5. Dan's socks are on Yoko's desk," "6. Dan's socks are old,"

"7. Yoko often leaves her clothes and papers on Carol's desk," and "8. Yoko is angry at the end of the conversation." Then they marked their responses on the

appropriate boxes of "That's right," "That's wrong," and "I don't know." for each

of these sentences. After this individual work, the whole class talked about the

correct answers of this comprehension exercise.

After this phase, the teacher presented the lesson foci which were simple

present tense, present progressive, adverbs of frequency, and expressions of

frequency. She explained in detail the forms of these lesson foci and the ways

these grammar items are used. During these grammar explanations, the teacher

also asked her students to notice the 'Grammar Notes' in the textbook which

explained the forms and the ways they are used together (by explaining in detail

how to make questions using simple present tense and adverbs and expressions of

frequency, and word orders of using adverbs and expressions of frequency with

simple present tense). The teacher enriched her explanations with lots of example

sentences showing how those grammatical items work for sentence formation.

Focused practice. In this part of the lesson which followed right after the

introduction part, several activities of doing textbook exercises were done in class

or as homework. Students did intensive grammar noticing work by circling the adverbs of frequency in each sentence. Students practiced using expressions of

frequency by answering questions after reading a letter where lots of expressions





62


of frequency were used; those questions were asking frequencies expressed in the letter. And the students used frequency expressions in a box to answer the questions. For example, one of the questions asked "How often does Carol walk the dog?," and the students chose the answer of this question in the box containing expressions "everyday," "once in a week," "twice a day," and "once a month."

Students also practiced using question forms of asking adverbs and

expressions of frequency with given ideas in a box. For example, the box gave students cues like "Carol-write to Lulu," and the students made questions beginning with "how often" forming "How often does Carol write to Lulu?." Students practiced word order of using verbs and adverbs of frequency; it was filling in the blanks with right word order of verbs and adverbs of frequency which were given in a parenthesis underneath the blanks. Students practiced using appropriate time markers (like 'right now,' 'every Wednesday,' 'once a week,' 'today,' 'now,' and 'once in a while') with simple present tense and present progressive: They chose an appropriate time marker that went together with either simple present tense or present progressive. So for example, to fill in the blank with simple present tense they go to rock concerts," students chose "a. Once in a while" between two given prompts "a. Once in a while" and "b. Right now."

The last focused practice activity that was done was quite a meaningful and contextual grammar practice activity. It was practicing the appropriate uses of simple present tense and present progressive together with adverbs and





63


expressions of frequency in a meaningful context. Students completed a telephone conversation between Carol and her mom by using simple present tense and present progressive with correct time markers, adverbs of frequency, and expressions of frequency. This activity was also practicing correct word order of using verbs and adverbs of frequency together. The students filled in the sporadic blanks with simple present tense or the present progressive judging by the time markers and expressions of frequency placed in front of a sentence. Especially for practice of correct word order of using verbs and adverbs of frequency, they were placed in a parenthesis underneath the blanks and the students used them with correct word order in the blanks. The following are some examples of this activity: Elenore: Hello.

Carol: Hi, Mom.

Elenore: Hi, Carol. It's so good to hear your voice. How are you?

Carol: I'm fine. I'm really working hard these days. I have a tutor in
1.(work)
history. Every Thursday he me a history lesson.
2.(give)
Elenore: That's good.

Carol: I about something else.
3.(call)
Elenore: What's the problem?

Carol: My roommate. Yoko "Carol, let's clean the
4.(say, always)
apartment." She the apartment every day. She
5.(clean)
the furniture twice a week. Right now she
6.(polish)
the windows.
7.(wash)





64


After this individual activity, students listened to the whole completed conversation and checked their work.

Communication practice. In this part of the lessons, students practiced using adverbs and expressions of frequency with simple present tense in pairs first; students asked each other questions beginning with "How often" together with key verb phrases like "eat hot dogs," "get up early," "get a haircut," "eat pizza," etc. (These expressions were given as prompts in the textbook) Then students answered these questions using adverbs and expressions of frequency. They practiced in this way using expressions of frequency and adverbs of frequency with simple present tense by asking questions and answering them with each other. Students, in this way, applied what they had learned to real life communication with each other and elicited information of what they needed. After this pair work, the students asked a classmate about his or her partner. For example, the students asked a question like "How often does Bekir eat pizza?" (Bekir was one of the students in this beginning level grammar classroom) one by one, and the answer went like "He rarely eats pizza. He does not like pizza."

Another communicative practice in this proficiency level grammar

classroom was using present progressive and simple present tense with adverbs and expressions of frequency to ask questions about classmates, and to answer them. So the instructor asked a question like "What is Jean wearing?" (Jean was one of the students of this class), and the students answered "He's wearing blue jeans and a red T-shirt." And the instructor asked again "Does Jean often wear blue jeans and a red T-shirt?," and the students answered "He often wears blue





65


jeans, but he rarely wears a red color T-shirt." And the instructor and the students continued this kind of exercise with classmates for some time. In this activity, students practiced the use of present progressive and simple present tense together with adverbs and expressions of frequency to communicate with one another meaningfully.

Still another communication practice was also practicing simple present tense with adverbs and expressions of frequency in real life situations: The instructor asked each student to give short talks about his/her likes and free-time activities using simple present tense and adverbs and expressions of frequency. After everyone finished his/her talk, the instructor asked students to work in two groups. She asked the students to pretend they are buying a small gift for each student in the other group. She asked the two groups to talk about each student in the other group and decide on a gift. She additionally asked the students to give a reason for the gift. She gave students an example by saying, "Let's give Maria (who was one of the students of this class) a bag for her roller blades. Every Friday she roller-blades in our university." And the students continued the activity, and practiced using simple present tense and adverbs and expressions of frequency meaningfully in real communicative context.



The Intermediate Level Grammar Classroom



At this level of class, tense and aspect, the passive voice, modals,

imperatives and reflexives, articles, measure words, collective nouns, quantifiers,





66


prepositions, conjunctions, conditional sentences, relative clauses, infinitives and gerunds, participles, comparatives, and superlatives were taught. At this level of grammar classroom which Paeth taught during the Summer C semester of 1998, usually three phases of lessons were noticed to teach and learn grammar. The first part of the lesson was introduction or induction of new grammar points to be learned, and this phase was called "noticing the gap of grammar." In this introductory phase, the instructor usually asked his students to notice new things about grammar that they had not known before and asked them to bring background knowledge about the grammar point in focus of a lesson.

After this first introductory stage, there immediately followed the detailed explanation phase of the new grammar point in which the students already somehow noticed the gap of their knowledge. And finally, there followed communicative production activities where students produced the newly learned grammar point both through writing activities and through speaking activities. Usually in this phase of the lesson, there was negotiation of meaning between the students and the teacher and among the students themselves.

Introduction. In this phase of the lesson, the instructor usually gave the students actual examples of grammar in focus of a lesson on a particular day either by playing audio-taped recordings of passives (for example) used between two college students or by giving students articles of a short paragraph where a new grammar point was used in authentic language. So authentic materials were used to introduce new grammar points to the students, and the students found





67


some gap between what they had already known about that grammar point and what they noticed right at that moment in the presented materials.

For example, in this noticing the gap activity done to teach gerunds, the teacher first provided the students with handouts containing a news report on 'Illegal Aliens' and four quesions of noticing the gap of the students' own knowledge in gerunds. That news report contained diverse use of gerunds (like using it as subjects, objects of verbs and prepositions, etc.) in it. Students read the news report, and answered the questions individually. The first question asked was "What kind of grammar are you looking at?," the second question was "What are the different ways that you see it used?," the third question was "How is it used in the sentence? (What kinds of words does it seem to have a relationship with?)," and the fourth question was "What have you learned about this before?." After reading the news report and answering these questions individually, students worked in pairs to talk about their answers to these questions.

Explanation. After this noticing the gap of grammar activity which was the introductory stage of the lesson, the teacher asked the whole group of students the answers to the above four questions. By hearing the students' answers to these questions, the instructor noticed some gap in the students' knowledge of the gerunds. So he moved on immediately to the explanation part of the lesson. He distributed his students handouts summarizing gerunds usage with lots of example sentences to show how gerunds are used in sentences. In a transparency also, he showed the same content as that of the distributed handouts, and explained about gerunds.





68


During this explanation stage, there was students' language production work also. During explaining the point, "If a gerund is used as the subject, it agrees with a singular verb," the teacher asked his students one by one to change sentences (written on the transparency) orally using gerunds as subjects. Students changed the already given sentences into different sentences using gerunds as subjects successfully. So for example the sentence "To stay healthy is good for your life." on the transparency was changed to [Staying healthy is good for your life.] by a student in the class.

Communicative production activities. In the final phase of this intermediate grammar classroom, there were several communicative language production activities. For example, in practicing the expressions 'used to/get used to/be used to' in gerunds, students did the textbook exercise which asked the students to write sentences comparing the way they used to live in their home country with the way they lived at that time. The textbook gave the students some ideas for their sentences; school, job, hobbies, apartment/house, family life, and friends. After seeing the example sentence provided in the textbook "I used to live with my whole family. Now I live alone," students made five sentences using the expression "used to" following the exercise directions. Then they worked in pairs talking about their own produced sentences, exchaging new information with each other using the grammar point that they had learned.

Another communicative language production activity done about passives was a very interesting activity. After teaching how passives are used in written language and in spoken language, the instructor asked students if they regularly





69


watched the famous TV show "The X-Files." Some students said they watched it regularly and some students answered not. The instructor told the students that he video-tape recorded "The X-Files" of that week which he missed (he told the students that his wife video-tape recorded the show for him), and gave students the overall summary of the show until the previous week in a written handout.

The summary went, "This week is part two of a story that started last week.

Last week, an alien body was found in the mountains in Canada. Of course,

Mulder went to go check it out. When he got there, all of the people working on getting the body out of the ice had been killed. He and a

scientist took the alien body back home to examine it and one night when

they were out it was stolen. Scully had taken a sample of the alien tissue to

look at its DNA and, of course, that was stolen, too. Apparently, someone

didn't want them to find the truth. Later, Scully was approached by a

strange man who said Mulder was being tricked. The alien was a fake. It was all a plan by "Cancer Man" to get Mulder to tell the public he had a

real alien so he would look stupid and get fired from the FBI. At the end of

the show, Mulder's body was found in his apartment. He had committed

suicide."

Then the instructor also gave the students several questions that the students should answer watching that week's show of "The X-Files." Those questions were "What was happening to Mulder in his apartment?," "What happened to the guy upstairs?," "What happened to Scully in her apartment?,"





70


"How was the body identified?," "Who was really identified by Scully?," and "What is the explanation of Mulder's death?."

The instructor told the students that he would be out during the time the students watched "The X-Files" of that week that was recorded in a video-tape, and told the students that they should talk to him after watching the video about the content of the show using lots of passive expressions in their talk to him (this job was the same with that of answering the above questions watching the video). And after this instruction, the teacher went out of the classroom after playing "The X-Files" for the students. After about 30 minutes, the instructor came back and asked students the story of the watched video. Several students eagerly talked about the show using passives a lot. This passives practice activity was done communicatively between the instructor and the students (real communication happened between them using the learned grammar point).

Also to practice the already learned passives, the instructor asked the students to read the assigned local student newspaper in their home before coming to the next class. And then he asked his students to report to him orally about the news (especially on 'What's happening at this university?' topic) appearing at the assigned local student newspaper using lots of passive expressions in the next class. Then he distributed the local student newspaper to his students. The class finished at this point, and in the next class, there was a communicative passive production activity in spoken language. Here is the transcript of the audio-taped lesson of this portion (S S2, and S3 denote the students in this class who participated in the talk; T represents the teacher).





71


T: What kind of things happening in this university? What is going on in

this university? Nothing? I know that there are at least three articles in

the paper that deal with the university happenings, right now.

S : I think I saw about the university.........

T: Um, I heard about that. It's a story. What else? Now we are gonna talk

more about this in a minute. Anything else happening that you know of?

Like what? Just give me a quick example?

S2: Student government appears to fight for new directors.

T: All right. Student government are friends. What else?

S3: The Sports Center. The Sports Center was fired and even after testing,

because the Sports Center was remained a mystery.

T: Oh, the Sports Center was set on fire, is it being rebuilt?

S3: I think it is.

T: I think they are. Is there any question? I would like you to ask questions,

tell me more, tell your neighbors more the stories from the news from

them, and I like you to use passives.

As seen in this transcript, the students and the teacher used passives in their talk about the news in the assigned local student newspaper. S3 used passives by saying, "The Sports Center was fired and even after testing, because the Sports Center was remained a mystery." His saying "was fired" was correct in his use of passives in spoken language, but his saying "was remained" seems that he overused a passive voice in his spoken language. Teacher used passives in his talk





72


by saying, "Oh, the Sports Center was set on fire, is it being rebuilt?" The teacher demonstrated how to use passives in spoken language to talk about a news story.

Another communicative production activity was a discussion activity about "children." After teaching passives, modals, and infinitives, the instructor gave students discussion questions for the next day about which they should think carefully to participate actively in the discussion the next day. The teacher asked the students to read those discussion questions, and to plan how they would answer them in the next day's class. He emphasized that students should discuss the questions using passives, modals, and infinitives particularly.

The discussion questions were "Do you think it's OK for both the mother and father to work?," "Do you think it makes a difference which parent takes care of a young child?," "Do you think companies should give women time off to have a baby?," "What are the most important things children need to be taught?," "What about punishment?," "Do you think children are given enough attention these days?," "Should children be allowed to make their own choices?," and "Is it OK for older brothers and sisters to take care of young children?." On the next day, students worked in small groups and participated actively in discussing these issues using the grammar that they had learned already (passives, modals, and infinitives). After this small group discussion, each group leader reported turn by turn about his/her group discussion results on these issues to the instructor using those necessary grammar items.

There was a movie review activity after learning present perfect tense, present perfect continuous, present participles, passives, modals, and past





73


participles. The teacher asked the students first to be in small groups with persons who wanted to share a review on the same movie. Then the teacher asked students to write a short summary of the movie together with group members talking about it. Teacher wrote on the board, "Talk about your general feelings toward the movie first," "Second, write a short summary of the movie," "Third, talk about especially good/bad parts of the movie," and "Finally, would you recommend it and why?." The teacher emphasized especially that students should use what they had learned so far in their talk about the movie together in a small group and in the movie review written. The teacher emphasized that this activity would increase the grammar accuracy because everyone decided which grammar would be used in the review written together in a group.

Here is the transcript audio-tape recorded during this movie review activity of the lesson (the researcher audio-tape recorded the group which decided to write a review on the movie 'The Rock,' and in this group there were two Korean students participating, Young Soo Park and Soon Hee Cho).

(There were four people in this group, and S1 and S2 denote the two

students who participated in the group discussion about writing a movie review on 'The Rock' besides Park and Cho. T represents the teacher)

Cho: 'The Rock' was an action movie, and also 'The Rock' was an exciting

movie. (All laugh) And this movie was seen in lots of people and

places.

SI: I like it. It is seen by a lot of growing people and children. Is it love

story?





74


Cho: Yeah, it's a true story, but...... Park: It's not real,just...... it is not true story. That scene is true. Oh, you

mean Sean Connery escaped the prison? That was true.

Cho: Based on a true story. Nicholas Cage was given fan's love by a

successful movie.

S 1: The movie has been remembered for...... Park: For what?

SI: I can't say "has been remembered." Cho: No, it's okay, because passive with present perfect. S 1: It has been remembered for everybody. Cho: For everybody? Park: No, I don't think so. S : The movie has been remembered for...... Cho: Because......

S : The movie has been remembered because...... S2: It was......

Cho: Because it was exciting movie. Park: Interesting movie. Park: Because Sean Connery's play was...... Cho: Because it was a good action movie. Sl: The movie has been remembered because it was interesting and real

story.

Park: Based on real story? It's different because it's based on real story, but





75


the story is not real, it's based on only one scene escape...... S2: Albatross.

Park: Yeah, Albatross. That only one person escaped jail and that is real.

But another story is not real. It's fiction. SI: Yeah, I know.

T: (Interrupts) I think I saw that. It's about prison. What happened? Is it

Albatross?

Park: Albatross is not important in the movie. T: Who is in there? Is Nicholas Cage there? S (all): Yeah, Nicholas Cage and Sean Connery. T: What happened? I don't remember the prison. Are they bad people? Cho: Not bad. I think it's not bad. They are army people. They took

the Albatross. But it's not bad people, I think.

Park: Actually their purpose was not bad, but it changed. T: Actually they're doing correct things, but, so they were in the prison.

Why are they there? Why they are destroying the world and something

like that?

Park: Oh, they wanted the money from the government. Cho: Yeah.

Park: So......

S I: The movie has been remembered because it was been made by a real

story.

Park: It has been made? Whole story is fiction, but only one scene someone





76


escapes Albatross, it's real story. Only that is real story. S 1: Okay, what others? Cho: We have to write some story. Albatross was taken by bad army

people.

Park: Yeah, soldiers.

SI: Oh, so by soldier people. Park and Cho: No, just soldiers. (All laugh) S 1: Albatross was taken by bad soldiers, okay. Park: Someone stole chemical bomb in the army. Yeah, it's a chemical

bomb, looks like green marble. Chemical was stolen.

Cho: Chemical bomb was stolen by bad people. (After some thought) I

think we don't need "by bad people," because chemical is stolen by

bad people. One sentence, okay.

SI: So chemical bomb was stolen and Albatross was taken by bad people,

by group. Yeah, okay.

Cho: So the government...... Park: Oh, Sean Connery was hired by government to...... S (all): How can we spell Sean Connery? (They ask the teacher for help) T: (Spells it for them)

Park: What is the word 'without another people's notice'? (He looks up the

word in a Korean-English dictionary) Oh, infiltrate. S1: Oh, infiltrate.

T: (Interrupts) Good word!





77


Park: To infiltrate Albatross into government.

T: Okay, just stop here, and...... (He gives the students homework)

As seen in this transcript, the students used what they had learned in their talk about the movie 'The Rock.' Cho showed a good use of present participles when she said, "The Rock was an exciting movie." She used a passive voice by saying, "And this movie was seen in lots of people and places." S used a passive voice by saying, "It is seen by a lot of growing people and children." Cho used past participles by saying, "Based on a true story." She used a passive voice by saying, "Nicholas Cage was given fan's love by a successful movie." SI showed a good use of present perfect tense with a passive voice by saying, "The movie has been remembered for......" Park used present participles by saying, "Interesting movie." He used passive voices by saying, "It's different because it's based on real story, but the story is not real, it's based on only one scene escape......"

Teacher interrupted the students' talk, and participated in the talk about the movie together with the students for short amount of time. He demonstrated the uses of present participles in the talk about the movie by saying, "Actually they're doing correct things, but, so they were in the prison. Why are they there? Why they are destroying the world and something like that?" Park used present perfect tense with a passive voice by saying, "It has been made?" Cho used a passive voice by saying, "Albatross was taken by bad army people." Park showed a good use of passives when he said, "Chemical was stolen." He used a passive voice again by saying, "Oh, Sean Connery was hired by government to......" The students used lots of passives, present perfect tense, present participles, and past





78

participles in their talk about the movie together in this group, and used these grammar items in their movie review written.

After this movie review writing activity together in groups, the teacher

asked the students to edit their written movie reviews with grammar checklist in the textbook and to turn them in the next day. Lots of negotiation of meaning work was done with those target (already learned) grammar items for group movie reviews in this activity. And communicative language production work was done through writing and speaking simultaneously in this activity.



The Advanced Level Grammar Classroom



At this level of class, articles, count nouns, noncount nouns, plural 's,'

quantifiers, tense and aspect, phrases and clauses, sentence types, the parts of a sentence, direct and indirect speech, prepositions, modals, the passives, parallelism, sentence variety, some special cases of subject-verb agreement, conditional sentences, infinitives and gerunds, causative verbs, comparatives, and superlatives were taught. At this level, the instructor first presented the grammar items that would be taught and learned on a particular day by writing on the board several example sentences where new grammar points were included. In this way, an inductive way of presentation of grammar items, like problem soving, where students themselves first found out about new grammar points with a teacher's prompts was used as an introduction of new grammar points to be taught. The teacher emphasized that this proficiency level enjoyed tasks of problem solving





79


and analysis of written sentences given to them, rather than just receiving the transmitted grammar knowledge by a teacher.

The second phase of this level's grammar instruction was the detailed explanation of grammar points in focus with reference to the textbook where charts were used to explain and show how the grammar points are used. The final phase of this level's grammar instruction was useful communicative speaking and writing activities (usually writing activities were preferred much more than the speaking activities using the learned grammar items). Lots of error analysis work for the already learned grammar was done at this level as a practice activity. Also textbook exercises were done very much (usually those exercises were sentence writing activities with the learned grammar) to practice already learned grammar.

Introduction. The teacher introduced the to-be-learned grammar items on the board by writing sentences which were real sentences about her own life: The focus grammar items were present perfect tenses. She wrote, "I have taught English overseas," "I've been to Disney World six times," "I've taught English for 23 years," and "I've just talked about three uses of present perfect." Then she asked the students why she used present perfect tenses in these sentences, and several students answered her questions by saying, "The first one is experience, and the second one is also experience." In this way the teacher introduced her students to the new grammar point in focus on that day by giving them meaningful (not contrived) sentences in which the teacher communicated to the students about her own real life, and the students also communicated to her about their state of knowledge on the given grammar point. So this introductory





80


grammar presentation to be taught and to be learned on a particular day was communicative because real communication between the instructor and the students happened using the new grammar item.

Explanation. Then after this introduction of grammar points in focus, the instructor explained one by one the cases of using the present perfect tense in real life. She explained the grammar by giving many meaningful example sentences, and by referring many times to the textbook charts where the grammar point in focus was explained. In this way, the teacher showed how the grammar point in focus was used in real life to the students. At this advanced level, students mostly understood the teacher's explanation of the grammar points and the textbook chart explanation of the given grammar about its use. And sometimes if misunderstanding occurred among students, the students did not hesitate to ask her for more explanation or for more example sentences. As one Korean student (Chul Ho Park) said in his first interview with the researcher (see Chapter 5), this supportive and comfortable classroom atmosphere to pursue one's own inquiry was one of the factors that could have helped the students' learning at this level. The teacher was always ready to provide more needed explanations or points for her students.

When explaining the grammar points, the teacher frequently mentioned style issues about using a specific grammar item or certain expressions in real life. For example, when students were learning the uses of present perfect tense, she emphasized that the use of the expressions 'so far' and 'thus far' which are





81


usually used with the present perfect tense is different in style. She said, "The use of 'thus far' is much more formal than the use of 'so far."'

Also when she was teaching the past perfect tenses, the teacher emphasized that those words like 'before' and 'after' which are usually used with the simple past tense and the past perfect tense to notify the time sequence of two past actions can also be used with two simple past tenses. She said:

In most conversational spoken use of English, uses of the past perfect tense

and simple past tense with these words to notify the time sequence of two past actions make information conveyed redundant, because 'before' and

'after' expressions already denote the time sequence between two past

actions. So the use of the past perfect tense to denote the time sequence of

two past actions with these words makes information redundant in most

conversational uses of English.

And she emphasized the style difference by saying, "You should use the past perfect tense with simple past tense in expressing the time sequence of two past actions with these words in written and formal uses of English."

Therefore, in this way the instructor also dealt with English style issues and different versions of English in quite different situations of use. She said to the researcher in her interview, "This touch of style issue will probably help my students quite a lot because they already know a lot of English grammar basic facts, and they need more on English real life uses."

Communicative exercises. Most grammar practice activities at this level were oral and written sentence compositions using the learned grammar points,





82


which were presented in the textbook. So textbook exercise doing task was one of the most frequently used grammar practice activities in this class. But those sentence completion activities were never simple and just easy. To do one textbook exercise required each student's creative thought to be communicated to other students and to the instructor. For example, when students learned adverb clauses of time, they did the textbook sentence completion exercise by doing it orally and writing the rest of the sentences at the same time. The textbook direction was this: "Complete the following sentences about choosing and keeping friends." And students completed the sentences like "Whenever I meet someone for the first time, I ," "I won't invite someone to my house for dinner until ," "I consider a person to be a close friend once ," and "I will trust a friend as long as ," etc. The students completed these sentences with their own thought in writing, and in turn-by-turn each student expressed his or her sentence to the whole group of students and to the instructor.

Also as a practice of sentence parts like subject, verb, object, etc., students practiced making sentences with given subjects in the textbook. So after completing the sentences with given subjects, the students communicated their own sentences one by one to the whole class members. Students (one by one) said, "Taking aerobics classes is fun," "What you eat is disgusting," "What you eat is good for your health," "What you eat determines how you feel," "What you eat can make you fat," "Junky foods, cigarettes, and alcohol are essential for your health (the student made this sentence for humorous effect)," "Fad diets can be





83


dangerous or useless," "Staying healthy and fit is very important," "The best way to avoid being sick is to do exercise,"etc.

Another very frequently used grammar practice activity at this level of class was "error analysis." As the instructor told the researcher in the interview with her, students at this proficiency level liked written grammar analysis work and writing activities rather than communicative game activities. Usually the instructor gave the students handouts of error analysis where the students should correct every error that they saw (including spelling errors) based on their already learned grammar until any specific point of time as homework or as a quiz, and then in the next class the whole class together with the instructor presenting the correct answers on a transparency checked the work.

Also, oral communicative grammar practice activities were done at this level of class, and students participated in them eagerly. Students practiced the use of the simple past tense and the present perfect tense (as general conversation opener with a person) with a partner: In the textbook, there were prompt key words for use like "eat a dog," "visit foreign countries," "play football," etc. And students in pairs asked each other about these using a general conversation opener of present perfect tense like 'Have you eaten a dog?,' and the other student answered 'yes' or 'no.' And if the other student answered 'yes,' then the student asked him or her again with the specific question using a simple past tense like 'When did you eat it?' or 'Where did you eat it?' and the conversation went on in this way. This exercise was done in the present perfect part to practice the use of it related to the use of simple past tense in real life situations. The students





84


seemed to enjoy this kind of exercise where they communicated with each other about their experiences using the learned grammar points. Certainly, use of these grammar points learned helped fluent communication between persons as shown in the above presentation.

Another oral communicative grammar practice activity used in this class was having students interview each other about their life histories. After teaching all the diverse English verb tense systems, the teacher gave students an interview project where students asked each other (they worked in pairs) about several different topics on a person's life history like "Where/when born?," "First ten years (family activities and school activities)," "Adolescence/teen years (school activities, work experiences, family activities, and leisure/social activities)," "His/her 20s (professional/work activities, educational activities, family activities, and leisure/social activities)," "This year (until this term-professional activities, educational activities, and leisure/social activites)," "Now (professional activities, educational activities, and leisure/social activities)," and "Future-predict or guess (professional activities, educational activities, and leisure/social activities)." The students interviewed each other on these topics and subtopics (written on a handout) using appropriate verb tenses in their questions and answers. And in this way they practiced simple past tense, simple present tense, present progressive, present perfect tense, simple future tense, and future perfect tense meaningfully questioning and answering about their own life histories.

For the written follow-up, the teacher asked the students to take notes on each other's answers to these life history questions briefly with key words on the





85


distributed handout. And then the teacher, after the interview where the students collected their necessary data to write about a different person's life history, asked the students to write the interview contents up using as many different verb tenses as possible in an essay paper. The teacher emphasized that this was a communicative activity because students communicated with each other about their own life histories, and then they submitted the essay papers to the instructor to communicate with her about a different person's life history.

Another writing activity was done to practice passive and active voices. In this activity, the teacher brought a newspaper article and she asked the students to notice and underline all passive voices used there, and then asked them as a homework to rewrite those sentences in an active voice. The teacher told the researcher in the interview that this activity was intended for the students' fluent grasp of passive and active voices.

As seen in these several communicative exercises done at this level of

class, writing activities were more frequent than just oral communicative activity; this happened because the teacher believed that writing activities, in addition to oral activities, facilitate students' command of English grammar especially at this advanced grammar level. She said to the researcher:

Lots of speaking and listening practices, focusing on some analysis,

inductive discovery, and just telling the students the rules sometimes all in mixed form help the acquisition of grammar. I think it's very hard to pick

up grammar from just oral speech. I think you need some analysis work

and studying it.





86


as an answer to the grammar teacher interview question number 1 which was "How do you think grammar can be acquired best?." (see Appendix B)



Summary



Across all three different proficiency levels, three phases of the grammar instruction were first, the introduction, second, the explanation, and third, the communicative language production work using the learned grammatical items. All three grammar classes used an inductive grammar presentation approach where various language forms are practiced but where the learners are left to discover or induce rules and generalizations on their own, rather than a deductive one where the learners are given a rule/generalization by the teacher or textbook and then allowed to practice various instances of language to which the rule applies (Brown, 1994). Then, direct detailed explanations of the new grammar to be learned with rich example sentences followed this introduction to demonstrate the points to be taught.

The key and the most important feature of the grammar instruction

provided in the intensive English language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America was that there were rich communicative grammar practice activities at the end of each unit. Either speaking activities or writing activities, using the already learned grammar points or a combination of both, asked the students to practice the grammar learned in the context of communication with one another or with the instructor.





87


Related to these rich communicative language production exercises in the grammar classrooms in the program was the existence of a supportive, but also challenging classroom atmosphere to facilitate the students' production of language. This was another one of the most significant features of the grammar instruction observed in the program. Teachers were highly dedicated to their job and worked hard, always making themselves available to the students at any time they needed the instructor. The comfortable and supportive classroom atmosphere may have facilitated students' interaction doing communicative language exercises either through spoken form or written form or both of them simultaneously. Students interacted with the teacher to ask questions and to communicate with him/her as language production work in a supportive and comfortable ("non-threatening") classroom atmosphere.

Finally, the last significant feature of the grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program was that it used a variety of authentic meaningful materials to teach grammar: Newspapers (local student newspaper and other newspapers), audio-taped recordings of native speakers' speech in real life situations, and a video-tape recorded with the TV-show "The X-Files" were used in addition to the textbook materials. They may have enriched the students' English grammar learning experiences, raising their interests and motivation to learn English language.













CHAPTER 5
THE NATURE OF KOREAN STUDENTS' LANGUAGE LEARNING



To answer the research questions 2 and 3, what were seven Korean

students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a 7-month period, what was the nature of these Korean students' writing development over a 7-month period in which they attended the intensive English language program, and what factors may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills, mainly those two interview data collected during the Summer C term of 1998 with seven Korean students were analyzed.

Those two interviews (the first interview done in the middle of the semester and the second interview done nearly at the end of the semester) conducted with seven Korean students were divided into five distinctive areas in order to answer research questions 2 and 3. The questions were first, the purpose of learning English grammar and the way it should be taught, second, their perspectives on communicative grammar instruction and its teachers, third, their learning strategies used to learn and practice English grammar in and outside the grammar classrooms of the program (these three interview questions were asked during the first interview with seven Korean students), fourth, the exploration of their English language learning experiences in the intensive language program, and



88





89


fifth, the exploration of their English language learning experiences outside the setting of the intensive language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America in addition to their personalities and hobbies (these two final interview questions were asked during the second interview done with the six Korean students who agreed to show their writing samples).

The researcher, in this chapter, deals with seven Korean students' interview data (the answers to the above five interview questions) as seven distinctive individual cases to be interpreted and described in detail. She describes seven cases related to the above five explorations with general descriptions of each individual's sex, age, educational background, and the grammar class level he/she attended. The following is a table describing the Korean students' years of English education in South Korea. Case I refers to Chul Soo Song, case 2 refers to Ki Young Kwak, case 3 refers to Soon Hee Cho, case 4 refers to Young Soo Park, case 5 refers to Young Hee Jun, case 6 refers to Chul Ho Park, and case 7 refers to Hyun Woo Choi.

Table 1. Number of Years of English Education in South Korea
Cases Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Number of Years 7 6 6 7 7 7 7



Chul Soo Song



Chul Soo Song was a male, 24-year-old Korean student who registered as a full-time student in the intensive English language program during the Summer C term of 1998. He was in the beginning level grammar class under teacher Emmy





90


Krempasky. He majored in biology in South Korea in his university. He attended one semester of Summer C, 1998 in the program to learn English, and then moved to New York to attend another language school there. His educational background was attendance at schools until college in Seoul, South Korea and his learning English for seven years in South Korea (six years of English education during middle and high school years, and one additional year of English education in college).

Brainstorming on grammar instruction. He said to the researcher, "The purpose of learning English grammar is for correct and better expressions of English in either speaking or writing." And on the way English grammar should be taught, he showed his view by saying, "Grammar should be used in real life situations either through speaking or through writing after being taught its rules." He liked an inductive way of teaching English grammar like the case he was taught in his grammar class. He said:

In my case, I usually first try my expressions either in speaking or in writing and then I look up grammar books and other grammar references to fill the

necessary gaps and to correct any error found out in the first trial. And I don't usually first study grammar and then using that grammar make my

expressions either in speaking or in writing. So I think the first case is

better grammar instruction than the second case. And I think Korean

grammar instructional method is not very good in this point. The first case is similar to the grammar instructional method taught here in my grammar





91


class. And for that reason, I don't dislike my grammar class where the

inductive method is preferred.

He emphasized that in South Korea, he was not able to practice English

grammar in writing or in speaking because English education in South Korea does not combine speaking or writing practice activities to teach grammar. He emphasized that grammar should be practiced a lot either in the grammar class or outside of that class either in writing activities or in speaking activities. And he advocated the integrated skills instruction rather than the separated skills instruction like the case here in the intensive English language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. He liked all those grammar, oral skills, and reading/writing classes to be combined to teach English, and then grammar to be taught in addition to the instruction of these practical skills of English.

Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction. He said to the

researcher, "A grammar class teacher should give individual attention to each and every student to check his or her progress and problems in learning English. And my grammar teacher sometimes does this job very well, but she has a lack in teaching experiences and leadership skills as a teacher." But he said, "The inductive grammar teaching method where the teacher first introduced new grammar items to be taught through textbook passages or dialogues or other example sentences for students' guessing of grammar rules, and then taught them in my grammar class was somewhat helpful for my acquisition of grammar." He also said, "The grammar practice activities done in my grammar class, I mean,





92

both textbook exercise doing activities and oral communicative grammar practice activities, were somewhat helpful for my acquisition of grammar." He explained:

I like my grammar class because I am able to check my grammatical

knowledge through lots of grammar practice activities used there, and

because the teacher sometimes gives quite useful individual attention to me

for my deficient part in grammar, which makes me pay extra attention to

my deficient part.

He commented that quite free and loose educational atmosphere (by this, he meant the teacher-student relationship and spoken communicative grammar practice activities done in class) he felt during his grammar class made him somewhat dislike that class because he thought grammar, unlike other practical skills class like the oral skills or the reading/writing, requires tight educational atmosphere where students should study rules of grammar in some way. He additionally said that this thought was because he was not accustomed to that educational atmosphere in South Korea, and it was quite fresh to him at that time. But he liked the inductive presentation of grammar from the teacher rather than the deductive one (where grammar rules are presented first directly from the teacher's part and then example sentences and practice activities followed) which was the Korean English grammar teaching approach.

Learning strategies used to practice grammar. He said:

I usually practice my learned grammar both through lots of writing

activities in the reading/writing class and through preparation of oral

presentations in the oral skills class. Through these processes, I check my




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EX50WUK3G_G6TFSF INGEST_TIME 2014-12-23T18:50:41Z PACKAGE AA00026643_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

A STUDY OF COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION FOR KOREAN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS' WRITING SKILLS IN ENGLISH BY SUNG HWA YANG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UMVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1999

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation has been a year collaboration crafted and supported by many people, none of whom accept simple solutions for complex problems. My deep appreciation goes to all the teachers and the Korean students who participated in this study. Three grammar classroom teachers of this intensive English language program of one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America permitted me to observe their classes and participated voluntarily in the interviews. Four reading/writing class teachers of the intensive English language program gave me access to Korean students' writing samples. Seven Korean students participated in the interviews providing me with the perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over the study's period. They also showed me their writing samples over time faithfully. I appreciate most their willingness to speak thoughtfully and honestly during the interview processes. Words cannot express the gratitude I feel toward Dr. Clemens Hallman. As my supervisor and committee chair throughout my graduate study at the University of Florida, he invited me into the professional conversation, encouraging me to work harder in my major area of study. He always guided me in the right direction. He was the first faculty member to believe in my ability and ii

PAGE 3

to show an interest in the ethnographic case study in an intensive English language program. He was kind, enthusiastic, and intelligent. In addition, I was extremely fortunate to work with an exemplary doctoral committee, a veritable goldmine of expertise. It was a very supportive committee. Their collective wisdom guided my research skills and their individual kindness fostered more fundamental beliefs. Dr. David Miller guided me to do a qualitative study when I first discussed with him the nature of the study. With his correct guidance, I succeeded in conducting the study with the right research method. Dr. Roger Thompson taught me what kind of data I should collect and how to analyze the collected data for this study. He inspired me with the ideas of English education for second language learners in his courses, especially in the 'Second Language Acquisition' course. In that course, I first formulated an idea for doing a study of communicative grammar. His gentle ways of suggestion helped me to accept his ideas. Dr. Jane Townsend guided my growth as a qualitative researcher. From her I learned how to use many different tools appropriate to the task. She nudged me to make my wonderings visible. Conversations with her inspired and guided me, helping me formulate questions. Her own research served as a model for mine, demonstrating the art and quality possible in educational research. I admire her wit and wisdom. She was a very supportive but critical teacher for me. On a personal note, I owe my deepest thanks to my family whose belief in me has helped me to believe in myself Jae Chul Yang and Jung Won Baeck, my loving and very devoted parents, have always been proud of their daughter and iii

PAGE 4

supported her study from the far distance of South Korea. My kind parents-in who funded my graduate study here in the University of Florida deserve my deepest appreciation. I finally thank my husband for his patience and help throughout my graduate study. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT vii CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Statement of the Problem 4 Research Questions 5 Significance of the Study 6 Definition of Terms 8 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11 Grammar Pedagogies 11 Learning Style and Cuhure 21 Communicative Approaches to Teaching English 30 Summary 40 3 METHOD 43 Setting of the Study 44 Participants 45 Data Collection 48 Data Analysis 55 4 COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION 59 The Beginning Level Grammar Classroom 59 The Intermediate Level Grammar Classroom 65 The Advanced Level Grammar Classroom 78 Summary 86 5 THE NATURE OF KOREAN STUDENTS' LANGUAGE LEARNING ... 88

PAGE 6

Chul Soo Song 89 Ki Young Kwak 97 Soon Hee Cho 103 Young Soo Park 109 Young Hee Jun 116 Chul Ho Park 124 Hyun Woo Choi 133 Summary 141 6 WRITING SKILLS' DEVELOPMENT 150 The Beginning Level Writing Samples 151 The Intermediate Level Writing Samples 156 The Advanced Level Writing Samples 163 Summary 185 7 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 191 Summary of the Results 192 Discussion 199 Implications 205 APPENDICES A INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOLS 212 B INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS 216 REFERENCES 218 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 222 vi

PAGE 7

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A STUDY OF COMMUNICATrVE GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION FOR KOREAN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS' WRITING SKILLS IN ENGLISH By Sung Hwa Yang May 1999 Chair: Dr. Clemens L. Hallman Major Department: Instruction & Curriculum The academic skill of writing is a major concern area of English educators in South Korea. This study, conducted over a 7-month period in an intensive English language program of one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America, investigated the nature of six Korean students' writing development in relation to their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program. Communicative grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program was described in detail as these Korean students' major English language learning in the intensive language program. This description was done through the analyses of the grammar class textbooks, the researcher's field notes taken during the grammar classroom observations, the audio-taped vii

PAGE 8

transcripts of real classroom lessons, and the three grammar teachers' interviews. Seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program were described through two in-depth interviews with them. Writing samples over a 7-month period in which these Korean students attended the program were collected under their reading/ writing teachers' permissions and their permissions. Results indicate that an inductive approach to grammar presentation where cases are presented first and then rules are presented, diverse authentic educational materials, and communicative grammar practice activities either in spoken or in written form were used in the grammar classes of the intensive English language program. The six Korean students showed development over time in their writing skills in terms of grammar, vocabulary, organization, content, and length. Significant factors that may have influenced these students' writing skills' development over time were found to be the Korean students' positive reactions to the communicative grammar instructional process and its teachers, the amount of reading done outside the program, and the amount of spoken interactions done both in and outside the program. The communicative grammar instruction and the integrated skills instruction could have implications for educational programs in South Korea. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Backgroimd The researcher's major field of study is Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). There are several important areas of concern for second language educators to worry about. They are the four language skills which are listening, speaking, reading, writing, in addition to grammar. Explicit and implicit grammatical abilities are directly related to second language students' reading and writing abilities. Therefore, effective grammar instruction is needed (CelceMurcia, 1985). During the past 25 years, several approaches to English grammar instruction have been available to second language educators and second language students. However, none of them (Ellis, 1993) provided effective student learning outcomes. A new and innovative approach to grammar instruction that has appeared is the "communicative approach." In this approach, grammar is taught vsathin meaningful contexts through real communication between language teachers and students (Mitchell & Redmond, 1993; Savignon, 1991). Several studies (Krashen, 1982; Prabhu, 1987; Swain, 1985) have advocated its effectiveness over other approaches. 1

PAGE 10

2 The researcher's ethnicity is Korean. In South Korea, where English is taught as a foreign language, effective grammar instruction is desperately needed. In South Korea, English is taught in middle and high schools as a foreign language curriculum. It is taught as a subject matter. Korean teachers who majored in English education at the Teachers' College in a university in South Korea teach the 'English' subject matter in middle and high schools. The English language is approached first through a detailed analysis of its grammar rules, followed by an application of this knowledge to the task of translating sentences and texts out of the target language into Korean. Therefore, memorizing grammar rules and facts is required in order to understand and manipulate the morphology and syntax of the foreign language which is English. In this way, the first language is maintained as the reference system in the acquisition of the second language (Stem, 1983). In this curriculum, reading out loud the textbook of the 'English' subject and reciting the memorized dialogues presented in the textbook consist of the speaking tasks. Listening to the text contents through audio-tapes played by the teacher consists of major listening tasks. Reading is done through the grammar translation work, and writing is done mainly through grammar exercises and translations of Korean into English. Vocabulary selection is based solely on the readings of the English textbook, and words are taught through bilingual word lists, dictionary study, and memorization. The grammar rules are presented in the English textbook. The sentence is the basic unit of teaching and language practice. Much of the lesson is devoted to translating sentences out of the target language into Korean. Accuracy

PAGE 11

3 is emphasized, and students are expected to attain high standards in translation. Grammar is taught deductively, that is, by presentation and study of grammar rules, which are then practiced intensively through pattern drills and through translation exercises. The students' and the instructor's native language which is Korean is the medium of instruction because the lessons are conducted in Korean. Effective grammar instruction is highly needed in South Korea because during the past 25 years, Korean students educated mainly in "grammar-translation" methods and "audiolingual" pattern drills produced low student learning outcomes on measures of the four English skills. The goal of English education in South Korea is to develop the students' ability to use English both in written form and in oral form (Canale & Swain, 1980). And traditional grammar instruction through "audiolingual" pattern drills and "grammar-translation" methods resulted in low student motivation and low student learning outcomes in both written and oral forms of English (Ellis, 1993). Low student motivation existed in the traditional grammar instruction because grammar was thought to be boring and uninteresting work which did not have anything to do with the students' own lives. Pattern drills and grammar translation work used in the traditional grammar instruction were too difficult and boring for the students (Richards & Rodgers, 1986), and therefore the traditional grammar instruction resulted in low student motivation. And research showed that low student learning motivation resulted in low student learning outcomes (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Therefore, an innovative "communicative" grammar

PAGE 12

instruction may give some hope for Korean English educators to improve Korean students' academic skill of writing in English. The researcher will describe the "communicative" grammar instruction provided in an intensive English language program of one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America using diverse means, will explore seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program, and will investigate the nature of these Korean students' writing development over time in relation to all factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. The results of this study, then, may provide insight into the possibilities for "communicative" grammar instruction in South Korea as a new approach, and may provide insights into other factors that may influence Korean students' writing skills' development. Statement of the Problem The first research objective was to find what the approaches, the materials, and the activities were in the grammar classes for speakers of English as a second language in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. The purpose was to describe in detail what happens in "communicative" grammar instruction.

PAGE 13

5 The second research objective was to explore seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program. The third research objective of this study was to find the nature of these Korean students' writing development over time in relation to all factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. Research Questions The following research questions were examined in this study: 1 What were the approaches, the materials, and the activities in the grammar classes for speakers of English as a second language in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America? 2. What were seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a 7-month period? 3. What was the nature of these Korean students' writing development over a 7month period in which they attended the intensive English language program? What factors may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills?

PAGE 14

6 Significance of the Study This study investigated the "communicative" grammar instruction provided in an intensive English language program of one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. This investigation had a descriptive purpose, and this detailed description of significant instructional features there may provide some ideas about a possible implementation of the "communicative" grammar instruction in South Korea as a new English grammar jjedagogy. Korean English language educators experienced ineffective English grammar teaching methods until now (Ellis, 1993); therefore, they need a new and effective method of teaching English grammar which may be "communicative" grammar instruction. This rationale is the first significance of the study. Second, this study investigated what all seven Korean students attending the begitming, the intermediate, and the advanced grammar classes in the intensive English language program thought about the "communicative" grammar instructional process and their teachers. This study also investigated what their learning strategies were working with the "communicative" grammar instruction provided for them as a second research objective. Additionally, this study explored six Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program. Several research studies (Krashen, 1977; Oxford, HoUaway, & HortonMurillo, 1992) suggest that language learning styles and culture are closely related.

PAGE 15

7 Those studies elaborated this finding by saying that students' language learning experiences in a specific culture influence how a student from that culture goes about learning a second language in a different culture. Based on these findings, it was assumed that adult Korean students who had already been educated pretty much linguistically (English as a foreign language) using pattern drills and rote memorization skills (Lado, 1964; Richards & Rodgers, 1986) would also use these learning strategies working with the "communicative" grammar instruction they received here. Also it was assumed that different language learning experiences make second language learning students resistant to a new language instructional approach in a different culture (Oxford, Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992). Therefore, investigating how adult Korean students react to a new instructional approach here in the intensive English language program may provide insights on the possibilities for an implementation of "communicative" grammar instruction in South Korea. This rationale is the second significance of the study. Third, this study aimed to investigate the nature of six Korean students' writing development over the time period in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. Explicit and implicit grammatical abilities are directly related to second language learners' reading and writing skills (CelceMurcia, 1985). Therefore, both explicit and implicit grammatical abilities developed in "communicative" grammar instruction were assumed to develop Korean students' writing skills in English; several past grammar pedagogies in South Korea failed to develop their academic skills in English (Ellis, 1993;

PAGE 16

Gardner & Lambert, 1972). The exploration of six Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program in this study may provide some insights on factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills over time. These insights may help improve Korean students' writing skills in the near future in South Korea. This is the third significance of the study. Many studies have been done in the area of communicative language instruction (Ellis, 1992; Krashen, 1982; Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Prabhu, 1987), and they all investigated communicative language instruction and oral language proficiency with grammatical abilities. Therefore, the current study may also contribute theoretically to the literature on communicative language instruction by exploring the possible interplay between "communicative" grammar instruction and writing skills. Definition of Terms "Communicative" grammar instruction refers to instruction where grammar and communication are focused on at the same time to develop proficient second language users (Mitchell & Redmond, 1993). Contextualized grammar exercises like role-plays and discussion activities in small groups where students can use their newly learned grammatical skills to communicate with others are used in this kind of grammar instruction as spoken grammar practice activities. Also there are written grammar practice activities in this instruction. Writing their own stories

PAGE 17

9 using the newly learned grammar skills to communicate with an instructor and writing movie reviews in small groups using the newly learned grammatical skills to communicate with one another and with the instructor are some examples of such activities. Language learning strategies are behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed, and enjoyable (Oxford, 1989). Cognitive academic language skills underlie the ability to manipulate language in decontextualized academic situations. Therefore, these language skills usually involve reading and writing skills in the second language. These skills are usually used in decontextualized situations and are cognitively very demanding because students must think academically and find meanings only through second language texts (Cummins, 1980). Basic interpersonal communication skills are the manifestation of language proficiency in everyday communicative contexts. These language skills are called the conversational language skills or social language skills in situations where people can interact with each other through contextual clues by facing each other (Cummins, 1980). Language learning style is the general approach students use to learn a new subject or tackle a new problem (Oxford, Ehrman, & Lavine, 1991). Therefore, language learning styles form the overall patterns that give general direction to learning behavior. Dunn and Griggs (1988) describe language learning style as the

PAGE 18

10 biologically and developmental ly imposed set of characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for some and terrible for others.

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Chapter 2 is organized into four major components: (a) grammar pedagogies, (b) learning style and culture, (c) communicative approaches to teaching English, and (d) overall summary of the literature reviewed. Grammar Pedagogies In this first section of the review of literature, past English grammar pedagogies are reviewed and the need for the present study is explored. There have been several methodological trends in second and foreign language teaching of English. The first approach to teaching English grammar was the grammartranslation approach {Richards & Rodgers, 1986). In this approach, very difficult English texts were selected, and teachers and students contributed most of their time to translating the English texts into the students' and the teacher's first language. This approach mostly was used in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), a situation where the language instructor and the students shared their first language. Therefore, grammar was difficult work for the students and it was also boring work to do. Students learning English grammar in this approach have not been shown to attain much learning outcome. 11

PAGE 20

12 A second approach was the audiolingual approach. The audioUngual approach (Lado, 1964) represented the first attempt by U.S. structural linguists to influence the teaching of modem foreign languages. Grammatical structures were very carefully sequenced from basic to more complex. The audiolingual proponents assumed that language learning was habit formation and overleaming. Therefore, mimicry of forms and memorization of certain sentence patterns were the main activity types in this approach to have the second or foreign language learning students acquire English grammar rules inductively. A variety of drill types was used to minimize students' errors, and errors were seen as the result of interference from the students' first language. The cognitive code approach was the third approach to appear for English grammar teaching. This approach was influenced by the work of linguists like Chomsky (1959) and was a reaction to the behaviorist features of the audiolingual approach. In this approach, language learning was viewed as rule acquisition rather than habit formation. Therefore, lots of pattern drills used in the audiolingual approach were not used but errors that students made were seen as very important to infer the students' developmental stages to reach the target language English grammar. Error analysis and correction, therefore, were the main classroom grammar teaching and learning activities. The source of errors was seen not only as transfer from the first language but also as the internal complexities of the target language. Still grammar was taught directly as already decided facts in transmission from the teacher to students. There was no real communication work using English grammar in these approaches. By real

PAGE 21

13 communication work, the researcher means use of newly learnt grammar points in communication between the teacher and students and students to students themselves. Ellis (1993) studied the structural syllabus mostly used in traditional grammar approaches like the grammar-translation approach and the audiolingual approach, and second language acquisition. He suggested that a structural syllabus where learners were presented explicit grammar rules and their immediate production of the newly learned grammar items was required had a leamability problem. This leamability problem means that learners are often unable to learn the structural properties they are taught because the manner in which they are taught does not correspond to the way learners acquire them. This inability to learn the grammatical features through immediate production was because the structural syllabus required immediate mastery of newly learned grammatical forms which the learners were not ready to master yet. A developmental sequence of grammatical structure's acquisition was proposed by BCrashen (1977), and it was really hard for learners to acquire grammatical items through immediate required production of them. Therefore, a new role for a structural syllabus is its subsidiary role rather than a major role in grammatical instruction. Ellis said that comprehension of newly taught grammar items rather than production should be the main activity in an English grammar class. He said that this comprehension work of grammar develops intake facilitation, and this work facilitates the work of noticing the gap in learners' grammar, and then grammatical development happens. He said that

PAGE 22

14 this intake facilitation works much better for second language acquisition than the development of implicit knowledge through audiolingual production work. Therefore, a comprehension and meaning-based syllabus where input for comprehension is carefully planned and structured to ensure that a learner is systematically exposed to specific grammatical features was needed based on his study. This meant that learners acquire their second language much better through a meaning-based syllabus which is designed to provide learners with opportunities for communicating in the second language. A notional-functional syllabus and a task-based syllabus belonged to this meaning-based syllabus. Therefore, a structural syllabus needed to be used alongside some kind of meaning-based syllabi where lots of comprehension work rather than required production work was emphasized and learners were provided with opportunities for real communication using newly learned grammar items after language comprehension work. Lightbown (1985), in his review of second language acquisition research, showed two very important and interesting second language acquisition research generalizations supported by different researchers and groups of researchers working in different places and using a variety of research methods to study the performance of learners who represented a number of native languages and target languages. The first of them was the finding that practice does not make perfect. This generalization pointed out the ineffectiveness of lots of meaningless production tasks usually used in traditional grammar teaching approaches represented by the grammar-translation method and the audiolingual method.

PAGE 23

15 Lightbown showed the findings that learners appeared to forget forms and structures which they had seemed previously to master and which they had extensively practiced. The second generalization of research was the finding that knowing a language rule does not mean one will be able to use it in communicative interaction. This generalization pointed out the ineffectiveness of only rule teaching approach without meaningfiil explanation about the grammar rule and communicative practice using that grammar rule. Therefore, this generalizable finding meant that those explicit rule only teaching approaches have no real life communication transfer of grammar rules that a teacher taught and learners learned in some way. The fourth approach that appeared to teach English grammar was the Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983) influenced by Krashen's (1981) input hypothesis. This approach assumed that comprehension precedes production, and comprehensible input, using lots of meaningfiil contexts, facilitates learners' acquisition of grammar. Also error correction was not seen as necessary, and it was assumed that learners as they progress in their acquisition of English grammar correct themselves. After experiencing the silent period of language acquisition in which second language learners only do the language comprehension work, it was assumed in this approach that learners experience also the production stages from early speech to speech emergence as they get more and rich comprehensible input a little bit above their current level of ability.

PAGE 24

16 5 Therefore, grammar was taught inductively in this approach, but there is no current strong supporting evidence that grammar is taught very well in this way. The fifth, and the most recent approach to teaching English grammar, is the Communicative approach. This approach came to the fore in the mid 1970s and originated in the work of functional linguists in Britain (Halliday, 1973). Language is viewed as an instrument of communication in this approach. Communicative competence which is composed of grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980) is emphasized, and grammatical competence is seen as only one component of the whole nature of communicative competence. Therefore, grammar is taught in realistic everyday meaningful contexts such as students' own real lives outside the language classroom through real communication between language instructors and the students. In this approach, a grammatical syllabus (structural syllabus) is not used but instead a task-based syllabus, a content-based syllabus, and a notional-functional syllabus are used to teach English grammar contextually, meaningfully, and communicatively. These syllabi claim that communication is the goal of second or foreign language instruction, and a language course using one of these syllabi is not organized around grammar but around subject matter, tasks/projects, or semantic notions and pragmatic functions. Savignon (1991) investigated the important features of what has come to be known as communicative language teaching (CLT). She said in this work that Communicative approach to language teaching is an international effort to

PAGE 25

17 respond to the needs of present-day language learners in many different contexts of learning. Language use is the meaning making process through collaboration of the participants, and the terms that best represent the collaborative nature of what goes on are interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning. The communicative competence needed for participation includes not only grammatical competence but also pragmatic competence. Savignon indicated the weakness of completely separated model of four skills of language use and the shortcomings of audiolingual methodology. With the Communicative approach to language teaching, there is now general acceptance of the complexity and interrelatedness of skills in both written and oral communication, and there is now the important need for learners to have the experience of communication and to participate in the negotiation of meaning to develop their communicative competence. An initial concern with sentence-level morphosyntactic features before the Communicative approach now expanded to include pragmatics, taking into account a host of cultural, gender, social, and other contextual factors. Savignon advocated the use of real communication in a language classroom to teach English language by showing the research result where learners who had practiced communication in lieu of laboratory pattern drills for one hour a week in the 18-week, five-hour-per-week program performed with no less accuracy on discrete-point tests of structure compared to the control group who had received mostly the structural approach. Also this experimental group's communicative competence as measured in terms of fluency, comprehensibility, effort, and

PAGE 26

amount of communication in a series of four unrehearsed communicative tasks significantly surpassed that of learners who had had no such practice. Activities like games, role plays, pair and other small-group activities gained their popularity for real communication work in Communicative language teaching approach. Savignon pointed out that in the CLT approach, grammar is also thought to be very important besides the functional language ability of learners because communication cannot take place in the absence of structure or grammar. The most important thing in this CLT approach to grammar is the fact that researchers who advocated the CLT approach made efforts to situate grammatical competence within a more broadly defined communicative competence. Therefore, grammar teaching through real communication practice where other aspects of communicative competence are also exercised is very important work in this Communicative approach to language teaching. The replacement of language laboratory structure drills with meaningfocused self-expression was found to be a more effective way to develop communicative ability with no loss of morphosyntactic (grammatical and structural) accuracy. For the development of communicative ability, research findings overwhelmingly supported the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience. Savignon said that grammar is important, and learners seemed to focus best on grammar when it related to their communicative needs and experiences. She also said that in these Communicative approaches to grammar, explicit attention to form should be paid not only to sentence-level

PAGE 27

19 morphosyntactic features but also to broader features of discourse, sociolinguistic rules of appropriacy, and communication strategies themselves. Therefore, the researcher's job in this study was to investigate how the above Communicative approach to grammar was done at the intensive English language program's grammar classrooms in one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. To foster second language learners' communicative competence, grammar should never be taught as an end in itself like the structural syllabus used in the previous approaches. Also English grammar carmot be seen as a system that simply emerges on its own given sufficient comprehensible input and practice, which was the view of the Natural Approach above. Instead, to proponents of the communicative competence, it should always be taught with reference to meaning and social factors within a quite realistic and meaningful discourse (Celce-Murcia &Hilles, 1988). Grammar is a resource for creating meaning through texts and a resource for successful communication. Therefore, it should be taught to do this very important job of developing the second language students' communicative competence. Second language educators' current job is to find effective ways to teach grammar in this way. Therefore, the grammar approach used at the intensive English language program in one major university located in the Southeastern part of the United States of America warranted investigation. Mitchell and Redmond (1993) advocated strongly the need for communicative grammar instruction. This was because, to develop proficient

PAGE 28

second language users, second language educators should not focus on grammar or communication in the second language classrooms, but on grammar and communication. As instances of a communicative grammar instruction, these researchers advocated the use of lots of examples of contextualized grammar exercises, a guided inductive lesson using the target language, and the use of many instances of the same structure to suggest ways of introducing grammar into the communicative classroom. They said that because much of the current research favors more explicit teaching of grammar and since textbooks remain grammatically oriented, it is necessary to combine grammar and communication in order to produce more proficient language users. These researchers strongly advocated the real life communicative contextualization of any grammatical structure to foster second language learners' understanding of the form, and to develop their newly emerging communicative ability using the newly learned grammatical structure. About the issue of how grammar should be taught communicatively, Mitchell and Redmond advocated the explicit exemplification of grammar by calling attention to the structure and then the provision of many examples in a communicative way. They argued for this because few adult learners seem willing or able to pick up or acquire a second language grammar implicitly as they did the grammar of their native tongue, nor do they have the time. They argued that the grammar presentation should be straightforward with clear explanation on it, and it should be aided for students' understanding by the use of gestures, diagrams, and well-thought-out contextualized examples. The final step was in-class guided

PAGE 29

21 practice which aids students in using the new grammar to communicate. These researchers' argument about communicative grammar instruction was very viable in terms of fostering both grammar and communication, and therefore the present researcher wanted to observe the grammar classrooms at the intensive English language program in one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America to find the significant features of communicative grammar instruction. These findings may extend the present literature on English grammar pedagogies, and also may help prepare for real implementation of communicative grammar instruction in South Korea in the near future. Learning Style and Culture In this section, studies of language learning style and strategies in relation to cultural background are reviewed and the need for the present study is explored. The second work of the researcher as a future Korean teacher trainer for better English instruction was to explore Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program with a special focus on their experiences in the grammar classrooms. This exploration works on the topic of learning style and culture, and the issue of whether learning styles can be changed if they usually and mostly are formed based on the cultural background of the learner. Keefe and Languis (1983) defined learning style as that consistent pattern of behavior and performance by which an individual approaches educational

PAGE 30

22 experiences. They thought of it as the composition of characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment. They said, "it is formed in the deep structure of neural organization and personality that molds and is molded by human development and the cultural experiences of home, school, and society" (p. 1). They defined the learning style above as based on the possibility of revision if necessary. Research by Ramirez and Castaneda (1974) suggested that learning style is related to world view and that certain learning styles tend to be predominant in certain cultures. They indicated that Mexican Americans tend to be relatively field dependent or global in orientation. Furthermore their research suggested that bilingual individuals tend to be bicognitive. That is, they said that fluent speakers of Spanish and English tend to have greater cognitive flexibility than monolinguals, being able to move back and forth between global and analytical orientations as needed. Worthley (1987) discussed the relationship between culture and individual learning styles and suggested that although diversity among individuals within any culture is the norm, these individuals show a common pattern of perception when the members of that culture are compared to the members of another culture. He fiirther suggested that the above conclusions were based on several research studies, and a cultural personality is more than a myth or stereotype. Cohen (1969) studied the learning styles of African American children and youth. Their learning styles were described as relational, as opposed to the

PAGE 31

23 analytical style rewarded in American schools. Compared to the research on learning styles of other U.S. ethnic groups, there were not a very good number of studies of Asian American learners. Yoshiwara (1983) studied particularly Japanese American students' learning styles and found that they are hard working, high achieving, relatively nonverbal, and seek careers in math and science. There was a very interesting study of the effects of cultural background on second language learning students' reading comprehension. Kang (1992) studied Korean students' cultural interference in second language reading comprehension. Ten Korean graduate students were the subjects in this study, and this study investigated the effects of culture-specific background knowledge and inferences upon second-language readers' comprehension of the English text. Ten adult Korean second-language readers were asked to think aloud as they read a short story from another culture and then answer a detailed set of post-reading questions. A qualitative analysis was done on the subjects' verbal report protocols and post-reading answers to obtain data on the inferences generated, the knowledge structures underlying these inferences, and the effect of activated background knowledge and inferences upon comprehension of a second language text. The results of this study indicated that the activation and generation of culture-specific schemata and inferences at times significantly affected subjects' comprehension of a second language text. Therefore, this study showed the dangerous potential for second or foreign language readers to interpret culturally

PAGE 32

24 unfamiliar text in terms of their own culture-specific background knowledge, often resulting in misinterpretations of the content. In addition, this study revealed very important pedagogical implications for second language reading instructions to remove this very dangerous activation of previous primary cultural background knowledge and inferences made from it. Those pedagogical implications suggested in this study were that second language reading instructors should provide pre-reading activities that can help ESL (English as a second language) students activate or develop appropriate background knowledge to utilize in the interpretation of assigned readings. Also it was suggested that second language reading instructors should help develop the metacognitive abilities of second language students to monitor and evaluate their own comprehension as they process a text, and strategies to deal with inconsistencies between their inferences or interpretations and information in the text. There was another interesting study comparing cross-culturally students' study habits or learning strategies (Moreno & Di Vesta, 1991). Learning strategies were described here in this study as the Cognitive Skills Inventory (CSI). The first of them was the integration factor where summarizing, organizing, guessing, and application strategies were included. The second of them was the repetition factor where lots of repetition and memorization strategies were included. The third of them was the monitoring factor where self-evaluation and metacognitive strategies were included. The fourth of them was the coping factor where affective strategies were included.

PAGE 33

25 The subjects in this study were three quite different cultural groups. They were monolingual English-speaking American students, bilingual Puerto Rican students, and monolingual Spanish students. These students responded on the above CSI. Results showed that the study, reading, and learning processes reported on the CSI by learners from somewhat different cultures were similar. The possible reason was suggested in this study that it was because the students, although they were from different countries, shared similar educational opportunities and educational values. All groups were from university populations. The researchers suggested that the values of university education were shared by the inhabitants of these settings. They also suggested that the instructional systems used, including delivery systems and testing procedures, were very similar in all three settings. But the authors revealed, in the end of the study, very important implications about the possibility of different strategy use by different educational approaches, different generations, and by different educational environments. Therefore, they said that the strategies used by younger and older citizens, the strategies used by students in traditional and modem educational settings, and the strategies used by students in a distance learning environment as compared with strategies used by students in residence at universities might be potential sources of differences, both within a given country and between countries. This study, overall, reported the importance of educational background when students from different cultures show their use of learning strategies.

PAGE 34

26 There was a major study reporting cross-cultural ESL/EFL (English as a foreign language) language learning styles (Oxford, HoUaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992). In this study, very different learning styles were attributed to cultural differences. Learning styles were defined as the general approaches students use to learn a new subject or tackle a new problem. It was assumed in this study that learning styles and related learning strategies have a strong cultural component. The researchers gave an example to support this argument. They said, "in China, the nature of the script develops children's ability to recognize patterns and memorize by rote, while children in Germany are brought up to believe that anything easy to understand is probably dubious and unscientific" (p. 440). The researchers of this study presented eight major language learning style dimensions which seemed to be the most significant for ESL/EFL learning. They were global and analytic, field-dependent and field-independent, feeling and thinking, impulsive and reflective, intuitive-random and concrete-sequential, closure-oriented and open, extroverted and introverted, and visual, auditory, and hands-on (this is a combination of tactile and kinesthetic). And the researchers said that although culture is not the single determinant and although many other influences intervene, culture often does play a significant role in the learning styles unconsciously adopted by many participants in the culture. Oxford et al. (1992) found that Hispanic ESL/EFL students are more global than analytic in learning style. They are highly field-dependent rather than fieldindependent, and in general are more overtly feelingthan thinking-oriented. Sometimes they appear more impulsive than reflective. Oxford et al. found that

PAGE 35

27 Japanese ESL/EFL students like highly structured, deductive classes with frequent corrections of small details, indicating an analytic tendency. They might be classified as more thinkingthan feeling-oriented. On concrete-sequential and intuitive-random learning styles and strategies, the researchers said that concrete-sequential styles among ESL/EFL students are encouraged by a number of cultures that stress rote memorization rather than "meaningful learning." And therefore, Korean students and Arabic-speaking students whose educational systems and general cultures foster rote memorization skills tend to have much more concrete-sequential learning styles than intuitiverandom learning styles. And the researchers said that many ESL/EFL students come from cultures where ambiguity is not tolerated well and where a closureoriented style is encouraged. Korean students are from one of those cultures. They view a teacher to be the authority and are disturbed if this does not happen. Japanese students often want rapid and constant correction, and do not feel comfortable with multiple correct answers. Arabic-speaking students often see things in black/white and right/wrong terms and sometimes refuse to compromise. To these students, vmtten texts take on an "always correct" aura, and the teacher who accepts more than one answer as right seems weak or ignorant. Hispanic students were described as having a great desire for negotiation and flexibility because they are thought to have a concern for social harmony. In regards to extroversion/introversion dimension of learning style, Oxford et al. (1992) said that Arabic-speaking students of ESL/EFL are typically more gregarious, overtly verbal, and interested in a whole-class extroverted mode of

PAGE 36

instruction. Likewise, Hispanic students in general are highly social, cooperative (on homework and class work), desirous of a close relationship with the teacher as a role-model and friend, and responsive to social goals more than to impersonal rewards. These were all strong indicators of extroverted tendency among Hispanics in general. In comparison, Oxford et al. said that Japanese and Korean students are often quiet, shy, and reticent in ESITEFL classrooms indicating a reserve that is the hallmark of introverts. These ethnic groups were thought to have a traditional cultural focus on group membership, solidarity, and face-saving, and to deemphasize individualism. About sensory preferences of learning style, there was an excellent study by Reid (1987). Reid's investigation of sensory learning style preferences found that Korean students were the most visual of all, significantly more so than U.S. and Japanese students. Arabic and Chinese students were also strongly visual. Japanese students in the Reid's study were the least auditory, with this result being significantly different from Arabic and Chinese students. Thai, Malay, and Spanish students were also auditory, though slightly less so than Arabic and Chinese. Most ESL students in the Reid's study strongly preferred kinesthetic (movement-based) learning, and the strongest in this area were Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Thai students. Even U.S. university students (native English speakers) strongly liked kinesthetic learning. Native speakers of English were significantly less tactile (touch-oriented) than Arabic, Chinese, Korean, and Spanish speakers. Most nonnative speakers of English were highly tactile in their learning preferences.

PAGE 37

Krashen (1977) said that second language learning adults differed depending on if they were able to use monitors for language learning. That is, he said that some learners benefited more from conscious rule learning using monitors quite a lot, whereas other learners benefited more from communicative spontaneous language use for their language learning. By monitor, he meant the language learned system which inspects and alters the output of the language acquired system based on the grammaticality if there is enough time to do that. The most interesting fact in his study was that language learners differed in their approach to their own language learning based on their previous educational experiences of language learning. Therefore, conscious rule learning and heavy monitor use language learning groups were much more likely to choose those approaches to language learning than other learners because they were accustomed to those approaches in their previous language learning experiences. On the other hand, those communicative spontaneous language use group and use of "feeling" group instead of monitor use for language learning were more likely to choose those approaches to language learning because they were educated that way in their previous language learning experiences. There was also a very interesting study investigating if the-Asian-leameras-a-rote-leamer stereotype is a myth or reality. Watkins, Reghi, and Astilla (1991) found that a similar structure of learning processes was used for each different cultural learners of Nepalese, Filipino, Hong Kong, and Australian through learning process questionnaires. Moreover, in this study students who reported deeper and more achievement-oriented approaches to learning tended to

PAGE 38

30 be more successful academically and to have higher academic self-esteem in each culture. Therefore, there was no evidence in this study that students of different cultures who received different educational approaches to learning differed in their learning processes due to their culture. Little evidence was found to support the contention that Asian learners were more prone to rote learning than were the Australians. Therefore, this study confronts the above Krashen's (1977) study talking about the influences of previous language learning experiences on students' current approaches to language learning. Based on these research studies, the researcher was motivated to investigate how Korean students who had been educated in South Korea using a grammatical structural syllabus react to the irmovative grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program. Communicative Approaches to Teaching English In this section, studies of communicative language instruction and language proficiency are reviewed and the need for the present study is explored. The researcher's third concern was an investigation of the nature of six Korean students' writing development over time in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. Six Korean students' perspectives on the communicative grammar instructional process, their grammar teachers, and their own English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive

PAGE 39

31 language program may provide some insights into factors that may have influenced any change in their writing skills. Previous approaches to grammar instruction (especially the grammar-translation approach and the audiolingual approach to grammar instruction) did not work for Korean students' English language learning outcomes (Ellis, 1993), and therefore Koreans might need a new approach to teaching grammar which is maybe the Communicative approach. There have been several research studies of communicative language instruction. Oxford, Lavine, and Crookall (1989) studied the relationship between language learning strategies and the Conmiunicative language approach. This study was the only one investigating the learning strategies related to the Conmiimicative language approach. These researchers said that the principles of a Communicative approach to language learning and teaching foster the use of appropriate and positive learning strategies. The principles of a Communicative approach to language teaching and learning are fu-st, the attainment of communicative competence as the main goal; second, dealing communicatively with forms and errors; third, an orientation which integrates the four language skills; and fourth, a focus on meaning, context, and authentic language. Also Oxford et al. (1989) showed six categories of important direct and indirect learning strategies. There are three direct learning strategies and three indirect learning strategies. The direct strategies are memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. The indirect strategies are metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. These researchers emphasized that the already stated four main principles of a Communicative

PAGE 40

approach to language teaching and learning foster the above six good language learning strategies. Oxford et al. finally suggested classroom implications of utilizing these language learning strategies in the Communicative approach. The first of these implications was a change of classroom organization from the traditional teacher as a transmitter of knowledge and learner as a receiver of knowledge to teacher and learner as partners in learning. And they said in this change, those language learning strategies would be very effectively utilized for facilitation of language learning. The second implication was use of more realistic communication patterns and processes; the third implication was use of active learning modes by incorporating lots of active small group and pair learning activities; and finally the fourth implication was the need for strategy training. The most important point in this study was the use and incorporation of the above six language learning strategies in the Communicative approach to language teaching and learning to develop language learners' ultimate goal in learning English as a second or foreign language, which is communicative competence. Prabhu (1987) developed a program known as the Communicational Teaching Project (CTP), and this project compared the traditional-languagetaught control group in the structural-oral-situational method with the experimental task-based approach to language teaching for measures of linguistic competence. The subject used was a number of secondary schools at Bangalore and Madras in India with beginning learners of L2 English. The results showed

PAGE 41

33 tentative support for the experimental group which used the Communicative approach using the task-based syllabus. Several studies showed the findings that communicative classrooms developed learners' oral skills and fluency but did not develop very well their syntactic and grammatical ability. Krashen (1982) has claimed that immersion classrooms succeeded in developing very high levels of L2 proficiency of discourse skills and speaking fluency, but they were not able to develop high grammatical competence in the long run. Krashen found that immersion students acquired high levels of competency in the second language (while they might not reach native-like levels, they outperformed peers who have had standard foreign language classes), they made normal progress in school doing as well in subjectmatter as monolinguals, and they did not fall behind peers in first language development. Krashen attributed this success of immersion programs to rich comprehensible input and low affective filter provided in those programs. Therefore, immersion programs showed what is possible linguistically from subject-matter teaching when social and psychological problems were eliminated or reduced. They provided strong empirical evidence that subject-matter teaching can not only teach subject-matter but the language it is taught in as well, as long as the input is made comprehensible although they were not able to have second language learning students achieve full native speakers' grammatical proficiency. Krashen (1982) also said that those content or theme based adult level ESL programs are really beneficial for adult second language learners. In these programs, for example, students participate in units covering "life situations"

PAGE 42

34 topics that last from two to four weeks. Examples included the use of community services (post-office, library, etc.), consumer education, employment (covering classified ads, employment agencies, unions, etc.), family life (e.g. wedding invitations, birthday parties, etc.), citizenship (e.g. traffic and parking tickets, voting, taxes, etc.), and other "life situations." Teachers can use guest speakers, films, field trips, and commercial materials in helping students understand the "mechanics of life" in a new country. And Krashen said that no evidence was yet available confirming the utility of such a program. But he said that second language acquisition theory advocating lots of comprehensible input, acquisitionlearning distinction, and affective filter hypothesis and experienced language teacher insight/intuition on "ideas that work" predicted that such programs would be of great use for language acquisition, in addition to their obvious practical value, as long as the input was comprehensible. Spada and Lightbown (1989) also found that an intensive ESL course which was taught using communicative methods where lots of tasks and learner interaction were emphasized produced little evidence of syntactic development. The students in this study were only 50 percent accurate in their use of plural -s and only 20 percent accurate in their use of V + -ing. There was a very important study reporting on Communicative language teaching approach in most intensive English language teaching programs. Lightbovra and Spada (1990) studied focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching, and their effects on second language learning. The developing oral English of approximately 100 second language learners (four

PAGE 43

intact classes) was examined in the study. The learners were native speakers of French (aged 10-12 years) who had received a five-month intensive ESL course in either grade five or grade six in elementary schools in Quebec. A large corpus of classroom observation data was also analyzed. The purpose of the research was to examine relationships between classroom instruction and interaction, and the learners' developing second language (L2) ability (specifically in terms of some aspects of grammatical accuracy in this case). Therefore, this research dealt with the research question "To what extent is form-focused instruction beneficial to classroom learners of a second language within communicative contexts?" In this study, experimental intensive programs and control regular programs were compared on measures of second language proficiency. Experimental intensive programs were taught within a Communicative approach to second language teaching, while control regular programs were taught using an audio-lingual approach to second language teaching. But the experimental intensive programs were different among themselves depending on the amount of form-focused activities and error correction within communicative contexts. Overall, the results were very positive. The children in the intensive programs developed significantly higher levels of comprehension ability than learners in the regular programs. They also achieved greater fluency in their oral production, and, although they had still much to learn, they achieved considerably higher levels of fluency and communicative confidence in using the second language than the amounts achieved in the regular programs at the primary level.

PAGE 44

36 The researchers' classroom observation data confirmed that the children in the experimental intensive programs receive instruction that is "communicative" in nature, instruction that focuses on meaning-based activities, opportunities for the negotiation of meaning in group work, and the provision of rich and varied comprehensible input. Errors were viewed as a necessary part of the developmental process, and the classroom observation showed that error correction by the teachers was relatively rare. Among the intensive experimental programs, the class in which the greatest amoimt of time overall was spent on form-related instruction, that is, instruction that explicitly dealt with grammar, vocabulary, phonology, or syntax while still maintaining the overall focus of the class on communicative activities produced the highest grammatical accuracy in learners' oral English. The teacher of this class almost never taught "grammatical lessons" and rarely presented rules about the target language. Instead, his/her form-focused behaviors were almost always reactions to learners' errors or to student requests for assistances with some aspects of language use. And the class in which almost no form-focused instruction was provided produced the lowest accuracy on all the language features examined in the analysis of spontaneous language samples. The teacher in this class was the one who virtually never focused on grammar. When language was in focus, it was generally because the teacher was reacting to vocabulary difficulties that students were experiencing. The students' comprehension skills were still very good in this class.

PAGE 45

37 The overall findings of this study showed that clearly, students in the intensive ESL programs acquired a great deal of English through communicative interaction in the classroom. What the researchers of this study were suggesting was, "some components of the language might not only be amenable to instructional intervention, but might depend on it for further development and improvement" (p. 443). The results presented in this study provided further support for the hypothesis that form-based instruction within a communicative context contributes to higher levels of linguistic knowledge and performance. The findings of this study suggested, "accuracy, fluency, and overall communicative skills are probably best developed through instruction that is primarily meaningbased but in which guidance is provided through timely form-focus activities and correction in context" (p. 443). Therefore, this study strongly advocated the advantages of communicative grammar instruction over other approaches to grammar instruction. But still there is not yet a definite study exploring the Communicative approaches to language instruction and writing skills of second language learners. There was an interesting study investigating the effects of communicative language instruction on second language learners' sociolinguistic development. Ellis (1992) studied the development of two language learners' requests which are the illocutionary acts over time in a communicative language classroom. It was assumed in this study that second language acquisition can take place as a result of learning how to communicate in the L2. And it was assumed less clear in this study whether the kind of communication that occurs in a classroom is sufficient

PAGE 46

38 to ensure development of full target language competence. This study examined the extent to which the opportunities for communication in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom result in the acquisition of one particular illocutionary act-requests. A total of 410 requests produced by two male child learners (one boy was 10 years old, and the other was 1 1 years old) over 15-21 months were examined in the study. The language aims of the unit of the classroom examined in this study were to develop basic interpersonal communication skills in English, and then the proficiency to use English for studying school subjects. Some of the lessons consisted of formal language instruction directed at specific linguistic points (grammar and vocabulary), and the children interacted as much among themselves as they did with the teacher. And there was no attempt made to teach specific language functions such as requests. English in this classroom served not only as the pedagogic target but also as the means for conducting the day-by-day business of the classroom-giving and checking instructions, making arrangements, dealing with breaches of discipline, socializing, and so forth. The results of this study suggested that although considerable development took place over this period, both learners failed to develop either the full range of request types or a broad linguistic repertoire for performing those types that they did acquire. The results showed also that the learners failed to develop the sociolinguistic competence needed to vary their choice of request to take account of different addressees. Ellis (1992) explained about these results that although the classroom context fostered interpersonal and expressive needs in the two

PAGE 47

learners, it did not provide the conditions for real sociolinguistic needs. Ellis said, "the communicative classroom environment was insufficient to guarantee the development of full target language norms of requests, possibly because the kind of "conmiunicative need" that the learners experienced was insufficient to ensure development of the full range of request types and strategies" (p. 20). He distinguished the three types of communicative need. The first was the interpersonal need, and this was the need when a learner has a felt need to perform a speech act in order to give or obtain information or goods/services. The second was the expressive need, and this was the need when a learner has a personal need to realize a speech act using different formal means. This need reflects a general desire for variety for its own sake, analogous with the desire to have a selection of clothes to choose from. And the third need was the sociolinguistic need, and this was the need when a learner has the need to vary the use of the formal means at his or her disposal in accordance with situational factors in order to realize social meanings associated with such concepts as politeness. This classroom environment, where the two male language learners were students provided them with no clear sociolinguistic need because the two boys were already very familiar to the classmates and the language teacher, and the requests they produced were very routine in nature. Overall, this study suggested that the detailed study of how specific illocutionary acts are performed over time in pedagogic settings is a promising line of inquiry for investigating the

PAGE 48

40 relationship between classroom communication and second language acquisition (especially the sociolinguistic acquisition). The current study in which the researcher investigated the nature of six Korean students' writing development over time in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to all factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills may fill a gap in studies investigating communicative language instruction. The current study does this job by being provided with Korean students' perspectives on communicative grammar instructional process, their grammar teachers, and their own English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program that may have influenced any change in their cognitive academic language skills (writing skills) that are different from the basic interpersonal communication skills (Cummins, 1980). An exploration of these factors that may have influenced any change in the Korean students' writing skills will provide English educators in South Korea with some pedagogical implications for improving Korean students' writing skills in the near future. Summary Past grammar pedagogies reviewed talked about the grammar-translation method, the audiolingual method, the cognitive code approach, the Natural Approach, and the Communicative approach. Grammar and communication development at the same time is the goal in communicative grammar instruction

PAGE 49

41 (Mitchell & Redmond, 1993), and so communicative competence where grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence exist is the goal of communicative language teaching (Savignon, 1991). Communicative competence is the most important goal of any language pedagogy, and the language teaching approaches before the Communicative approach did not address this goal. That has been the problem of previous language pedagogies. Therefore, communicative grammar instruction where grammar and communicative abilities are taught together for the development of second language learners' conununicative competence may deserve investigation as a possible new approach to grammar instruction in the near future in South Korea. Several studies of language learning style, language learning strategies, and culture have reported that second language learners' cultural background and previous educational approach have a significant influence on their approach to second language learning (Krashen, 1977; Moreno & Di Vesta, 1991; Oxford, Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992). Korean students were described to use rotememorization language learning strategies, to be highly visual language learners, to be authority-figure (i.e., a teacher) oriented, and to resist a new approach to language teaching to which they were not accustomed in their previous language learning experiences (Oxford, Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992). Therefore, an exploration of Korean second language learners' views on grammar, its instruction, their language learning strategies, and their perspectives on the communicative grammar instructional process and their teachers in the intensive

PAGE 50

42 English language program setting of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America may suggest a new theory about Korean second language learners. Studies of communicative language instruction and language proficiency have suggested that that type of instruction develops second language learners' oral fluency and discourse skills but does not develop very well their grammatical ability (Ellis, 1992; Krashen, 1982; Spada & Lightbown, 1989). Focus on form in the context of communicative language instruction, however, produced grammatical accuracy in addition to fluency of language use (Lightbown & Spada, 1990). There has been no study exploring communicative language instruction and reading/writing skills. Therefore, the current study investigating the nature of selected Korean students' writing development over time in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in their writing skills might contribute to the research literature on communicative language instruction and extend it. Then, some pedagogical implications may be dravm in terms of English education in South Korea in the near fliture.

PAGE 51

CHAPTERS METHOD In this study the researcher investigated what the approaches, the materials, and the activities were in the English grammar instruction provided in one major university's intensive language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America to get insights about possible implementation of the instruction m South Korea in the near future. Second, this study explored seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program with a special emphasis on their experiences in the communicative grammar instruction. Third, this study investigated the nature of these Korean students' writing development over time in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. The researcher used qualitative methodology and collected data over two school semesters (during the Spring and the Summer C semesters of the intensive English language program in 1998, which was almost a 7-month period) from a variety of sources. Only the data for a description of the grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program were collected during one school semester of the Summer C, 1998. 43

PAGE 52

By and large, the methods used to analyze classroom lessons, Korean students' experiences with conmiunicative grammar instruction and of their English language learning both in and outside the intensive language program, and the writing skills' change over time in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills were descriptive and interpretive. Since the study focused on grammar instruction, seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a 7-month period, and their writing skills change in relation to all of these experiences, the resulting analysis may be characterized as a case study using ethnographic techniques. This chapter describes the selection of the research site and participants, explicates the research method, defines its relevance to the research questions, and defends the research reliability and validity. Setting of the Studv The main setting of this study was one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. For the first research objective which was an investigation of grammar instruction in the program, this research was done in the grammar classrooms different by proficiency level (the beginning, the intermediate, and the advanced grammar classrooms).

PAGE 53

For the second research objective which was an exploration of seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the program with a special emphasis on their experiences in communicative grammar instruction, this study was done outside the classrooms of the intensive English language program. Because this second research objective was fulfilled through interviews with Korean students, the setting was a courtyard in the program. For the third research objective which was an investigation of the nature of these Korean students' writing development over time in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in their writing skills, this study was done outside the classes of the program by getting six Korean students' writing samples done over time in the reading/writing classes of the intensive English language program. Participants The participants of this study comprised three different groups of people (the participants' names mentioned in this study are all pseudonyms). The first participant group of this study was composed of three grammar class instructors from the beginning, the intermediate, and the advanced grammar classes. The first grammar class instructor who participated in this study was Emmy Krempasky, who taught the beginning level grammar class during the Summer C semester of 1998. The second grammar class instructor was Bev Paeth, who taught the

PAGE 54

intermediate grammar class in the program during the Summer C semester of 1998. The last grammar class instructor was Sue Johnson, who taught the advanced grammar class in the program during the Summer C semester of 1998. These grammar class instructors participated in the study by giving permissions to the researcher to observe their grammar classrooms, and by being interviewees talking about their educational approaches and what they did in their classrooms to teach English grammar. This interview process provided the researcher with the teachers' own perspectives on what was going on in communicative grammar instruction. The second participant group in this study was composed of all seven Korean students who attended the grammar classes during the Summer C semester of 1998 in the intensive English language program (among the seven Korean students, two students did not attend the Spring semester of 1998, one student attended the Fall semester of 1997, and the remaining four students attended the Spring semester of 1998). Two students were at the beginning proficiency level of the grammar class. Also, two students were at the intermediate level of the grammar class. The remaining three students were at the advanced levels of the grammar class. These seven Korean students, varying in ages, gender, and educational background, participated in this study by reporting their perspectives on communicative grammar instruction and their teachers, their learning strategies and learning styles working with the grammar instruction they received, and by providing the researcher with their perspectives on their English

PAGE 55

47 language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program. These Korean students also participated in this study by showing their writing samples over time from the last Spring semester of 1998 until the end of the Summer C semester of 1998. Those writing samples were different in genre: Some were personal journals, others were essays, and still others were research papers. Genres were different depending on the students' proficiency level of their reading/writing classes which was similar to those students' grammar class proficiency level. The two students who attended the beginning level of the grammar class also attended the beginning levels of the reading/writing class in the program. In those beginning level reading/writing classes, students wrote personal journals about their everyday lives and experiences. In the intermediate level reading/writing class which one student who attended the intermediate grammar class attended, students wrote both personal journals and essays. In the advanced level reading/writing class which three students in the advanced grammar classes attended, students wrote personal journals, essays, resumes, and research papers. The last participant group of this study was composed of four reading/writing class instructors (two instructors taught the beginning level reading/writing classes, one instructor taught the intermediate level reading/vsriting class, and the last one taught the most advanced reading/writing class) during the Summer C term of 1998 in the program, who taught the above six Korean students in their classes (one Korean student who attended the

PAGE 56

48 intermediate grammar class refused to show the researcher her writing samples over time). These reading/writing instructors gave the researcher permission of getting access to the Korean students' writing samples by telling the researcher that she should ask the writing samples directly of the Korean students. The six Korean students gladly showed their writing samples over time to the researcher. Data Collection For the first purpose of this study, which was a description of communicative grammar instruction, the researcher's field notes taken during the three grammar classroom (different by proficiency level) observations, audiotaped recordings of the grammar classroom lessons, three grammar class textbooks, and three grammar class teachers' interviews were sources of data. Data for this first purpose of the study were collected only during the Summer C term of 1998. For the second purpose of this study, which was an ethnographic observation of Korean students taking the grammar, the oral skills, the reading/vmting, and the English interaction classes during the Spring and the Summer C terms of 1998 in the intensive English language program, interviews (two consecutive interviews-the first interview during the middle of the Summer C term and the second follow-up interview nearly at the end of the Summer C term) were used to get Korean students' perspectives on communicative grammar instruction, their learning strategies and learning styles working with the grammar

PAGE 57

instruction, and the perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a 7-month period. For the third purpose of this study, which was an investigation of the nature of the six Korean students' writing development over a 7-month period in which they attended the program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in their writing skills, their writing samples over time from the last Spring semester of 1998 until the end of the Summer C term of 1998 were collected. Field notes. Field notes were composed of the program's three grammar classroom observation notes, the interview notes of three grammar classroom teachers who taught the grammar class during the Summer C term of 1998, and the two consecutive interview notes with seven Korean students who attended the grammar class during the Spring and the Summer C terms of 1998. The researcher visited three grammar classrooms (the beginning level, the intermediate level, and the advanced level) in the program during the Summer C term of 1998 two or three times a week with the permission from the teachers. She took very diligent field notes observing the class proceedings, focusing mainly on the materials, the activities that the teachers asked their students to do to learn new grammar items and practice newly learned English grammar, the approaches that the teachers used to teach grammar, and the teachers' and the students' discourse to teach and learn grammar. During the interviews with three granmiar class teachers and with seven Korean students, the researcher wrote down key words from the interviews and this process amounted to many pages of field notes.

PAGE 58

so Textbooks. The researcher borrowed the grammar textbooks used in the three different (by proficiency level) grammar classes from the instructors whom she interviewed, and photocopied them. Therefore, one textbook was the beginning level grammar textbook used in Krempasky's grammar classroom. The title was 'Focus on Grammar: A Basic Course for Reference and Practice,' from AddisonWesley Publishing Company, copyrighted 1994. Another textbook the researcher borrowed was high intermediate grammar textbook used in Paeth's grammar classroom titled 'Grammar in Context, Book 3 (Second Edition),' from Newbury House Publishing Team at Heinle & Heinle (copyrighted 1996). The other textbook was used in the advanced grammar classroom during the Summer C term of 1998, in Johnson's classroom. The title was 'The Advanced Grammar Book,' from Heinle & Heinle Publishers, copyrighted 1991. These three different textbooks which were used in the three grammar classrooms during the Summer C semester of 1998 were borrowed from the instructors and photocopied in the middle of the semester by the researcher. The researcher looked closely over these textbooks in addition to the three grammar classroom observation data to get more insights and thick descriptive data on conmiunicative grammar instruction. Audio-taped transcripts. The researcher audio-taped the grammar class lessons different by proficiency level during the Summer C term of 1998. She audio-taped mainly English grammar acquisition activities that the teacher asked his/her students to do during the class and the teachers' and the students' discourse to teach and learn grammar. This audio-taping amounted to five times

PAGE 59

51 of tape recording during the Summer C term of 1998. The researcher transcribed these audio-taped recordings word by word in detail. The researcher also audio-taped the interviews with three grammar class instructors and the two consecutive interviews with seven Korean students during the Summer C term of 1998. She then transcribed the audio-taped recordings of interviews with the three grammar class instructors. For the audio-taped recordings of interviews with seven Korean students, because the interviews with Korean students were done in Korean (the Korean students preferred to be interviewed in Korean, rather than in English), the researcher transcribed the interview data translating at the same time in English. Interviews. Interviews focusing directly on the research questions 1 and 2 were conducted with the first and the second participant groups of this study throughout the duration of the project. Data were collected on-site during interviews from June 9 to June 16 in 1998 with three grammar class instructors who were the first participant group of this study. Interviews with the grammar class teachers of the intensive English language program were done mainly to get their ovm perspectives on what actually happened in the grammar instruction provided in the program, and their views on Korean students working in their own classrooms. Therefore, the interview questions were all open-ended in nature: They were composed of three different parts. The first part was a brainstorming or background question to induce the next question; it was about grammar teachers' own beliefs in the role of grammar in second language acquisition and the way it is acquired best. The

PAGE 60

52 next question was about their everyday practices and future plans to teach grammar in their own classrooms; what activities they provided for their students and how they corrected students' grammatical errors. The last question was about culture: The researcher asked if the teachers experienced any cultural conflict in teaching English grammar in their own ways, and their opinions on Korean students doing their job in those teachers' classrooms (interview protocols Appendix B). Each teacher was asked a common set of questions above in the form of a one-to-one, conversational discussion. To minimize distractions, teacher interviews were tape recorded using a small machine and long playing tapes. Teacher interviews were conducted in private, and the average interview took about an hour. Interviews with seven Korean students who were the second participant group of this study were done two consecutive times during the Simimer C term of 1998. The first interview was done from June 16 to July 1 in 1998. Open-ended questions of the first interview centered on seven Korean students' own beliefs in English grammar acquisition and instruction, their perspectives on communicative grammar instruction they received and their teachers, and their learning strategies used to practice grammar (interview protocols Appendix B). This first interview data answered the research question 2. The second interview with Korean students was done with the six Korean students who faithfully provided the researcher with their writing samples over time (one female Korean student at the intermediate grammar class level. Soon Hee Cho, refused to provide the researcher v^th her writing samples over time).

PAGE 61

53 The second interview took an ethnographic perspective. It was done from July 9 to July 24 in 1998. Open-ended questions of the second interview centered on Korean students' reading and writing activities both in their reading/writing classrooms and out of that classroom, the nature of their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program setting, and their personalities and hobbies (interview protocols Appendix B). Each Korean student was asked a common set of questions in the form of a one-to-one, conversational discussion. To minimize distractions, the two interviews were tape recorded using a small machine and long playing tapes. Both interviews were conducted in private. The first interview with Korean students took about an hour in average, and the second interview took about 40 minutes in average. All the interview data were audio-recorded and transcribed in detail word by word. Writing samples. Six Korean students agreed to show the researcher their writing samples over time from the last Spring semester of 1998 until the end of the Summer C term of 1998. Writing samples were mostly vvritten in their reading/writing classes, and some of them were written in the oral skills class and in the grammar class. Among the six Korean students who provided the researcher with the writing samples, three Korean students provided the researcher with their writing samples for two school semesters. They were Chul Ho Park (a male Korean student aged 24 years old). Young Hee Jun (a female Korean student aged 23 years old), and Young Soo Park (a male Korean student aged 26 years old). All the other three Korean students were Chul Soo Song (a male Korean student aged 24 years old), Ki Young Kwak (a male Korean student

PAGE 62

54 aged 34 years old), and Hyun Woo Choi (a male Korean student aged 24 years old). Chul Soo Song and Ki Young Kwak were at the beginning levels of the grammar and the reading/writing class during the Summer C term of 1998. Young Soo Park was at the intermediate level of the grammar and the reading/writing class during the Summer C term of 1998. Chul Ho Park, Young Hee Jun, and Hyun Woo Choi were at the advanced levels of both the grammar and the reading/writing class during the Summer C term of 1998. Except the three Korean students who provided the researcher with their writing samples for two school semesters, the remaining three Korean students provided the researcher with their writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998. Writing samples were diverse in genres: Essays, personal journals, resumes, research papers, and reading reviews were covered in the collected samples. At the beginning levels of the reading/writing class, mostly personal journals were written by students. At the intermediate levels of the reading/writing class, essays and personal journals were written. In the advanced reading/writing classes, research papers, reading reviews, essays, and personal journals were written. Both at the intermediate and the advanced levels of the reading/writing class, process writing utilizing first draft, second draft, and final draft was done a lot. The researcher collected all of these Korean students' writing samples over time to investigate the nature of these six Korean students' writing development over a 7month period in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing

PAGE 63

55 skills. And this job, in addition to the interview data, answered the research question 3 above. Data Analysis Data analysis in this study was an inductive process relying on the "sufficient presentation of evidence and careful consideration of alternative interpretations" (Yin, 1994, p. 103). Theoretical sensitivity acquired during the research process and balanced by the researcher's personal and professional knowledge of the technical literature enabled the researcher to recognize what in the data was important and to give it meaning (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995). Conducted in stages corresponding to the research questions, the analysis focused primarily on field notes (compiled from the grammar classroom observation and interviews), audio-taped transcripts (both of the grammar classrooms and of all interviews), and Korean students' writing samples over time. Communicative grammar instruction. To answer the first research question, what were the approaches, the materials, and the activities in the grammar classes for speakers of English as a second language in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America (see Chapter 4), one school semester's (Summer C term of 1998) three grammar classroom observation measures were looked over thoroughly to seek patterns of the grammar instruction provided in the program. Communicative grammar instructional approaches, materials, activities, and teachers' and

PAGE 64

students' discourse different by proficiency level were represented in the field notes, audio-taped classroom lesson transcripts, three grammar teachers' interviews, and through grammar class textbook analyses. Data collected in this way were coded into categories salient to interaction in the setting and relevant to the evolving first research question (Watson-Gegeo, 1988). Korean students. To explore seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a 7-month period with a special emphasis on their experiences in communicative grammar instruction (see Chapter 5), the researcher looked closely over the two interview data with six Korean students and the one interview data with one Korean student. The researcher treated these data as seven individual cases, and she grouped the two interview questions into five distinctive areas to answer the research questions 2 and 3. Under seven Korean students' pseudonyms which are seven distinctive cases, she described in detail (based on the transcribed interview data), by citing the Korean students' direct words, the answers to those five distinctive interview questions. The researcher explored each as a separate case, taking account of unique aspects of individual cases (Merriam, 1988) and analyzing the embedded units (Yin, 1994). Descriptive interpretations were constructed explaining each Korean student's perspectives on his/her English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program. Writing skills. To answer the third research question, what was the nature of these Korean students' writing development over a 7-month period in which

PAGE 65

57 they attended the intensive English language program and what factors may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills (see Chapter 6), the researcher first looked seriously over the collected Korean students' writing samples over time fi-om the last Spring semester of 1998 to the end of the Summer C term of 1998. She decided which grammatical items she should look at depending on the different proficiency level of Korean students' reading/writing skills to see their writing skills development over time. After deciding them by analyzing all six Korean students' first writing samples, she examined very closely if those items developed over time in terms of accuracy of use in the remaining writing samples. Then, to decide what factors may have influenced any change in their writing skills over time, the researcher's observation measures of the grammar instruction in the program (field notes, grammar teachers' interview data, audiotaped transcripts, and the grammar class textbooks) and the transcribed interview data with seven Korean students were analyzed together with the writing samples data. Comprehensive data treatment, which means that the analysis must be carried out on all the materials or data collected (Mehan, 1979), was done to answer the research question 3. Patterns were determined by this process, and a final theory about Korean students' writing skills development was constructed. The explanation-building process reflected "theoretically significant propositions" (Yin, 1994, pill). Reliabilitv and validitv of results. The findings in this particular study of Korean second language learners' writing skills' development in relation to their

PAGE 66

58 English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America resulted from inquiry and not personal bias. Sufficient data-base evidence existed to support and confirm interpretations. To ensure trustworthiness, the data of this study were collected from different sources which have different insights and perspectives like the researcher's field notes, interviews, and audio-taped transcripts of actual classroom happenings. Use of participants' names (although they are pseudonyms) and other identifying descriptors served to hold the research accountable, and compatibility between the researcher's constructions and the participants' realities also ensured a high degree of truth value. The consistency and meaningfulness of the research results were attained from triangulation of multiple data sources (including field notes, interviews, audio-taped transcripts, textbook materials, and writing samples) collected over a 7-month period. Triangulation~the putting together of information from different data sources and/or data collected through different research methods such as participant-observation, interviewing, network mapping, and surveys (Fielding & Fielding, 1986)~was an important strategy for arriving at valid (or "dependable") findings in ethnographic work (Diesing, 1971). Plausibility of the study~a study that produced theory grounded in the data-makes it applicable to other contexts "generalizable to theoretical propositions (analytic generalization, which means generalizing theories)" (Yin, 1994, p. 10).

PAGE 67

CHAPTER 4 COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION To answer the first research question, what were the approaches, the materials, and the activities in the grammar classes for speakers of English as a second language in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America, the researcher sorted the data about communicative grammar instruction collected into three different parts based on the proficiency level of grammar instruction provided in the program. Therefore, grammar classroom observation field notes, audio-taped classroom lesson transcripts, textbook materials, and interviews with grammar class instructors were divided into three separate areas or sections of the beginning, the intermediate, and the advanced grammar instructional levels. The researcher, thus, in the following three separate sections, describes what happened in three communicative grammar instruction different by proficiency level. The Beginning Level Grammar Classroom At this level of class, word order, the copula and subject-verb agreement, tense and aspect, modals, negation, yes-no questions, nouns, pronouns and possessives, wh-questions, articles, preverbal adverbs of fi-equency, infinitives 59

PAGE 68

and gerunds, the passive voice, prepositions, adjectives, comparatives, and superlatives were taught. Usually, the grammar lessons in this beginning level grammar classroom were composed of three lesson sequences: The first was introduction part, the second was focused practice part, and the third was communication practice part. In the first part, the instructor introduced the students to the grammar points or items that they were going to learn on that day or that week. In the second, focused practice part, the students usually did some drills on a specific grammar point by doing lots of focused exercises fi-om the textbook. The second, focused practice part was doing exercises in the textbook, but those grammar exercises were meaningful and contextualized exercises to practice the newly learned grammar. In the last communication practice part, the students applied what they had learned grammatically into real life everyday commimication contexts, so that they were able to use what they had learned in real life situations. Introduction. In this part, the teacher first introduced her students to a dialogue where simple present tense, present progressive, adverbs of fi-equency, and expressions of frequency were used (the researcher decided to present lessons teaching simple present tense, present progressive, adverbs of fi-equency, and expressions of frequency as an example of the beginning level grammar instruction). She asked her students first to listen to that dialogue played through an audio-tape, and to read the dialogue in the textbook. Then there followed the comprehension check work; Students read several statements written about the content of the dialogue in the following, "1 At the beginning of the conversation.

PAGE 69

Yoko is cleaning," "2. At the beginning of the conversation, Carol is reading a magazine," "3. Yoko is moving Carol's clothes and papers," "4. Carol's socks are on Yoko's desk," "5. Dan's socks are on Yoko's desk," "6. Dan's socks are old," "7. Yoko often leaves her clothes and papers on Carol's desk," and "8. Yoko is angry at the end of the conversation Then they marked their responses on the appropriate boxes of "That's right," "That's wrong," and "I don't know." for each of these sentences. After this individual work, the whole class talked about the correct answers of this comprehension exercise. After this phase, the teacher presented the lesson foci which were simple present tense, present progressive, adverbs of frequency, and expressions of frequency. She explained in detail the forms of these lesson foci and the ways these grammar items are used. During these grammar explanations, the teacher also asked her students to notice the 'Grammar Notes' in the textbook which explained the forms and the ways they are used together (by explaining in detail how to make questions using simple present tense and adverbs and expressions of frequency, and word orders of using adverbs and expressions of frequency with simple present tense). The teacher ennched her explanations with lots of example sentences showing how those grammatical items work for sentence formation. Focused practice In this part of the lesson which followed right after the introduction part, several activities of doing textbook exercises were done in class or as homework. Students did intensive grammar noticing work by circling the adverbs of frequency in each sentence. Students practiced using expressions of frequency by answering questions after reading a letter where lots of expressions

PAGE 70

62 of frequency were used; those questions were asking frequencies expressed in the letter. And the students used frequency expressions in a box to answer the questions. For example, one of the questions asked "How often does Carol walk the dog?," and the students chose the answer of this question in the box containing expressions "everyday," "once in a week," "twice a day," and "once a month." Students also practiced using question forms of asking adverbs and expressions of frequency wath given ideas in a box. For example, the box gave students cues like "Carol-write to Lulu," and the students made questions beginning with "how often" forming "How often does Carol write to Lulu?." Students practiced word order of using verbs and adverbs of frequency; it was filling in the blanks with right word order of verbs and adverbs of frequency which were given in a parenthesis underneath the blanks. Students practiced using appropriate time markers (like 'right now,' 'every Wednesday,' 'once a week,' 'today,' 'now,' and 'once in a while') with simple present tense and present progressive: They chose an appropriate time marker that went together with either simple present tense or present progressive. So for example, to fill in the blank with simple present tense they go to rock concerts," students chose "a. Once in a while" between two given prompts "a. Once in a while" and "b. Right now." The last focused practice activity that was done was quite a meaningful and contextual grammar practice activity. It was practicing the appropriate uses of simple present tense and present progressive together with adverbs and

PAGE 71

63 expressions of frequency in a meaningfiil context. Students completed a telephone conversation between Carol and her mom by using simple present tense and present progressive with correct time markers, adverbs of fi-equency, and expressions of frequency. This activity was also practicing correct word order of using verbs and adverbs of frequency together. The students filled in the sporadic blanks with simple present tense or the present progressive judging by the time markers and expressions of frequency placed in front of a sentence. Especially for practice of correct word order of using verbs and adverbs of frequency, they were placed in a parenthesis underneath the blanks and the students used them with correct word order in the blanks. The following are some examples of this activity: Elenore: Hello. Carol: Hi, Mom. Elenore: Hi, Carol. It's so good to hear your voice. How are you? Carol: I'm fme. I'm really working hard these days. I have a tutor in l.(work) history. Every Thursday he me a history lesson. 2. (give) Elenore: That's good. Carol: I about something else. 3.(call) Elenore: What's the problem? Carol; My roonraiate. Yoko "Carol, let's clean the 4.(say, always) apartment." She the apartment every day. She 5. (clean) the furniture twice a week. Right now she 6. (polish) the windows. 7. (wash)

PAGE 72

64 After this individual activity, students listened to the whole completed conversation and checked their work. Communication practice. In this part of the lessons, students practiced using adverbs and expressions of frequency with simple present tense in pairs first; students asked each other questions beginning with "How often" together with key verb phrases like "eat hot dogs," "get up early," "get a haircut," "eat pizza," etc. (These expressions were given as prompts in the textbook) Then students answered these questions using adverbs and expressions of frequency. They practiced in this way using expressions of frequency and adverbs of frequency with simple present tense by asking questions and answering them with each other. Students, in this way, applied what they had learned to real life communication with each other and elicited information of what they needed. After this pair work, the students asked a classmate about his or her partner. For example, the students asked a question like "How often does Bekir eat pizza?" (Bekir was one of the students in this beginning level grammar classroom) one by one, and the answer went like "He rarely eats pizza. He does not like pizza." Another communicative practice in this proficiency level grammar classroom was using present progressive and simple present tense with adverbs and expressions of frequency to ask questions about classmates, and to answer them. So the instructor asked a question like "What is Jean wearing?" (Jean was one of the students of this class), and the students answered "He's wearing blue jeans and a red T-shirt." And the instructor asked again "Does Jean often wear blue jeans and a red T-shirt?," and the students answered "He often wears blue

PAGE 73

jeans, but he rarely wears a red color T-shirt." And the instructor and the students continued this kind of exercise with classmates for some time. In this activity, students practiced the use of present progressive and simple present tense together with adverbs and expressions of frequency to communicate with one another meaningfully. Still another communication practice was also practicing simple present tense with adverbs and expressions of frequency in real life situations: The instructor asked each student to give short talks about his/her likes and free-time activities using simple present tense and adverbs and expressions of frequency. After everyone finished his/her talk, the instructor asked students to work in two groups. She asked the students to pretend they are buying a small gift for each student in the other group. She asked the two groups to talk about each student in the other group and decide on a gift. She additionally asked the students to give a reason for the gift. She gave students an example by saying, "Let's give Maria (who was one of the students of this class) a bag for her roller blades. Every Friday she roller-blades in our university." And the students continued the activity, and practiced using simple present tense and adverbs and expressions of fi^quency meaningfully in real communicative context. The Intermediate Level Grammar Classroom At this level of class, tense and aspect, the passive voice, modals, imperatives and reflexives, articles, measure words, collective nouns, quantifiers.

PAGE 74

66 prepositions, conjunctions, conditional sentences, relative clauses, infinitives and gerunds, participles, comparatives, and superlatives were taught. At this level of grammar classroom which Paeth taught during the Summer C semester of 1998, usually three phases of lessons were noticed to teach and learn grammar. The first part of the lesson was introduction or induction of new grammar points to be learned, and this phase was called "noticing the gap of grammar." In this introductory phase, the instructor usually asked his students to notice new things about grammar that they had not known before and asked them to bring background knowledge about the grammar point in focus of a lesson. After this first introductory stage, there immediately followed the detailed explanation phase of the new grammar point in which the students already somehow noticed the gap of their knowledge. And finally, there followed communicative production activities where students produced the newly learned grammar point both through writing activities and through speaking activities. Usually in this phase of the lesson, there was negotiation of meaning between the students and the teacher and among the students themselves. Introduction. In this phase of the lesson, the instructor usually gave the students actual examples of grammar in focus of a lesson on a particular day either by playing audio-taped recordings of passives (for example) used between two college students or by giving students articles of a short paragraph where a new grammar point was used in authentic language. So authentic materials were used to introduce new grammar points to the students, and the students found

PAGE 75

67 some gap between what they had already known about that grammar point and what they noticed right at that moment in the presented materials. For example, in this noticing the gap activity done to teach gerunds, the teacher first provided the students with handouts containing a news report on 'Illegal Aliens' and four quesions of noticing the gap of the students' own knowledge in gerunds. That news report contained diverse use of gerunds (like using it as subjects, objects of verbs and prepositions, etc.) in it. Students read the news report, and answered the questions individually. The first question asked was "What kind of grammar are you looking at?," the second question was "What are the different ways that you see it used?," the third question was "How is it used in the sentence? (What kinds of words does it seem to have a relationship with?)," and the fourth question was "What have you learned about this before?." After reading the news report and answering these questions individually, students worked in pairs to talk about their answers to these questions. Explanation. After this noticing the gap of grammar activity which was the introductory stage of the lesson, the teacher asked the whole group of students the answers to the above four questions. By hearing the students' answers to these questions, the instructor noticed some gap in the students' knowledge of the gerunds. So he moved on immediately to the explanation part of the lesson. He distributed his students handouts summarizing gerunds usage with lots of example sentences to show how gerunds are used in sentences. In a transparency also, he showed the same content as that of the distributed handouts, and explained about gerunds.

PAGE 76

During this explanation stage, there was students' language production work also. During explaining the point, "If a gerund is used as the subject, it agrees with a singular verb," the teacher asked his students one by one to change sentences (written on the transparency) orally using gerunds as subjects. Students changed the already given sentences into different sentences using gerunds as subjects successfully. So for example the sentence "To stay healthy is good for your life." on the transparency was changed to [Staying healthy is good for your life.] by a student in the class. Communicative production activities. In the final phase of this intermediate grammar classroom, there were several communicative language production activities. For example, in practicing the expressions 'used to/get used to/be used to' in gerunds, students did the textbook exercise which asked the students to write sentences comparing the way they used to live in their home country with the way they lived at that time. The textbook gave the students some ideas for their sentences; school, job, hobbies, apartment/house, family life, and friends. After seeing the example sentence provided in the textbook "I used to live with my whole family. Now I live alone," students made five sentences using the expression "used to" following the exercise directions. Then they worked in pairs talking about their own produced sentences, exchaging new information with each other using the grammar point that they had learned. Another communicative language production activity done about passives was a very interesting activity. After teaching how passives are used in written language and in spoken language, the instructor asked students if they regulariy

PAGE 77

69 watched the famous TV show "The X-Files." Some students said they watched it regularly and some students answered not. The instructor told the students that he video-tape recorded "The X-Files" of that week which he missed (he told the students that his wife video-tape recorded the show for him), and gave students the overall summary of the show until the previous week in a written handout. The summary went, "This week is part two of a story that started last week. Last week, an alien body was found in the mountains in Canada. Of coiirse, Mulder went to go check it out. When he got there, all of the people working on getting the body out of the ice had been killed. He and a scientist took the alien body back home to examine it and one night when they were out it was stolen. Scully had taken a sample of the alien tissue to look at its DNA and, of course, that was stolen, too. Apparently, someone didn't want them to find the truth. Later, Scully was approached by a strange man who said Mulder was being tricked. The alien was a fake. It was all a plan by "Cancer Man" to get Mulder to tell the public he had a real alien so he would look stupid and get fired fi-om the FBI. At the end of the show, Mulder's body was found in his apartment. He had committed suicide." Then the instructor also gave the students several questions that the students should answer watching that week's show of "The X-Files." Those questions were "What was happening to Mulder in his apartment?," "What happened to the guy upstairs?," "What happened to Scully in her apartment?,"

PAGE 78

"How was the body identified?" "Who was really identified by Scully?," and "What is the explanation of Mulder's death? The instructor told the students that he would be out during the time the students watched "The X-Files" of that week that was recorded in a video-tape, and told the students that they should talk to him after watching the video about the content of the show using lots of passive expressions in their talk to him (this job was the same with that of answering the above questions watching the video). And after this instruction, the teacher went out of the classroom after playing "The X-Files" for the students. After about 30 minutes, the instructor came back and asked students the story of the watched video. Several students eagerly talked about the show using passives a lot. This passives practice activity was done communicatively between the instructor and the students (real communication happened between them using the learned grammar point). Also to practice the already learned passives, the instructor asked the students to read the assigned local student newspaper in their home before coming to the next class. And then he asked his students to report to him orally about the news (especially on 'What's happening at this university?' topic) appearing at the assigned local student newspaper using lots of passive expressions in the next class. Then he distributed the local student newspaper to his students. The class finished at this point, and in the next class, there was a communicative passive production activity in spoken language. Here is the transcript of the audio-taped lesson of this portion (SI, S2, and S3 denote the students in this class who participated in the talk; T represents the teacher).

PAGE 79

T. What kind of things happening in this university? What is going on in this university? Nothing? I know that there are at least three articles in the paper that deal with the university happenings, right now. SI: I think I saw about the university T: Um, I heard about that. It's a story. What else? Now we are gonna talk more about this in a minute. Anything else happening that you know of? Like what? Just give me a quick example? S2: Student government appears to fight for new directors. T: All right. Student government are fhends. What else? S3: The Sports Center. The Sports Center was fired and even after testing, because the Sports Center was remained a mystery. T: Oh, the Sports Center was set on fire, is it being rebuilt? S3: 1 think it is. T: I think they are. Is there any question? I would like you to ask questions, tell me more, tell your neighbors more the stories from the news from them, and I like you to use passives. As seen in this transcript, the students and the teacher used passives in their talk about the news in the assigned local student newspaper. S3 used passives by saying, "The Sports Center was fired and even after testing, because the Sports Center was remained a mystery." His saying "was fired" was correct in his use of passives in spoken language, but his saying "was remained" seems that he overused a passive voice in his spoken language. Teacher used passives in his talk

PAGE 80

72 by saying, "Oh, the Sports Center was set on fire, is it being rebuilt?" The teacher demonstrated how to use passives in spoken language to talk about a news story. Another communicative production activity was a discussion activity about "children." After teaching passives, modals, and infinitives, the instructor gave students discussion questions for the next day about which they should think carefully to participate actively in the discussion the next day. The teacher asked the students to read those discussion questions, and to plan how they would answer them in the next day's class. He emphasized that students should discuss the questions using passives, modals, and infinitives particularly. The discussion questions were "Do you think it's OK for both the mother and father to work?," "Do you think it makes a difference which parent takes care of a young child?," "Do you think companies should give women time off to have a baby?," "What are the most important things children need to be taught?," "What about punishment?," "Do you think children are given enough attention these days?," "Should children be allowed to make their own choices?," and "Is it OK for older brothers and sisters to take care of young children? On the next day, students worked in small groups and participated actively in discussing these issues using the grammar that they had learned already (passives, modals, and infinitives). After this small group discussion, each group leader reported turn by turn about his/her group discussion results on these issues to the instructor using those necessary grammar items. There was a movie review activity after learning present perfect tense, present perfect continuous, present participles, passives, modals, and past

PAGE 81

participles. The teacher asked the students first to be in small groups with persons who wanted to share a review on the same movie. Then the teacher asked students to write a short summary of the movie together with group members talking about it. Teacher wrote on the board, "Talk about your general feelings toward the movie first," "Second, write a short summary of the movie," "Third, talk about especially good/bad parts of the movie," and "Finally, would you recommend it and why?." The teacher emphasized especially that students should use what they had learned so far in their talk about the movie together in a small group and in the movie review written. The teacher emphasized that this activity would increase the grammar accuracy because everyone decided which grammar would be used in the review written together in a group. Here is the transcript audio-tape recorded during this movie review activity of the lesson (the researcher audio-tape recorded the group which decided to write a review on the movie 'The Rock,' and in this group there were two Korean students participating. Young Soo Park and Soon Hee Cho). (There were four people in this group, and SI and S2 denote the two students who participated in the group discussion about writing a movie review on 'The Rock' besides Park and Cho. T represents the teacher) Cho: 'The Rock' was an action movie, and also 'The Rock' was an exciting movie. (All laugh) And this movie was seen in lots of people and places. SI : I like it. It is seen by a lot of growing people and children. Is it love story?

PAGE 82

74 Cho: Yeah, it's a true story, but Park: It's not real, just it is not true story. That scene is true. Oh, you mean Sean Connery escaped the prison? That was true. Cho: Based on a true story. Nicholas Cage was given fan's love by a successfiil movie. SI : The movie has been remembered for Park: For what? SI : I can't say "has been remembered." Cho: No, it's okay, because passive with present perfect. SI: It has been remembered for everybody. Cho: For everybody? Park: No, I don't think so. SI: The movie has been remembered for Cho: Because SI: The movie has been remembered because S2: It was Cho: Because it was exciting movie. Park: Interesting movie. Park: Because Sean Connery's play was Cho: Because it was a good action movie. SI : The movie has been remembered because it was interesting and real story. Park: Based on real story? It's different because it's based on real story, but

PAGE 83

the story is not real, it's based on only one scene escape S2: Albatross. Park: Yeah, Albatross. That only one person escaped jail and that is real. But another story is not real. It's fiction. SI: Yeah, I know. T: (Interrupts) I think I saw that. It's about prison. What happened? Is it Albatross? Park: Albatross is not important in the movie. T: Who is in there? Is Nicholas Cage there? S (all): Yeah, Nicholas Cage and Sean Connery. T: What happened? I don't remember the prison. Are they bad people? Cho: Not bad. I think it's not bad. They are army people. They took the Albatross. But it's not bad people, I think. Park: Actually their purpose was not bad, but it changed. T: Actually they're doing correct things, but, so they were in the prison. Why are they there? Why they are destroying the world and something like that? Park: Oh, they wanted the money from the government. Cho: Yeah. Park: So SI : The movie has been remembered because it was been made by a real story. Park: It has been made? Whole story is fiction, but only one scene someone

PAGE 84

76 escapes Albatross, it's real story. Only that is real story. SI: Okay, what others? Cho: We have to write some story. Albatross was taken by bad army people. Park: Yeah, soldiers. SI : Oh, so by soldier people. Park and Cho: No, just soldiers. (All laugh) SI : Albatross was taken by bad soldiers, okay. Park: Someone stole chemical bomb in the army. Yeah, it's a chemical bomb, looks like green marble. Chemical was stolen. Cho: Chemical bomb was stolen by bad people. (After some thought) I think we don't need "by bad people," because chemical is stolen by bad people. One sentence, okay. SI: So chemical bomb was stolen and Albatross was taken by bad people, by group. Yeah, okay. Cho: So the government Park: Oh, Sean Connery was hired by government to S (all): How can we spell Sean Connery? (They ask the teacher for help) T: (Spells it for them) Park: What is the word 'without another people's notice'? (He looks up the word in a Korean-English dictionary) Oh, infiltrate. SI: Oh, infiltrate. T: (Interrupts) Good word!

PAGE 85

77 Park: To infiltrate Albatross into government. T: Okay, just stop here, and (He gives the students homework) As seen in this transcript, the students used what they had learned in their talk about the movie 'The Rock.' Cho showed a good use of present participles when she said, "The Rock was an exciting movie." She used a passive voice by saying, "And this movie was seen in lots of people and places." SI used a passive voice by saying, "It is seen by a lot of growing people and children." Cho used past participles by saying, "Based on a true story." She used a passive voice by saying, "Nicholas Cage was given fan's love by a successful movie." SI showed a good use of present perfect tense with a passive voice by saying, "The movie has been remembered for Park used present participles by saying, "Interesting movie." He used passive voices by saying, "It's different because it's based on real story, but the story is not real, it's based on only one scene escape Teacher interrupted the students' talk, and participated in the talk about the movie together vnth the students for short amount of time. He demonstrated the uses of present participles in the talk about the movie by saying, "Actually they're doing correct things, but, so they were in the prison. Why are they there? Why they are destroying the world and something like that?" Park used present perfect tense with a passive voice by saying, "It has been made?" Cho used a passive voice by saying, "Albatross was taken by bad army people." Park showed a good use of passives when he said, "Chemical was stolen." He used a passive voice again by saying, "Oh, Sean Connery was hired by government to The students used lots of passives, present perfect tense, present participles, and past

PAGE 86

78 participles in their talk about the movie together in this group, and used these grammar items in their movie review written. After this movie review writing activity together in groups, the teacher asked the students to edit their written movie reviews with grammar checklist in the textbook and to turn them in the next day. Lots of negotiation of meaning work was done with those target (already learned) grammar items for group movie reviews in this activity. And communicative language production work was done through writing and speaking simultaneously in this activity. The Advanced Level Grammar Classroom At this level of class, articles, count nouns, noncount nouns, plural 's,' quantifiers, tense and aspect, phrases and clauses, sentence types, the parts of a sentence, direct and indirect speech, prepositions, modals, the passives, parallelism, sentence variety, some special cases of subject-verb agreement, conditional sentences, infinitives and gerunds, causative verbs, comparatives, and superlatives were taught. At this level, the instructor first presented the grammar items that would be taught and learned on a particular day by writing on the board several example sentences where new grammar points were included. In this way, an inductive way of presentation of grammar items, like problem soving, where students themselves first found out about new grammar points vAth a teacher's prompts was used as an introduction of new grammar points to be taught. The teacher emphasized that this proficiency level enjoyed tasks of problem solving

PAGE 87

and analysis of written sentences given to them, rather than just receiving the transmitted grammar knowledge by a teacher. The second phase of this level's grammar instruction was the detailed explanation of grammar points in focus with reference to the textbook where charts were used to explain and show how the grammar points are used. The final phase of this level's grammar instruction was useful communicative speaking and writing activities (usually writing activities were preferred much more than the speaking activities using the learned grammar items). Lots of error analysis work for the already learned grammar was done at this level as a practice activity. Also textbook exercises were done very much (usually those exercises were sentence writing activities with the learned grammar) to practice already learned grammar. Introduction. The teacher introduced the to-be-learned grammar items on the board by writing sentences which were real sentences about her ovm life: The focus grammar items were present perfect tenses. She wrote, "I have taught English overseas," "I've been to Disney World six times," "I've taught English for 23 years," and "I've just talked about three uses of present perfect." Then she asked the students why she used present perfect tenses in these sentences, and several students answered her questions by saying, "The first one is experience, and the second one is also experience." In this way the teacher introduced her students to the new grammar point in focus on that day by giving them meaningful (not contrived) sentences in which the teacher communicated to the students about her own real life, and the students also communicated to her about their state of knowledge on the given grammar point. So this introductory

PAGE 88

80 grammar presentation to be taught and to be learned on a particular day was communicative because real communication between the instructor and the students happened using the new grammar item. Explanation. Then after this introduction of grammar points in focus, the instructor explained one by one the cases of using the present perfect tense in real life. She explained the grammar by giving many meaningful example sentences, and by referring many times to the textbook charts where the grammar point in focus was explained. In this way, the teacher showed how the grammar point in focus was used in real life to the students. At this advanced level, students mostly understood the teacher's explanation of the grammar points and the textbook chart explanation of the given grammar about its use. And sometimes if misunderstanding occurred among students, the students did not hesitate to ask her for more explanation or for more example sentences. As one Korean student (Chul Ho Park) said in his first interview with the researcher (see Chapter 5), this supportive and comfortable classroom atmosphere to pursue one's own inquiry was one of the factors that could have helped the students' learning at this level. The teacher was always ready to provide more needed explanations or points for her students. When explaining the grammar points, the teacher frequently mentioned style issues about using a specific grammar item or certain expressions in real life. For example, when students were learning the uses of present perfect tense, she emphasized that the use of the expressions 'so far' and 'thus far' which are

PAGE 89

81 usually used with the present perfect tense is different in style. She said, "The use of 'thus far' is much more formal than the use of 'so far.'" Also when she was teaching the past perfect tenses, the teacher emphasized that those words like 'before' and 'after' which are usually used with the simple past tense and the past perfect tense to notify the time sequence of two past actions can also be used with two simple past tenses. She said: In most conversational spoken use of English, uses of the past perfect tense and simple past tense with these words to notify the time sequence of two past actions make information conveyed redundant, because 'before' and 'after' expressions already denote the time sequence between two past actions. So the use of the past perfect tense to denote the time sequence of two past actions with these words makes information redundant in most conversational uses of English. And she emphasized the style difference by saying, "You should use the past perfect tense with simple past tense in expressing the time sequence of two past actions with these words in written and formal uses of English." Therefore, in this way the instructor also dealt with English style issues and different versions of English in quite different situations of use. She said to the researcher in her interview, "This touch of style issue will probably help my students quite a lot because they already know a lot of English grammar basic facts, and they need more on English real life uses." Communicative exercises. Most grammar practice activities at this level were oral and written sentence compositions using the learned grammar points.

PAGE 90

which were presented in the textbook. So textbook exercise doing task was one of the most frequently used grammar practice activities in this class. But those sentence completion activities were never simple and just easy. To do one textbook exercise required each student's creative thought to be communicated to other students and to the instructor. For example, when students learned adverb clauses of time, they did the textbook sentence completion exercise by doing it orally and writing the rest of the sentences at the same time. The textbook direction was this: "Complete the following sentences about choosing and keeping friends." And students completed the sentences like "Whenever I meet someone for the first time, I ," "I won't invite someone to my house for dinner until ," "I consider a person to be a close friend once and "I will trust a fiiend as long as ," etc. The students completed these sentences with their ovm thought in writing, and in tum-by-tum each student expressed his or her sentence to the whole group of students and to the instructor. Also as a practice of sentence parts like subject, verb, object, etc., students practiced making sentences with given subjects in the textbook. So after completing the sentences with given subjects, the students communicated their own sentences one by one to the whole class members. Students (one by one) said, "Taking aerobics classes is fun ." "What you eat is disgusting ." "What you eat is good for vour health ." "What you eat determines how vou feel ." "What you eat can make vou fat." "Junky foods, cigarettes, and alcohol are essential for vour health (the student made this sentence for humorous effect)," "Fad diets can be

PAGE 91

83 dangerous or useless ," "Staying healthy and fit is very important ," "The best way to avoid being sick is to do exercise ,"etc. Another very frequently used grammar practice activity at this level of class was "error analysis." As the instructor told the researcher in the interview with her, students at this proficiency level liked written grammar analysis work and writing activities rather than communicative game activities. Usually the instructor gave the students handouts of error analysis where the students should correct every error that they saw (including spelling errors) based on their already learned grammar until any specific point of time as homework or as a quiz, and then in the next class the whole class together with the instructor presenting the correct answers on a transparency checked the work. Also, oral communicative grammar practice activities were done at this level of class, and students participated in them eagerly. Students practiced the use of the simple past tense and the present perfect tense (as general conversation opener with a person) with a partner: In the textbook, there were prompt key words for use like "eat a dog," "visit foreign countries," "play football," etc. And students in pairs asked each other about these using a general conversation opener of present perfect tense like 'Have you eaten a dog?,' and the other student answered 'yes' or 'no.' And if the other student answered 'yes,' then the student asked him or her again with the specific question using a simple past tense like 'When did you eat it?' or 'Where did you eat it?' and the conversation went on in this way. This exercise was done in the present perfect part to practice the use of it related to the use of simple past tense in real life situations. The students

PAGE 92

84 seemed to enjoy this kind of exercise where they communicated with each other about their experiences using the learned grammar points. Certainly, use of these grammar points learned helped fluent communication between persons as shown in the above presentation. Another oral communicative grammar practice activity used in this class was having students interview each other about their life histories. After teaching all the diverse English verb tense systems, the teacher gave students an interview project where students asked each other (they worked in pairs) about several different topics on a person's life history like "Where/when bom?," "First ten years (family activities and school activities)," "Adolescence/teen years (school activities, work experiences, family activities, and leisure/social activities)," "His/her 20s (professional/work activities, educational activities, family activities, and leisure/social activities)," "This year (until this term-professional activities, educational activities, and leisure/social activites)," "Now (professional activities, educational activities, and leisure/social activities)," and "Future-predict or guess (professional activities, educational activities, and leisure/social activities)." The students interviewed each other on these topics and subtopics (written on a handout) using appropriate verb tenses in their questions and answers. And in this way they practiced simple past tense, simple present tense, present progressive, present perfect tense, simple future tense, and future perfect tense meaningfully questioning and answering about their own life histories. For the written follow-up, the teacher asked the students to take notes on each other's answers to these life history questions briefly with key words on the

PAGE 93

85 distributed handout. And then the teacher, after the interview where the students collected their necessary data to write about a different person's life history, asked the students to write the interview contents up using as many different verb tenses as possible in an essay paper. The teacher emphasized that this was a communicative activity because students communicated with each other about their own life histories, and then they submitted the essay papers to the instructor to communicate with her about a different person's life history. Another writing activity was done to practice passive and active voices. In this activity, the teacher brought a newspaper article and she asked the students to notice and underline all passive voices used there, and then asked them as a homework to rewrite those sentences in an active voice. The teacher told the researcher in the interview that this activity was intended for the students' fluent grasp of passive and active voices. As seen in these several communicative exercises done at this level of class, writing activities were more frequent than just oral communicative activity; this happened because the teacher believed that writing activities, in addition to oral activities, facilitate students' command of English grammar especially at this advanced grammar level. She said to the researcher: Lots of speaking and listening practices, focusing on some analysis, inductive discovery, and just telling the students the rules sometimes all in mixed fonm help the acquisition of grammar. I think it's very hard to pick up grammar from just oral speech. I think you need some analysis work and studying it.

PAGE 94

86 as an answer to the grammar teacher interview question number 1 which was "How do you think grammar can be acquired best?." (see Appendix B) Summary Across all three different proficiency levels, three phases of the grammar instruction were first, the introduction, second, the explanation, and third, the communicative language production work using the learned grammatical items. All three grammar classes used an inductive grammar presentation approach where various language forms are practiced but where the learners are left to discover or induce rules and generalizations on their own, rather than a deductive one where the learners are given a rule/generalization by the teacher or textbook and then allowed to practice various instances of language to which the rule applies (Brown, 1994). Then, direct detailed explanations of the new grammar to be learned with rich example sentences followed this introduction to demonstrate the points to be taught. The key and the most important feature of the grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America was that there were rich communicative grammar practice activities at the end of each unit. Either speaking activities or writing activities, using the already learned grammar points or a combination of both, asked the students to practice the grammar learned in the context of communication with one another or with the instructor.

PAGE 95

Related to these rich communicative language production exercises in the grammar classrooms in the program was the existence of a supportive, but also challenging classroom atmosphere to facilitate the students' production of language. This was another one of the most significant features of the grammar instruction observed in the program. Teachers were highly dedicated to their job and worked hard, always making themselves available to the students at any time they needed the instructor. The comfortable and supportive classroom atmosphere may have facilitated students' interaction doing communicative language exercises either through spoken form or written form or both of them simultaneously. Students interacted with the teacher to ask questions and to communicate with him/her as language production work in a supportive and comfortable ("non-threatening") classroom atmosphere. Finally, the last significant feature of the grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program was that it used a variety of authentic meaningful materials to teach grammar: Newspapers (local student newspaper and other newspapers), audio-taped recordings of native speakers' speech in real life situations, and a video-tape recorded with the TV-show "The X-Files" were used in addition to the textbook materials. They may have enriched the students' English grammar learning experiences, raising their interests and motivation to learn English language.

PAGE 96

CHAPTERS THE NATURE OF KOREAN STUDENTS' LANGUAGE LEARNING To answer the research questions 2 and 3, what were seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program over a 7-month period, what was the nature of these Korean students' writing development over a 7-month period in which they attended the intensive English language program, and what factors may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills, mainly those two interview data collected during the Summer C term of 1998 with seven Korean students were analyzed. Those two interviews (the first interview done in the middle of the semester and the second interview done nearly at the end of the semester) conducted with seven Korean students were divided into five distinctive areas in order to answer research questions 2 and 3. The questions were first, the purpose of learning English grammar and the way it should be taught, second, their perspectives on communicative grammar instruction and its teachers, third, their learning strategies used to learn and practice English grammar in and outside the grammar classrooms of the program (these three interview questions were asked during the first interview with seven Korean students), fourth, the exploration of their English language learning experiences in the intensive language program, and 88

PAGE 97

89 fifth, the exploration of their EngHsh language learning experiences outside the setting of the intensive language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America in addition to their personalities and hobbies (these two final interview questions were asked during the second interview done with the six Korean students who agreed to show their writing samples). The researcher, in this chapter, deals with seven Korean students' interview data (the answers to the above five interview questions) as seven distinctive individual cases to be interpreted and described in detail. She describes seven cases related to the above five explorations with general descriptions of each individual's sex, age, educational background, and the grammar class level he/she attended. The following is a table describing the Korean students' years of English education in South Korea. Case 1 refers to Chul Soo Song, case 2 refers to Ki Young Kwak, case 3 refers to Soon Hee Cho, case 4 refers to Young Soo Park, case 5 refers to Young Hee Jun, case 6 refers to Chul Ho Park, and case 7 refers to Hyun Woo Choi. Table 1. Number of Years of English Education in South Korea Cases Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Number of Years 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 Chul Soo Song Chul Soo Song was a male, 24-year-old Korean student who registered as a full-time student in the intensive English language program during the Summer C term of 1998. He was in the beginning level grammar class under teacher Emmy

PAGE 98

90 Krempasky. He majored in biology in South Korea in his university. He attended one semester of Summer C, 1998 in the program to learn English, and then moved to New York to attend another language school there. His educational background was attendance at schools until college in Seoul, South Korea and his learning English for seven years in South Korea (six years of English education during middle and high school years, and one additional year of English education in college). Brainstorming on grammar instruction. He said to the researcher, "The purpose of learning English grammar is for correct and better expressions of English in either speaking or writing." And on the way English grammar should be taught, he showed his view by saying, "Grammar should be used in real life situations either through speaking or through writing after being taught its rules." He liked an inductive way of teaching English grammar like the case he was taught in his grammar class. He said: In my case, I usually first try my expressions either in speaking or in writing and then I look up grammar books and other grammar references to fill the necessary gaps and to correct any error found out in the first trial. And I don't usually first study grammar and then using that grammar make my expressions either in speaking or in writing. So I think the first case is better grammar instruction than the second case. And I think Korean grammar instructional method is not very good in this point. The first case is similar to the grammar instructional method taught here in my grammar

PAGE 99

class. And for that reason, I don't dislike my grammar class where the inductive method is preferred. He emphasized that in South Korea, he was not able to practice English grammar in writing or in speaking because English education in South Korea does not combine speaking or writing practice activities to teach grammar. He emphasized that grammar should be practiced a lot either in the grammar class or outside of that class either in writing activities or in speaking activities. And he advocated the integrated skills instruction rather than the separated skills instruction like the case here in the intensive English language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. He liked all those grammar, oral skills, and reading/writing classes to be combined to teach English, and then grammar to be taught in addition to the instruction of these practical skills of English. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction. He said to the researcher, "A grammar class teacher should give individual attention to each and every student to check his or her progress and problems in learning English. And my grammar teacher sometimes does this job very well, but she has a lack in teaching experiences and leadership skills as a teacher." But he said, "The inductive grammar teaching method where the teacher first introduced new grammar items to be taught through textbook passages or dialogues or other example sentences for students' guessing of grammar rules, and then taught them in my grammar class was somewhat helpful for my acquisition of grammar." He also said, "The grammar practice activities done in my grammar class, I mean.

PAGE 100

92 both textbook exercise doing activities and oral communicative grammar practice activities, were somewhat helpful for my acquisition of grammar." He explained: I like my grammar class because I am able to check my grammatical knowledge through lots of grammar practice activities used there, and because the teacher sometimes gives quite useful individual attention to me for my deficient part in grammar, which makes me pay extra attention to my deficient part. He commented that quite free and loose educational atmosphere (by this, he meant the teacher-student relationship and spoken communicative grammar practice activities done in class) he felt during his grammar class made him somewhat dislike that class because he thought grammar, unlike other practical skills class like the oral skills or the reading/writing, requires tight educational atmosphere where students should study rules of grammar in some way. He additionally said that this thought was because he was not accustomed to that educational atmosphere in South Korea, and it was quite fresh to him at that time. But he liked the inductive presentation of grammar from the teacher rather than the deductive one (where grammar rules are presented first directly from the teacher's part and then example sentences and practice activities followed) which was the Korean English grammar teaching approach. Learning strategies used to practice grammar. He said: I usually practice my learned grammar both through lots of writing activities in the reading/writing class and through preparation of oral presentations in the oral skills class. Through these processes, I check my

PAGE 101

93 grammar with consciousness on it if it is right or wrong, and I usually do not use a rote memorization strategy of grammar rules separately from other language skills (speaking and writing). He said: Those spoken communicative activities to practice grammar in my grammar class do not fit with me because I am not accustomed to them. Instead, I like an individual study through individual writing practices and reference to grammar textbooks when I have some grammatical questions to apply in writings, and through an individual preparation of oral presentations for the oral skills class. He commented that this preference of learning style was because of the learning style he was accustomed to in Korean educational system over 10 years of education in South Korea. But he additionally commented that the spoken communicative grammar practice activities in his grammar class were helpful in learning grammar because students succeeded in using their learned grammatical knowledge in instant practice opportunities. English language learning experiences in the intensive language program. In relation to grammar learning, he thought that his other classes of the oral skills and the reading/writing taught him very important application skills of learned grammar in real life situations by having him use the learned grammar a lot to have him improve on these skills. And he thought that this learning was invaluable to him to improve in writing skills and speaking skills in addition to

PAGE 102

grammar, which did not happen in South Korea when he had been learning English. He liked his oral skills class because the instructor of that class was very dedicated to teaching her students by meeting additionally after class to correct students' pronunciation errors. He liked that class also because oral skills were one of the most deficient parts in his English, and he needed help on that part. He loved his reading/writing class too because developing writing skills was one of the most important English language learning aims here in the intensive language program. He liked also his English interaction class because in that class, he learned American cultural values which were useful information for him. He did not like the grammar class because that class was basically about the rules of speaking and writing in English, and so he felt it was somewhat boring to learn grammar in the grammar class. He loved to produce some kind of product either in speaking or in writing, and hated just one side reception of any knowledge in the learner's part from a teacher. English lan guage learning experiences outside the program. Except the reading materials in his reading/writing class, he did some subject matter readings related to his major area of study in his college. He did not read newspapers or magazines. He thought that reading was an important skill to develop to live academically. He also said that he read the Internet reading materials in which he was interested by visiting those areas by himself in a library (he said that he especially liked reading through the Internet).

PAGE 103

95 He said that his out of class English language learning activities were mostly reading as said above, watching TV, and seeing movies for listening comprehension. He thought that speaking was a big problem for him because he did not have many interaction opportunities to practice speaking outside the setting of the intensive English language program (even inside the program setting, there were not many speaking opportunities, he said). So he found a big problem in the fact that he did not have any American friend or native Americans to interact with regularly outside the program in terms of his speaking development. And as a solution to this problem, he thought that he should move to New York City which is a big city. In this place, he thought he might have many more speaking opportunities with native Americans because he would meet many Americans there (he thought that the town in which this intensive English language program is located is such a small and quiet place to interact with other people outside the program setting, and so he planned transfer of a language school to that in a big city). Finally, he described his personality to be that of introverted. Summary. The researcher summarizes the perspectives of this case in the following: 1. Brainstorming on grammar instruction: The purpose of grammar learning is for correct and better expressions of English in either speaking or writing. Grammar should be taught in an inductive approach, and a lot of speaking and writing activities should be combined to practice it.

PAGE 104

96 2. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction: The free and loose educational atmosphere in the grammar class did not fit with his concept of grammar instruction because grammar requires a tight educational atmosphere where students should study rules of grammar in some way. His grammar teacher was okay for him because she gave useful individual attention to him for his deficient parts in grammar, which made him pay extra attention to his weaknesses. 3. Learning strategies used to practice grammar: He practiced his learned grammar both through individual writing activities for his reading/writing class and through individual preparation of oral presentations in the oral skills class. 4. English language learning experiences in the program: He loved the oral skills, the reading/writing, and the English interaction classes. He did not like his grammar class. 5. English language learning experiences outside the program: He did some subject matter readmgs related to his major field of study and did lots of readings through the Internet. He also watched TV and movies for his listening comprehension skills. 6. Personality and hobbies: He was an introverted person.

PAGE 105

97 Ki Young Kwak Ki Young Kwak was a male, 34-year-old Korean student who registered as a full-time student during the Summer C semester, 1998. It was his first semester in the intensive English language program, and he planned to attend another semester in the program during the Fall semester of 1998. He attended schools until he graduated from his high school in Seoul, South Korea and moved to Japan to attend college and to get his master's degree. He majored in international business administration in college, and achieved his master's degree in this field in Japan also. In his college days, he also learned some English: He had taken English writing, English conversation, and some other English courses. He learned English for six years in South Korea long time ago, and he moved to Japan and learned English for some time there and after getting his master's degree, he moved here to learn live English. He was at the beginning level of the grammar class under teacher Emmy Krempasky during the Summer C semester of 1998. Brainstorming on grammar instruction. Ki Young Kwak emphasized the development of basic interpersonal oral communication skills (Cummins, 1980) as a beginning level learner of a second language, and then the development of literacy skills after enough of these skills' development. So he said, "The primary purpose of learning English grammar is for good conversational skills. Grammar should be used for better command of speaking and writing skills." He said:

PAGE 106

98 Especially at the beginning level, because survival skills are necessary, grammar and oral skills should be taught together in an integrated mode. (He thought that teaching these language skills separately at the beginning level does not have much transfer value from one skill to another, and so he emphasized the integrated mode of grammar and oral skills for one's better conversational skills in English) So in a grammar class, lots of learned grammar practice activities in the context of real life conversation situations are necessary. And a grammar teacher should correct students' grammar and give feedback after hearing the students' sentences. He had dissatisfaction in the fact that the intensive English language program's language teachers usually did not touch on students' grammar, but just touched on their pronunciations and vocabulary. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction. His view of any grammar teacher was that, because speaking well and making oneself understood through speech in another language is the main activity of learning another language (in his thought), he/she should have his/her students speak well in conversations with native speakers with correct grammar. On his communicative grammar instructional process and his grammar class teacher, he said, "I like all the instant oral communicative grammar practice activities because they are real practice activities, and I participate well in them without any feeling of resistance. The inductive grammar presentation method from my teacher's part is not bad." But he had one big serious concern about his grammar class, and that was the fact that the class (the teacher) focused on one grammar item too much (the

PAGE 107

99 whole class time) without a good schedule of finishing the grammar textbook assigned in that class within a 3-month period of the Summer C term, 1998. He really wanted to finish the textbook and wanted that class to cover all grammar items covered in the textbook, and wanted to learn even more. But he said that the class proceedings were too slow to cover every point of grammar covered in the textbook within the Summer C term of 1998. Also on oral communicative grammar practice activities, he wanted only a short portion of class time to be distributed to those activities, and wanted to learn many more grammar items in the actual grammar class leaving details of any learned grammar items to be studied individually in students' homes. On this aspect, he told the researcher that his grammar teacher lacked in skills of effective time management and appropriate time distribution on class activities. Also on his grammar teacher, he said to the researcher: My teacher looks so young and does not have "teacher-like" qualities shown in Asian cultures (Japan and South Korea). By "teacher-like" qualities, I mean that teachers should in every possible way be a role model for his/her students in his/her use of language, appearance, etc. My teachers in this intensive English language program use lots of informal English with their students within the setting of the program which is a big educational system itself, and I think that use of this kind of language within a school system does not show a role model from the teachers' part and does not show respect for each and every student. I think that teachers

PAGE 108

100 in a school system should always use formal language with their students for better education. Learning strategies used to practice grammar. He said: Grammar learning students should make their own efforts to use the learned grammar in real life conversations with native speakers of English. So I make my own list of sentences drawn from a good English conversation book 'Side By Side' that seem to be used a lot in real conversations with native speakers outside classes, and I notice and am reminded of correct grammar uses which I have learned in my grammar class in those sentences to practice my grammar. I also usually try to remember those sentences and correct grammar used there, and to use them in real life conversations with native speakers to practice my learned grammar and oral skills simultaneously. He usually practiced his grammar in combination with oral skills and reading/writing skills. He said: With the conversation book 'Side By Side' I brought from South Korea, I practice my grammar together with oral skills and reading/writing skills practice. First, I listen to the audio-tape attached to that textbook about the content of a specific unit and then I practice my speaking. Doing these activities, I think grammar is noticed and practiced together with the oral skills practice. Then the textbook asks me to write some sentences about that specific unit's content which I practiced first through the oral skills

PAGE 109

101 practice. This reading/writing activity, I think, asks me to notice once again and practice my grammar during the practice of writing. As another learning strategy to practice grammar, he said, "I continuously try to express my thoughts and ideas to my teachers in this intensive English language program with the memorized useful idioms and expressions, and if the teachers correct me phonetically, grammatically, and semantically, I am always ready to incorporate the feedback in my sentences for better expression of my ideas to others." And he thought doing this activity was an important grammar practice. English language learning experiences in the intensive language program. He did not find the classes he was taking during the Summer C term of 1998 to be interesting, and the reason he provided for the researcher was that the teachers did not focus very much on what he should learn as a beginning level learner of English. He said that he needed a systematic language teaching approach as a beginning level language learner, and all the beginning level classes he was taking during the Summer C term of 1998 did not provide him with that approach. He said, "I think teachers' role at my level is very important. The classes (the grammar, the oral skills, and the reading/writing) don't teach and focus very much on what I should learn as an English beginner. I need a very systematic English teaching approach." English language learning experiences outside the program. His outside English language learning activities were just a little amount of reading (reading only The intensive English language program Weekly' besides the required

PAGE 110

102 reading materials in his reading/writing class), watching TV (mostly dramas) and movies a lot, studying by himself an English conversation book ('Side By Side') for better conversation skills with native speakers, and going to American parties sometimes with the leaders of his English interaction class. He said he focused on developing his oral skills in English first (then, the literacy skills he said) in his leisure time, but he did not have many native Americans to interact with here in town outside the classes of the program. He said he wanted to interact with others in any social setting, and so if his friends wanted him to go with them to American parties, he willingly went with them. On his personality, he described it to be that of fast-tempered and introverted (because he thought himself to be reflective rather than impulsive). His hobbies were being sociable with others and talking with them. Summary. The researcher summarizes the perspectives of this case in the following: 1. Brainstorming on grammar instruction: The purpose of grammar learning is for good conversational skills and for writing skills. Grammar and oral skills should be taught together for one's better conversational skills in English. 2. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction: He liked his communicative grammar instructional process where an inductive approach to grammar was used and lots of oral communicative grammar practice activities were used. But he did not like his grammar teacher because she lacked skills in effective time management and appropriate time distribution on class

PAGE 111

103 activities, and because she was too friendly with her students and used informal English with them. 3. Learning strategies used to practice grammar: He made his list of sentences that can be used a lot in conversations with native speakers, and used them in his interactions with native speakers. He practiced his grammar also through individual writing activities with his conversation book 'Side By Side.' 4. English language learning experiences in the program: He did not like any of the classes (the grammar, the oral skills, and the reading/waiting classes) because those classes did not focus on what he should learn as an English beginner. 5. English language learning experiences outside the program: He read only 'The intensive English language program Weekly.' He watched TV (mostly dramas) and movies a lot. He studied the English conversation book 'Side By Side' for better conversation skills with native speakers. He sometimes went to American parties with the leaders in his English interaction class. 6. Personality and hobbies: He was a fast-tempered and introverted person. His hobbies were being sociable with others and talking with them. Soon Hee Cho Soon Hee Cho was a female, 27-year-old Korean student who participated only in the first interview with the researcher. She was in the intermediate level grammar class under teacher Paeth during the Summer C term of 1998. She was

PAGE 112

104 enrolled as a full-time student at that time, and she also attended the program during the Spring semester of 1998 as a full-time student. So she was in her second semester of learning English in the intensive language program at that time of the Summer C term, 1998. She attended schools until she graduated from her high school in Seoul, South Korea, and went here to learn live English. She planned to enter Santa Fe Community College to major in computer engineering after finishing her second term here in the program. Therefore, she learned English for six years in South Korea and learned it for two consecutive semesters additionally in the intensive language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. Brainstorming on grammar instruction. She said, "Grammar is learned for listening and speaking skills of English, because English grammar is completely different from that of Korean. For reading and writing skills' development, English grammar is also very important to learn." For good English grammar instruction, she said: A textbook decided to be used in any grammar class is extremely important. I think that a systematic organization and presentation of any grammar point and intensive exercises on that grammar in the chosen textbook really help any grammar instruction. Diverse exercise types on any learned grammar are important for students to digest and practice on the already learned grammar either through speaking or vmting activities. Just direct rule suggestion and memorization on it fi-om the students' part should never be the focal activity of any English grammar lesson. Instead, I

PAGE 113

105 advocate a very systematic and organized grammar lesson where a good textbook is chosen at first, lots of practice opportunities of learned grammar are given, and frequent summaries (reviews) and exams are given on already learned grammar points as check activities of students' progress in their learning. Grammar is never knowledge itself that should be taught from the teacher's part and memorized or just understood from the students' part, but instead a skill also like other language skills (oral skills, writing skills, etc.) that should be practiced a lot for better use both inside a grammar class and outside that class. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction. On her grammar class teacher, Paeth, she had very positive thoughts. She said: He has interests and concerns for his own students and checks quite frequently their progress in learning. He teaches English grammar and then checks if his students are able to use that grammar with great interest and concern. He frequently asks his students about the learned grammar and provides lots of practice opportunities for his students. I think individual attention and concern for each and every student and great concern about real use of learned grammar from the students' part are any grammar teacher's roles. Paeth does this job. One other thing she was satisfied with her grammar teacher was that he frequently asked if his students were really able to use any learned grammar in their outside everyday lives, and asked them to talk to him about any problem happening in this effort. Soon Hee Cho thought this process was very helpful to

PAGE 114

106 improve the students' grammar, and said that she, without any hesitation or reluctance, talked to her teacher about any problem she had in using learned English grammar in real outside life. She said that then, Paeth gave her very helpful and useful suggestions on her problems, which helped her a lot to improve her grammar. She said: I like the grammar instruction provided in my grammar class a lot because I basically think that students in any grammar class should practice grammar both through textbook exercises and through applied communicative activities (either speaking or writing) in class after getting instruction on any specific grammar point. And in my grammar class, both exercise types (textbook exercise practice and applied communicative exercises done with classmates) are provided after instruction on any specific grammar point. I also think that English is learned the best in the most interesting and engaging way where students are dedicated in the learning process itself And so giving students very interesting tasks where the students learn English grammar is a very good way for those students to remember the grammar points later. In this point also, I like my grammar instruction because in my grammar class diverse and interesting communicative grammar practice activities where students should be dedicated in some way to do the job required for them are given to the students. I especially like a role play type communicative grammar activity where I can practice the learned grammar in communicative way with classmates, which I think improves my English grammar a lot.

PAGE 115

107 But she did not like her grammar class in that the teacher did not use quite much the chosen textbook which she liked (she said to the researcher that that textbook presented a grammar point in a systematic and organized way and lots of practice exercises were there after explanation of grammar, and finally there was the overall summary of the chapter), and did not ask his students to do all the grammar practice exercises in the textbook. But nevertheless these dissatisfactions with her grammar class, she overall liked it because all those diverse communicative grammar practice activities provided in her class enabled the students to use grammar they had learned in class in the activities, and therefore they were able to check its use themselves and understand its use. And she thought this process helped the students' acquisition of English grammar. She said, "I think the communicative activities in my grammar class are effective to learn English grammar because we can use grammar we have learned in class in the activities and can check its use and understand well its use." Learning strategies used to practice grammar. Soon Hee Cho thought using English in real life and in real context is very important after learning and practicing English granmiar through a grammar teacher's instruction and through a grammar textbook. She told the researcher that especially the noticing the gap of grammar activities done as introduction in her grammar class helped to shape her learning strategies for English grammar in out of class learning activities. When asked by the researcher her learning strategies to practice her grammar, she said:

PAGE 116

Using grammar a lot definitely. Here because I hear lots of live English used between native speakers, I usually endeavor to hear the grammar that I have learned in the grammar class in real speech and conversations between native speakers. And I think in this way having constant interest is the most important in learning and improving one's English. If I have interest, I can hear the grammar points that I have learned in the class and can notice 'Oh, that person uses this and that grammar in this and that situation.' So with the process (noticing the gap of grammar) I learned in my grammar class and with interest, I can notice the grammar is used in this and that situation and then I myself try to use the grammar in real situations like native speakers. I think these are very important to improve my grammar. She said on her learning strategies, "I also practice my grammar through textbook exercises by filling in blanks in addition to my already mentioned learning strategies. And finally I practice my grammar through reading/writing exercises where I try to use the grammar that I learned in writing journals." Summary. The researcher summarizes the perspectives of this case in the following: 1 Brainstorming on grammar instruction: Grammar is learned for the four skills of English (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). For a grammar instruction, a good textbook should be chosen first, lots of practice opportunities for the learned grammar either through speaking activities or

PAGE 117

109 through writing activities should be given to the students, and frequent reviews and exams should be given to the students as check activities. 2. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction: She liked her grammar instructional process a lot in that lots of communicative grammar practice activities (both in speaking and in writing) were given to the students. She also liked her grammar teacher for his additional learning strategy instruction and for his care for each student. 3. Learning strategies used to practice grammar: She noticed the learned grammar in real speech by native speakers, and then she herself used it in interactions with native speakers. She also used it in writing journals for her reading/writing class. Young Soo Park Young Soo Park was a male, 26-year-old Korean student who attended the intensive English language program as a full-time student during the Spring and the Summer C terms of 1998. So he was in his second semester when the researcher first met him at the beginning of the Summer C semester, and planned to attend one another short term period of the Fall semester, 1998 in the program. He was in the intermediate level grammar class with Soon Hee Cho under teacher Paeth during the Summer C term of 1998. His college major was accounting in South Korea, and he planned to achieve the Certified Public Accountant when he returns to his home country in

PAGE 118

no the near future. Also he wanted to find his job in the area of international business in the near future, and his primary aim coming here was to acquire English pretty fast especially in his speaking proficiency. This was because in his job area, good English conversational skills were required. He learned English in South Korea for six years during his middle and high school days, and learned a little more attending his college in South Korea (he came here after graduation from college in South Korea). Brainstorming on grammar instruction. On learning English here which is ESL (English as a second language) situation different from the case of learning English in South Korea (which is English as a foreign language situation), he mentioned lots of pronunciation improvement. This was because he should make himself understood in English every moment to other people in this situation, which is not the case in South Korea. He said, "My primary purpose of learning English grammar is for better command of my conversational skills in English, and I think this will help my job obtainment in the near future. The general purpose of learning grammar is for accuracy in either speaking or writing." On his own thought about how grammar should be taught, he cited his current grammar instruction as quite a good example of any grammar instruction. He thought that an inductive presentation of grammar points is better than a deductive one because students themselves should find out the rules after seeing lots of example sentences of the grammar in focus, and, by finding out the rules themselves, he thought that they can also understand their uses and these

PAGE 119

Ill processes have good transfer value to real life use of the grammar in the students' part. He said: I think the grammar rule teaching method where a teacher gives lots of language data or example sentences using that newly learned grammar and asks students to find how that grammar is used (an inductive method) is more effective than a deductive way where the teacher directly gives students the rule and then asks the students to do some practices using it. I think this latter method is just rule memorization, and the first method is finding out the rules in the students' part understanding their uses and is very good for transfer to real life uses of those grammar rules. So I think the first method is better. Also he thought that lots of real life communicative application activities should be given after presentation of rules and some kinds of textbook exercises because only the presentation of rules from the teacher's part and doing some textbook exercises do not improve one's grammar significantly. He thought instead that those communicative real life projects (writing one's own story or interviewing native speakers, etc. using the learned grammar points) where students can practice what they learned grammatically in real life communicative way can improve one's grammar significantly. He said: I think that a grammar instruction where a teacher teaches first the grammar rules and then students do exercises in a textbook is not good enough to improve the students' grammar. Instead, I really love that grammar instruction where the instructor gives lots of example sentences

PAGE 120

112 about grammar with teaching its rules and after that, lots of communicative grammar practice activities are given. His thoughts were based on his basic opinion on grammar learning: He said, "I think grammar should be used in everyday life and that is the most important to improve my grammar. By doing this, grammar learning and use become a natural experience and through this, 1 think grammar can be remembered and learned a lot until later when lots of time went by." Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction. He thought himself to be very satisfied with his grammar teacher, Paeth. He said: Any grammar teacher should present some kinds of learning strategies or tips (directions) to his/her students that they should go forward in terms of grammar learning. And I think my teacher who gives his students learning strategy instruction in addition to grammar instruction to be helpful for me because the teacher reminded me of the way I should go about to improve my own grammar. He reminds the students of the past grammar dealt with in class frequently, and I like my grammar teacher in this aspect also. In terms of grammar instructional process of his grammar class, he loved the class because the class contents were interesting, and because a variety of activities was given (see Chapter 4) as application work of the learned grammar after grammar teaching. He loved his grammar class also because the instructor frequently gave students exams after each chapter where he succeeded in checking his grammatical knowledge in connection with other already learned

PAGE 121

113 previous grammatical knowledge. So the review activity of learned grammar was important for him for his acquisition of grammar. Learning strategies used to practice grammar. Young Soo Park thought that grammar should be used in everyday life, and that was the most important to improve his grammar. And this philosophy was shown in his learning strategies. He said: Grammar is some kind of a rule acquisition and remembrance, and so the best way to remember that rule is to use it in everyday life, not by memorizing it just in rote fashion. In my case, I murmur by myself to say what I want to express in English when I'm alone using the newly learned grammar in addition to using the grammar in my speech in conversations with other people to increase the everyday opportunities to use that grammar. So I murmur in English, not in Korean as my habit. In this way I apply what I learned grammatically in my real life and I think in this way, grammar is learned better. Also I think lots of writing opportunities to be very helpftil to increase grammar and writing skills. So I practice my grammar as 1 said above already by trying to use it myself in real life in conversations with others and in private speech to myself English language l earning experiences in the intensive language prog ram He liked his grammar class very much because lots of challenging, interesting, and innovative grammar learning activities happened. He also liked the computer lab hours provided in the oral skills class and the reading/writing class. He said this was because he loved computers and computer related activities.

PAGE 122

114 He did not like his English interaction class because he found the activities done in that class were the same every time, and so he felt that class to be boring. He also had some discontent with that class because he felt that the interaction leaders in that class treated their students as children, not as fully educated adults in the students' home countries. English language learning experiences outside the program. About his reading and writing activities outside the program, he told the researcher that he read regularly (once a week) the newspaper published in town. He also said that he read novels (he liked novels) and some adult magazines just sometimes. He said that he watched TV a lot for his listening comprehension skills. Among TV materials, he especially liked to watch soap operas because he found them to be interesting to watch. He said that his interaction with other international students in his part-time job was one of his major English language experiences outside the intensive English language program. He said that he interacted a lot with other international students in his part-time job during the Summer C semester of 1998. He said that this language learning experience was helpful to increase his oral skills in English. He told the researcher that he tried to use orally as much English as possible when he was outside the program by having the above interactions and also by trying to make speaking opportunities with native Americans wherever he went outside the program. Especially when he was interacting with other international students in his part-time job (he told the researcher that there were lots of international students working with him in his part-time job), he tried to

PAGE 123

115 use what he learned in the intensive English language program in his talk with them. He described his personality to be conservative because he is not able to accept new things easily. He also described his personality to be introverted rather than to be extroverted because he tended to listen to other people's talk rather than to express his aspects. He liked to be sociable with others. As his hobbies, he said that he enjoys using computers, video games, playing some sports (tennis, squash, etc.), and reading books. Summary. The researcher summarizes the p)erspectives of this case in the following: 1 Brainstorming on grammar instruction: The purpose of learning grammar is for accuracy in either speaking or writing. Grammar should be used in everyday life. Grammar should be taught in an inductive approach with plenty of examples and after that, lots of communicative grammar practice activities should be given to the students. 2. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction: He loved his grammar instructional process because a variety of activities was given as application work of the learned grammar after grammar teaching. He liked his grammar teacher in that he provided his students with a learning strategy instruction which reminded the students of the way they should go about to improve their grammar. 3. Learning strategies used to practice grammar: He murmured in English to say what he wanted to express when he was alone using the newly learned

PAGE 124

116 grammar in addition to using the grammar in his speech in conversations with other people, to increase the everyday opportunities to use that grammar. 4. English language learning experiences in the program: He liked the grammar, the oral skills, and the reading/writing classes. He especially liked the computer lab hours provided in the oral skills and the reading/writing classes. He did not like his English interaction class. 5. English language learning experiences outside the program: He read the newspaper published in town once a week. He read novels and sometimes read some adult magazines. He watched TV a lot for his listening comprehension skills. He interacted a lot with other international students in his part-time job using what he learned in the program in his talk with them. He also tried to make speaking opportunities with native Americans wherever he went outside the program. 6. Personality and hobbies: He was a conservative and introverted person. His hobbies were reading books, using computers, playing some sports, and playing video games. Yoimg Hee Jun Young Hee Jun was a female, 23-year-old Korean student who attended the intensive English language program during the Summer C term of 1998 as a fulltime student. She was at the advanced grammar class level under teacher Johnson. She attended the program in the last Fall semester of 1997 and did not attend it

PAGE 125

117 during the Spring semester of 1998, but she attended it again in the Summer C term of 1998. So she was in her second semester here in the intensive EngHsh language program when the researcher first met her in the Summer semester. And she planned to return to Germany after finishing the Summer C semester in the program. She attended schools until her first year of university in Seoul, South Korea and went to Germany to study there, and then went here to study English more and to attend a university in America not finishing her bachelor's degree in Germany. Her major field of study was marketing in the area of business administration. So she planned to go back to Germany after attending the intensive English language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America until the end of Summer C semester, and spend some time there and then come back to this university for her study from the Spring semester of 1999 in the department of Business Administration as an undergraduate student to finish her bachelor's degree here. After finishing her bachelor's degree, she planned also to achieve her master's degree in her major part of study here. She learned English for six years until high school in South Korea, learned some more of it in her first year of university there, and also learned it in Germany in natural informal interactions with her fiiends there. And then she came here to learn more on it and to attend a university in America. Brainstorm ing on grammar instruction. She thought that the purpose of learning English grammar is for developing academic uses of English which are

PAGE 126

118 mostly reading/writing skills. She said, "In speaking, correct use of grammar in every word by word is not very important because native American people's everyday spoken English is a completely different version of English than the spoken English I commanded quite grammatically." So she thought for speaking and listening proficiency, real life interaction with lots of native Americans is the best way to acquire those oral skills, not by correct use of grammar in every word by word. About the issue how grammar should be taught, she said: Because I am at the advanced level in my grammatical knowledge, grammar teachers should deal with spoken/written and formal/informal style issues of English. I am quite interested in different styles of use of English in these different situations of use. And so I want my grammar teacher and the textbook used in a grammar class to deal with these delicate issues of English grammar. Also she wanted a grammar class to use lots of educational media like TV and videos to teach English granmiar and to whet students' motivation to learn English. She liked an inductive presentation of grammar where a teacher recorded famous TV shows and played them in class and asked students to find out themselves in what situations the grammar in focus is used by contextualizing the grammar with TV shows or videos. She also wanted a grammar class to have conmiunicative practice activities of learned grammar through speaking or writing. Finally, she wanted a grammar teacher to answer students' grammar use

PAGE 127

119 questions (how to use the learned grammar in spoken and written situations of use) well asked of him/her to help the students' learning of English grammar. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction. She liked her grammar teacher and the instructional process in her grammar class. She liked them because the teacher presented lots of diverse educational environmental media (TV shows, videos, etc.) to teach grammar to her students. She liked her teacher and the textbook used in her grammar class because they dealt with subtle style issues of spoken/written and formal/informal versions of English. She said, "I am very interested in English style differences like more polite style in different situations and these formal/informal style differences are explained quite well in my current grammar textbook, and my teacher also points out some different styles in spoken and written English. I like these aspects of my current grammar class." She liked her grammar class teacher because she was a native speaker of English herself, she answered her questions definitely about how learned grammar is used in real life situations (she said that her Korean teachers back in her middle and high school days in South Korea never answered her questions in this way because they themselves did not know the answers as non native speakers of English). She also loved the communicative speaking or writing activities done in class after learning some grammar points because by applying in this way what she learned grammatically into communicative practice activities and by getting feedback from the teacher on her work, she succeeded in acquiring grammar. She said:

PAGE 128

120 Specifically about grammar class activities, I think lots of grammar practice activities either through speaking or writing in class after learning grammar are extremely helpful for me because I struggle by myself about how to use the learned grammar on a particular day in my grammar practice activities in class and after this struggling, the teacher gives me very helpftil feedback on my work and then I acquire the grammar myself and I remember it. Learning strategies used to practice grammar. She said, "I practice my grammar by studying grammar textbooks and by doing textbook exercises there. In this way I can learn how to apply the grammatical knowledge in my head and can also learn how to use it." So she thought that an independent study of grammar through textbook study was one of the best ways for improving one's grammar. She said: Students who want to improve one's grammar (the students in American setting) should make the most use of American environmental advantage of learning English. They should observe quite much the native Americans' speech grammatically after learning grammar in a grammar class to use what they learned in a grammar class in real life situations outside of class. And they should ask frequently about grammar's real life uses if they have any question after this observation work of their grammar teachers to enlarge their grammatical knowledge.

PAGE 129

121 As her learning strategy to practice grammar, she also said: I watch a lot of TV materials and especially movies to observe how grammar is really used. Then I ask frequently of many American friends (she said that she had many American friends here) who I have about real life uses of grammar. I read lots of newspapers also that I subscribe to in my home, and I notice quite different versions of English are used in politics, economical matters, etc. Lots of English interactions with my American friends where I practice using correct grammar in my speech with my friends and receive feedback from them, and also learn from their speech how they use grammar are another learning sfrategy of mine to practice the learned grammar in class. English language learning experiences in the intensive language program. She said that she liked her grammar class the most because she really liked her grammar teacher. She also liked the reading/writing class. However, she did not like her conversation strategies class that she took instead of the oral skills class because she felt that this class developed students' confidence in starting and continuing conversations in English with native Americans, not a program that developed students' English proficiency (actually she already had English interaction skills and strategies with native Americans because she had lots of native American friends at that time before taking this class, so she felt this class was not very helpful for her). English language learning experiences outside the program. About her reading/writing activities outside the intensive English language program, she

PAGE 130

122 said that she read lots of English novels because she liked novels. She also did some subject matter readings in her major field of study. She read lots of magazines that she subscribed to in her home: 'U.S. News,' 'Rolling Stone,' (which is a music magazine) and 'TIME.' And she read newspapers as stated already. For her oral skills development, she said that because she loved movies, she bought some of her favorite movies and watched them again and again (she said at the end of her this activity, she memorized the actors' and the actresses' words including their facial expressions and the ways of speech without any effort). She also recorded the NPR (National Public Radio) news and listened to it again and again for her oral skills' development. She watched CNN and situation comedies mainly in her TV watching. She had lots of American friends as stated already. She had a very close friend in the upstairs of her home and she interacted very frequently with her by going shopping together, by eating together, and by talking about their boyfriends, etc. She also had a hunting dog and if she went out with him, she had lots of interaction opportunities with American people because they approached her for the dog. She attended an American catholic church, and had lots of interaction opportunities with American people there. She sometimes went to American parties following her American friends. On her personality, she described it to be extroverted because she likes to talk with others and to be active in everything she does. As her hobbies, she listed

PAGE 131

' 123 traveling and enjoying exotic things (contacting with different cultures), watching TV and movies, talking and playing with friends, and having flin. Summary. The researcher summarizes the perspectives of this case in the following: 1 Brainstorming on grammar instruction: The purpose of learning grammar is for developing academic use of English which is reading/writing skills. Speaking proficiency is acquired the best through real life interactions with native Americans. In a grammar class, spoken/written and formal/informal style issues of English should be dealt with, and lots of educational media should be used to teach grammar. An inductive approach to grammar should be used and the learned grammar should be practiced through communicative speaking or writing activities. A grammar teacher should answer his/her students' questions faithfully. 2. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction: She liked the grammar instructional process and her grammar teacher in that diverse educational media were used to teach grammar, spoken/written and formal/informal style issues of English were dealt with, communicative speaking or writing grammar practice activities were provided for the students, and the teacher answered her grammatical questions. 3. Learning strategies used to practice grammar: She practiced her grammar by studying the grammar textbook and by doing the exercises there. She watched a lot of TV materials and especially movies to observe how the learned grammar was used. She read newspapers to notice grammar. She had lots of

PAGE 132

124 interaction opportunities with her many American friends where she observed how they used grammar in their speech and she used the learned grammar in her talk with them. She also asked a lot of grammatical questions of her American friends. 4. English language learning experiences in the program: She liked her grammar class the most and also liked her reading/writing class. She did not like her conversation strategies class. 5. English language learning experiences outside the program: She read lots of English novels, some books related to her major field of study, lots of magazines, and newspapers. She watched TV and movies, and listened to the radio for her oral skills' development. She interacted with her American friends a lot, went to American parties with them, and attended an American catholic church where she interacted with lots of American people. 6. Personality and hobbies: She was an extroverted person. Her hobbies were traveling, watching TV and movies, being sociable vsith friends, and having fun. Chul Ho Park Chul Ho Park was a male, 24-year-old Korean student who attended the intensive English language program during the Spring and the Summer C semesters of 1998 as a full-time student. He was in the advanced level grammar class under the same teacher with Young Hee Jun (Johnson) during the Summer

PAGE 133

125 C term. So he was in his second semester in the program when the researcher first met him in the Summer C term of 1998. He attended schools until he graduated from his university in Seoul, South Korea and then he came here to learn live English during the Spring and the Summer C semesters of 1998. He returned to his home country, South Korea, after he finished the Summer C term of 1998 in the program. His major field of study in South Korea when he was attending his university was chemical engineering. He learned English for six years during his middle and high school days and learned some more of it during the university days also in South Korea, and came to U.S. for more English language learning. Brainstorming on grammar instruction. He said: Grammar learning is very beneficial for reading and writing, and 1 think it is not beneficial for a speaking ability. This is because I think Korean people usually forget, when they are speaking, the correct grammar points or use them incorrectly, so 1 think grammar is not very beneficial for a speaking ability in English. 1 think grammar can be used very well in speaking, but then fluent interaction in English gets interrupted if I focus too much on my grammar, so But he thought his grammar class under teacher Johnson helped the speaking ability because the teacher also taught some pragmatic solutions in correspondence to some problems like asking too many personal questions by teaching how to avoid them.

PAGE 134

He said: Grammar should be taught in a very comfortable classroom atmosphere where students can ask their own questions freely of a grammar teacher, because error correction of one's grammar is a very important process in grammar learning. And by asking if one's grammar use in certain kinds of situations is correct or vwong, students can correct his/her grammar use errors and can apply his/her grammatical knowledge in other different kinds of situations later. He also thought that students should have lots of grammar practice opportunities where they can use learned grammar in real life context either through speaking or writing. He said, "I think grammar that we learn should be practiced somehow to remember about it." Perspectives on communicative Rrammar instruction. Chul Ho Park liked his grammar class teacher. He said: I really like my grammar class teacher who teaches grammar in a very organized and systematic way, and who always gives us opportunities to use any one grammar point in real life situations. And I like her also because she always answers in a very friendly manner any grammatical question, and because she admits her ignorance if she does not know about any grammatical question asked of her and then teaches about it the next class with perfect preparation. I really feel eager to ask any grammatical question that I do not know of her.

PAGE 135

He liked his grammar class teacher because she taught advanced grammar based on the pretest results that she gave to her students on the first day of class. By giving this kind of test, his grammar teacher reviewed some grammar items that the students already knew pretty much, and taught the grammar items that the students did not know in detail based on that test results. And so he felt his grammar class to be very systematic and organized. He also liked his grammar teacher because she gave lots of practice opportunities of learned grammar to her students for their own practice either through homework or as in class activities. He told the researcher that he respected his grammar class teacher for the above work she did for her students. As already stated, one of the main reasons he liked his grammar class was because the teacher (because she was a native speaker of English) very nicely answered his grammatical questions in real use situations with lots of example sentences used by native speakers about that grammar point. And in this way he succeeded in making sure of his grammatical knowledge, which he was not able to do in South Korea. He said: Actually I had lots of questions about grammar about its real use and about its correctness in South Korea and if I ask those aspects of my teacher, he/she in South Korea just said it's correct without very plausible explanations or justifications for his/her remark. But now I can solve that curiosity here very nicely by asking questions of my grammar teacher who explains my point very well in an understanding manner by giving lots of really used examples by native speakers. I like the live English examples

PAGE 136

used by native speakers that my teacher gives me, and there English use is different than that I learned just as knowledge in my home country. So I solve my curiosity in this v^^ay and thus I like my grammar class. He said, "I like my grammar class also because there we have lots of communicative grammar practice opportunities where we can use and practice the newly learned grammar in a very communicative way with others. I think those speaking activities are interesting and very helpful as grammar practice activities." Learning strategies used to practice grammar. He usually questioned a lot on any ambiguous or vague point in his grammatical knowledge (especially on how to use grammar in real life situations) of his grammar teacher. In this way he solved his curiosity and applied his grammatical knowledge in real life use of English in and outside the intensive English language program. Therefore, asking questions was one of his very important language learning strategies. He said, "I think we should have interest first in our grammar learning, should observe our learning progress in grammar, should acknowledge any gap in our knowledge of grammar fi^nkly to ourselves, and then as a last step should try to fill that gap by asking questions or by any other ways." He also practiced his learned grammar through lots of writing activities done in his reading/writing class or in other classes of the program. He said to the researcher, "If I learn 10 new granunar points, I usually try to use one of them through writing to practice and use my learned grammar in real situations." He

PAGE 137

practiced his grammar also through lots of homework given by the teacher by studying the textbook and doing the textbook exercises. He practiced his learned grammar orally by speaking with his conversation partner assigned to him by the program. In his talk with the conversation partner, he tried to use more sophisticated English with fluent and correct use of grammar in his talk because his conversation partner talked that way. He also noticed his partner's correct grammar use in his/her talk with him, and was influenced by this noticing for his grammar development. English language learning experiences in the intensive language program. He liked his grammar class the most because grammatical knowledge is useful and helpful for other English skills like sophisticated writing. Also he liked the grammar class the most because he was able to approach his teacher freely about his grammatical points for her explanation, and the teacher herself assumed those learning processes to be natural and responded to his questions in a very welcoming manner. He felt the whole classroom atmosphere and the classmates' attitudes in his grammar class to be different from those of South Korea's. The classmates in his granmiar class also did not dislike those learning processes and they (including Park) shared them, but in South Korea someone asking frequent questions in class was thought to be quite strange and teachers in South Korea also did not willingly welcome them because of the unexpected waste of their class time. Also in South Korea he was not willingly able to approach his teacher who was an authority figure, like the case here in his grammar class. So he liked

PAGE 138

130 his grammar class the most (in addition to these advantages of his grammar class, he originally liked learning grammar itself)He found his conversation strategies class to be the least beneficial for him because he thought that class to be the class for changing one's personality into more talkative one, not a class for learning English. But he found other classes (reading/writing and English interaction) to be interesting and quite beneficial for him. English language learning experiences outside the program. About his reading activities outside the intensive English language program, he said that he usually read somewhat easy books written in English like Chicken Soup for the Soul, the local student newspaper, and reading passages included in the TOEFL exam. He said that he read no magazines yet because at that time of the second interview with the researcher, he told her that he did not yet have confidence in reading books written in English and also in using English himself About his oral interactional activities outside the classes of the program, he said that he attended an American church every Sunday and took the Bible Study class there, and he said that in this way he interacted with native Americans and other international students there. He also met his conversation partner every Thursday and interacted with him/her for an hour, and went with him/her to his/her church every Monday and took the Bible Study class also there and interacted with lots of native Americans. He visited a nursing home every Sunday and talked with the American old for about two hours. By doing these activities,

PAGE 139

131 he told the researcher that he thought he did lots of activities outside the classes of the intensive English language program to increase his English skills. He found watching English TV and understanding everything there to be quite hard experiences because always rich and new information appears on the TV everyday. And so he said that he did not watch TV very often but instead he listened to the radios quite often because he found radios to be easier to hear and understand than TV. About his personality, he described it to be extroverted because he liked to be sociable with others and talk with others (especially he told the researcher that he liked to talk with native Americans). As his hobbies, he listed reading books in a quiet library, playing with friends playing the guitar, going to movies, and using computers (searching the Internet for information, using an e-mail system, participating in electronic discussion with other international students by subscribing to electronic discussion group, etc.). Especially he told the researcher that acquiring these computer using skills was one of his most valuable and important learning experiences attending the intensive English language program. He said, "Learning computer skills here a lot, especially this learning here was the most helpful for me, I think." Summary. The researcher summarizes the perspectives of this case in the following: 1 Brainstorming on grammar instruction: The purpose of learning grammar is for reading and writing skills, and it is not beneficial for speaking skills. Grammar should be taught in a very comfortable classroom atmosphere where

PAGE 140

132 the students can ask their questions freely of a grammar teacher, because error correction of one's grammar is a very important process in grammar learning. Either speaking or writing grammar practice opportunities should be given to the students. 2. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction: He liked the grammar instructional process and his grammar teacher in that the instruction was very systematic and organized, lots of speaking or writing communicative grammar practice activities were given to the students, and the teacher answered his grammatical questions with plenty of examples used by native speakers. 3. Learning strategies used to practice grammar: He asked a lot of questions of his grammar teacher. He practiced the learned grammar in writing activities done in the classes of the program. He had interaction opportunities with his conversation partner in which he observed the partner's use of grammar and used the learned grammar in his talk with him/her. 4. English language learning experiences in the program: He liked the grammar, the reading/writing, and the English interaction classes. His favorite class was the grammar class. He did not like his conversation strategies class. 5. English language learning experiences outside the program: He read the easy essay book Chicken Soup for the Soul, the local student newspaper, and the TOEFL reading passages. He listened to the radios for his listening comprehension skills. He attended an American church every Sunday and took the Bible Study class interacting with native Americans and international students. He met his conversation partner every Thursday and interacted with

PAGE 141

133 him/her for an hour, and went with him/her to his/her church every Monday taking the Bible Study class also there. He visited a nursing home every Sunday and interacted with old Americans for about two hours. 6. Personality and hobbies: He was an extroverted person. His hobbies were reading books, having fun with friends, going to see movies, and using computers. Hyun Woo Choi Hyun Woo Choi was a male, 24-year-old Korean student who attended the intensive English language program during the Spring and the Summer C terms of 1998 as a full-time student. He was in an advanced level grammar class during the Summer C term. So he was in his second semester of the program when the researcher first met him in the Summer C term of 1998. And he returned to South Korea after he finished the Summer C semester of 1998. So he attended the program only for two consecutive semesters. He learned English in Seoul, South Korea for six years during his middle and high school days, and learned it additionally in his first year of university. He came here as a freshman to learn live English (he came here attending his first year of university in South Korea). His major field of study in his university was mechanical engineering. Brainstormi ng on grammar instruction. He said the primary purpose of learning grammar is for writing well, and for getting a good score on the TOEFL

PAGE 142

134 exam which he prepared personally at that time (the Summer C term of 1998). He also thought that it is helpful for speaking. On his thought about grammar instruction, he said: I think English language learning starts from some basic memorization work and after that, English grammar should get through lots of use activities in real life situations. English grammar, I think, should never be memorized continuously. If memorized continuously, it begins to be forgotten very quickly. So I think after basic grammar memorization work just at the beginning of learning grammar, one should use that knowledge continuously in speaking with someone and in writing one's own thoughts. By using grammar in this way, grammar knowledge that one learned both through independent textbook study and in a grammar classroom will never be forgotten. So his thought on grammar instruction was shown in his saying, "I absolutely think that grammar should never be taught as simple rote memorization tasks or something like that. Instead, after doing some textbook grammar practice exercises, I think a teacher should give either speaking or writing activities where students should use (he emphasized this word especially) their learned grammatical knowledge." Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction. He said that in his grammar class, there were very fi-equent quizes and tests in addition to lots of grammar practice activities after students learned grammar. He thought these frequent tests and quizes given in his grammar class were all extra helping

PAGE 143

135 activities for the students' acquisition of English grammar. So he liked his grammar class. Also he liked his grammar teacher and the class because there were diverse activities and very fast procession of lessons, and so the class was never a boring one (he said that in South Korea when he was learning English, the classes were quite boring). Therefore, he liked his grammar class because lots of diverse activities were incorporated in the class to teach grammar except basic grammar rule teachings and grammar practice exercises in the textbook. Those activities were never too long and spent only adequate amount of class time and then switched to some other different things. Another reason he liked his grammar class was because the teacher always answered with very faithful manner every very basic, easy, and trivial question of her students, and helped the students to do their job better in the class by acting as a helper or a facilitator instead of a director or a controller. He said: I tend to question quite often always in the case I have some curiosity and uncertainty about my grammar use in the grammar class because 1 never feel threatened to question of the teacher as the case in my home country. South Korea. It is quite a natural process to ask a teacher a lot of questions here. By this process, we learn more I think. And for this reason, I like my grammar class. Learning strategies used to practice grammar. His learning strategies to practice his learned grammar was that he did his best during the grammar class hours and was active during those class hours. By having this kind of an attitude, he told the researcher that he learned a lot of grammar and practiced also a lot on

PAGE 144

136 learned grammar in the grammar class hours without any necessity to study grammar separately outside the grammar class. Also he practiced his learned grammatical knowledge in his oral skills class and in his reading/writing class. He said, "I practice my grammar through the writing activities and the oral activities in my grammar class, in the reading/writing class, and in the oral skills class." He emphasized that his grammar was never the memorized one, but the acquired one through having lots of practice opportunities of it either in the grammar class or in the reading/writing class (or in the oral skills class). He said, "I absolutely think memorized grammar knowledge is never helpful for using that knowledge in any kind of situation, so "He summarized his learning strategies by saying, "I want to recommend to others that they should make the most use of their grammar class activities and learning in that class, and then summarizing grammatical knowledge after the class through the textbook will be okay for grammar learning based on my own practices." He additionally said that frequent interactions with native speakers would increase one's oral skills in addition to better grammatical ability, but he did not have a good conversation partner right at that time (the conversation partner who was assigned to him for the Summer C term of 1998 asked questions about his personal area of him very frequently, and so he never met her after the first meeting with her). But he said that he had a good experience with his conversation partner during the Spring semester of 1998.

PAGE 145

137 English language learning experiences in the intensive language program. About his English language learning experiences in the intensive language program, he said that they depended very much on the teacher of each class: He liked very active and interesting (not boring) language classes, and he said that semester's (the Summer C term of 1998) classes were all good for him. And generally, he described his language learning experiences in the intensive English language program to be quite good because he learned English in different and fresh ways than the case in South Korea (the oral skills, the English interaction, and the reading/writing classes were actually new and inexperienced classes in South Korea, and on grammar he already learned a lot in South Korea but here he learned it in a different approach). He said that he learned English language learning is a live language (he emphasized this word especially) learning and learning how to use it in everyday situations, not a subject matter learning like math or science learning (which he thought it to be when he was in South Korea). He said, "Because English learning is a language learning, not a subject matter learning like math or science, test knowledge and preparation for it by memorization is never enough, but we should learn to use the English language." And so he said that he learned very important and valuable things about English attending the intensive language program. English language learning experiences outside the program. About his reading/writing activities outside the intensive English language program, he said that he did not write a lot in English outside the classes of the program. He said he was not quite accustomed to writing in English based on his South Korean

PAGE 146

138 experiences although he was accustomed to reading in English. And so he said he liked reading in English much more than writing in it. He said that he just read diligently the instructions and the manuals when he bought something. And he said he sometimes read 'TIME' magazine. He said that he rarely read English novels because reading them took too much time for him for his lack in English vocabulary (although he liked reading novels in Korean). He said that he did not read any newspaper. He described to the researcher that the reason why he did not read quite much outside the classes of the program was because his major goal of learning English when he first came here was developing his oral proficiency in English. He said that he watched TV a lot, especially watching the Disney Channel, the Sports Chaimel, talk shows, movies, and news (he said that he watched TV with captions on). He thought watching TV and movies a lot helps one's improvement of English listening skills and hopefully speaking skills because in his case outside the classes of the program, he was not able to hear many native speakers talk without the medium of TV and movies. He said that he did some volunteer work visiting nursing homes and interacted with old American people there last semester (the Spring semester of 1998), and this additional work helped him to improve his oral English proficiency. Also he said that he had regular interactions wath his conversation partner last Spring semester of 1998 as already stated. He frequently went to a sports gym and a fitness center to play basketball, and if he went there he frequently heard native Americans talking and in this way he also learned

PAGE 147

English. He had lots of other sports activities (this was because he liked playing sports) outside the intensive English language program in the evening like soccer on Monday, swimming on Tuesday, basketball on Wednesday, etc. with the program's people. He then participated in all of these sports activities and had rich interaction opportunities with other international students and native Americans. On his personality, he described it to be extroverted rather than introverted, and never conservative. He said that he likes to be sociable vnth others and usually he does not talk a lot, but instead he tends to expose his character to others when he is accompanied by others. And for this reason, he described his personality to be extroverted. As his hobbies, he listed fishing, playing sports (basketball, swimming, golf, etc.), and being sociable with other friends and spending time with them together. Summary. The researcher summarizes the perspectives of this case in the following: 1 Brainstorming on grammar instruction: The purpose of learning grammar is for speaking and writing skills. Grammar should never be taught as simple rote memorization tasks, but instead lots of speaking or writing grammar practice opportunities should be given to the students. 2. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction: He liked the grammar instructional process and the teacher in that very frequent quizes and tests were given to the students, lots of interesting speaking or writing grammar

PAGE 148

practice activities were provided for the students, and the teacher answered the students' questions in a very faithful manner. 3. Learning strategies used to practice grammar: He practiced his learned grammar through the oral activities and the writing activities done in the grammar, the oral skills, and the reading/writing classes. He interacted with his conversation partner during the Spring semester of 1998 and practiced the learned grammar. 4. English language learning experiences in the program: He liked all of the classes in the program, and he learned a very important thing about English which was the fact that English learning is a live language learning and so the students should learn how to use it. 5. English language learning experiences outside the program: He sometimes read 'TIME,' and read the instructions and the manuals when he bought something. He watched TV a lot for his oral skills' development. He did some volunteer work visiting nursing homes and interacted with old Americans. He interacted with his conversation partner regularly. He went to a sports gym and a fitness center frequently, and heard native Americans talking. He also had lots of sports activities outside the program and had rich interaction opportunities with native Americans and international students. 6. Personality and hobbies: He was an extroverted person. His hobbies were playing sports, fishing, and being sociable with friends.

PAGE 149

141 Summary By analyzing all the interview data collected from seven Korean students, the researcher found that each Korean student had his/her own distinctive English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. Therefore, it was hard to draw conclusions on their unique English language learning experiences, but the researcher tried the following summary of their English language learning experiences based on these seven Korean students' interview data. Brainstorming on grammar instruction. On this first exploration of grammar instruction, Korean students answered that the purpose of English grammar learning to be for better oral skills (listening and speaking skills) and literacy skills (reading and writing skills). Two Korean students answered that grammar is not very helpful for speaking skills' development. One student (Young Hee Jun) showed this view because she thought that a speaking version of English is a completely different version of English from that of written English with correct grammar. Another student (Chul Ho Park) showed this view because he thought that speaking grammatically in every word by word disrupts fluency, and Korean people usually forget correct grammar when they are speaking in English. As an answer to Korean students' views on how grammar should be taught, they answered that it should be taught mainly integrated vnth other English

PAGE 150

142 proficiency skills like oral skills and writing skills (mostly these production skills), and never be taught alone itself separately fi-om other language skills. Except for one student (Soon Hee Cho), all six Korean students wanted grammar to be taught inductively where lots of examples and cases for a specified grammar item are presented first and then the grammar rule is taught. She wanted a grammar teacher to teach rules concretely first and then lots of examples of them and practice activities to be given to students. One student (Young Hee Jun) wanted a grammar class to deal with spoken/written and formal/informal style issues of English because she was an advanced grammar level student. She also wanted lots of educational media like TV and videos to be used to teach English grammar and to whet students' motivation to learn English. She wanted a grammar teacher to answer students' grammar use questions (how to use the learned grammar in spoken and written situations of use) faithfully asked of him/her to help the students' learning of English grammar. Chul Ho Park wanted grammar to be taught in a very comfortable classroom atmosphere where students can ask their own questions freely of a grammar teacher because he thought error correction of one's grammar is a very important process in grammar learning. Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction. Five Korean students thought well of their grammar teachers and the grammar instruction they received because there were diverse language (grammar) practicing activities that were helpful for their developing oral skills and reading/vmting skills. They liked that instruction also because they found the activities used there to be interesting.

PAGE 151

143 Chul Soo Song felt that the quite free and loose educational atmosphere (the teacher-student relationship and the spoken interactive grammar practice activities done in class) in his grammar class did not fit with grammar instruction because he thought grammar requires a tight educational atmosphere where students should study rules of grammar in some way. BCi Young Kwak did not like his grammar class and teacher because he thought the teacher spent too much time on one grammar item, and therefore the class was not able to finish the textbook within the 3-month period of the Summer C term, 1998. He really wanted to cover every point of grammar presented in the textbook in class hours, but he thought the teacher moved on too slowly. He felt his grammar teacher to lack skills in effective time management and appropriate time distribution on class activities. Another reason he did not like his grammar teacher and other language teachers in the program was that they used informal language (English) with the students within the program setting which is a big educational system itself He thought that every teacher in a school setting should act as a role model in his/her appearance, use of language, etc. And he felt such a demeanor would show "teacher-like" qualities. He felt some resistance to the fact that teachers were too friendly and used informal English with their students, and he wanted teachers in a school setting to use formal language and show respect for each and every student. Soon Hee Cho and Young Soo Park liked their grammar teacher (Paeth) because he provided learning strategies of grammar outside the grammar class as further grammar learning for his students. Young Soo Park and Hyun Woo Choi

PAGE 152

144 liked their grammar teachers and classes because very frequent quizes and exams were provided in the classes as review and checking activities of students' grammar learning. Young Hee Jun liked her grammar class and teacher because diverse educational media (TV shows, videos, etc.) were provided as grammar teaching tools. She also liked them because subtle style issues of spoken/written and formal/informal versions of English were dealt with. Chul Ho Park, Young Hee Jun, and Hyun Woo Choi liked their grammar classes and teachers because their grammar teachers answered in a very faithful manner every student's questions. They also liked their grammar classes and teachers because the teachers acted as a facilitator or a helper rather than a director or a controller as the case in South Korea, and they thought this role from the teachers' part helped their language learning in the grammar classroom. All seven Korean students were able to ask freely and comfortably about any aspect of their grammatical curiosity. They also were able to get sure answers to their questions because the teachers were themselves native speakers of English. Soon Hee Cho, Young Hee Jun, and Chul Ho Park liked the communicative grammar instruction because the textbooks used there were systematic in their organizations and dealt with spoken/written and formal/informal style issues of English. Learning strategies used to practice grammar. Korean students who had received communicative grammar instruction in the intensive English language program practiced their grammar in accordance with the instruction. They practiced their grammar through real use of grammar that they had learned via

PAGE 153

145 outside interactions with native speakers and international students, and also via their reading/writing class' writing activities. They also practiced their learned grammar through oral and reading/writing grammar practice activities in their granunar classes. Chul Soo Song practiced his grammar, not following the spoken interactive activities in the grammar class, individually: He liked an individual study and practice of grammar through individual writing practices and references to grammar textbooks when he had some questions of grammar to apply in writings, and through individual preparation of oral presentations for the oral skills class. Soon Hee Cho used the "noticing the gap," grammar learning strategy learned in her grammar class. She, with great interest, tried to hear how her learned grammar in the grammar class is used in native speakers' everyday speech. And then she found how grammar is used in their real life speech, and she herself tried to use grammar in her own speech with other people as native speakers use it. Young Soo Park practiced his grammar in private speech to himself in addition to the interactions with other people. He murmured in English what he wanted to say to practice his learned grammar and oral skills simultaneously. He increased his grammar practice opportunities in this way. Young Hee Jun, Chul Ho Park, Soon Hee Cho, and Hyun Woo Choi practiced their grammar through grammar textbook study and doing textbook exercises. Young Hee Jun emphasized observing native speakers' speech as an important grammar learning strategy, and she watched TV materials and movies very frequently as her

PAGE 154

146 grammar observation work. She also did lots of readings to observe how learned grammar is used in written versions of English. Young Hee Jun and Chul Ho Park emphasized asking questions a lot as their very important language learning strategy: Young Hee Jun asked a lot of questions of her many American friends and her grammar teacher about her grammatical curiosity as a subsequent work to the grammar observation work (mentioned above). Chul Ho Park questioned any ambiguous or vague point in his grammatical knowledge (especially on how to use grammar in real life situations) of his grammar teacher, and in this way he solved his curiosity and applied his grammatical knowledge in real life use of English both in and outside the intensive English language program. English language learning experiences in the intensive language program. Chul Soo Song thought his oral skills and the reading/writing classes taught him grammar application abilities in real use of English both in spoken form and in written form, and this was very important learning for him to improve on both of these language skills. The English interaction class was good for him because that class taught some American cultural values. Therefore, all of these three classes were helpful for Song because they taught him very necessary skills of English in which he was not trained in South Korea. Ki Young Kwak did not find the English language learning experiences in the program to be interesting and helpful for him. He felt the classes did not provide very good language teaching approaches for a begiiming level language learner like him. Young Soo Park especially liked his grammar class because of

PAGE 155

147 the diverse, fresh, communicative, challenging, interesting, and helpful grammar practice activities that he had never experienced in South Korea. He also liked the computer lab hours provided in his oral skills and the reading/writing classes. He did not like the English interaction class because activities in that class were the same every time, and mainly because the interaction leaders there did not treat their students as fiiUy educated adults in the students' home countries. Young Hee Jun, Hyun Woo Choi, and Chul Ho Park liked their grammar classes because the teachers of the classes answered their questions faithfully, and because the learning processes in the classes were different from those of South Korea. The teachers and the classmates in their grammar classrooms assumed inquiry learning processes (asking questions and answering them) to be very natural and shared them. And these Korean students thought these learning processes worked extremely well to facilitate students' English language learning. These Korean students liked their reading/writing classes also because in the classes, they learned reading/writing skills not learned much in South Korea. The conversation strategies class was problematic for Young Hee Jun and Chul Ho Park because they thought the purpose of this class was not to teach English proficiency, but rather to teach how to change one's personality to a more talkative one. Hyun Woo Choi emphasized the importance of interesting and active classes to facilitate students' language learning. And in this respect, he found his oral skills, the reading/writing, and the grammar classes to be good for him. He learned a very important thing about English attending the intensive language

PAGE 156

148 program: He learned that English learning is a live language learning, not a subject matter learning like math or science learning. English languaRe learning experiences outside the program. Korean students felt the importance of using the English language a lot outside the classes of the intensive English language program to improve their English proficiency as they had instructions here in the program. And so they practiced their English also outside the classes. They participated in outside-of-class oral activities more than reading/writing activities on their own. This was because these Korean students mostly aimed to improve their conversational skills in English when they first came here. They participated in trip activities of the program every weekend, sports activities every evening, did some volunteer work visiting nursing homes, attended American churches, interacted regularly with their assigned conversation partners, went to American parties with American fiiends and English Interaction leaders, interacted with other international students, and interacted with their American friends. However, Chul Soo Song did not have many interaction opportunities to practice speaking outside the setting of the intensive English language program, and so he thought speaking was a big problem for him. Ki Young Kwak also did not find many interaction opportunities with native speakers outside the setting of the program. Korean students watched TV and movies a lot and listened to the radios for their listening comprehension skills. For improvement of their reading/writing skills, they read some subject matter books, novels, newspapers, magazines, etc.

PAGE 157

149 in English. Chul Soo Song did some readings through the Internet additionally to his subject matter readings. Ki Young Kwak read only 'The intensive English language program Weekly' produced every week besides the required readings in his reading/writing class, and studied by himself the English conversation book ('Side By Side') that he brought from South Korea mainly for his oral skills development. Chul Ho Park tried easy readings like an essay book Chicken Soup for the Soul, the local student newspaper, and TOEFL reading passages, and did not try other newspapers and magazines. Hyun Woo Choi read the instructions and the manuals diligently when he bought something, and sometimes read 'TIME' magazine. He did not read any newspaper and rarely read English novels. Ki Young Kwak, Chul Soo Song, and Young Soo Park were introverted. Young Hee Jun, Chul Ho Park, and Hyun Woo Choi were extroverted in personality. Ki Young Kwak was fast-tempered and Young Soo Park was conservative additionally. These Korean students' hobbies were diverse: Being sociable with other people and talking with them, fishing, going to movies, traveling, having fun with others, reading books, using computers, playing video games, enjoying sports, and going to libraries and studying there were listed as their hobbies. Chul Ho Park especially emphasized that he learned very valuable computer using skills (searching the Internet for needed information, using an email system, participating in electronic discussion with other international students by subscribing to electronic discussion group, etc.) attending the intensive English language program, and these computer using activities became his new hobby.

PAGE 158

CHAPTER 6 WRITING SKILLS' DEVELOPMENT To answer research question 3, what was the nature of these Korean students' writing development over a 7-tnonth period in which they attended the intensive English language program and what factors may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills, the researcher analyzed six Korean students' writing samples collected over two semesters (the Spring semester of 1998 and the Summer C semester of 1998) and looked over all the other data she had collected in relationship to their writing skills' development. She first decided what grammatical items she should assess depending on the different proficiency levels of these Korean students' reading/writing class to catch their writing skills' change over time until the end of the Summer C semester of 1998. Then, she analyzed if those different grammatical items changed over time in the six Korean students' collected writing samples depending on their different proficiency levels (she quantified the development of high frequency grammar items), and explored what possible factors were related to the improvement in their writing skills by analyzing all other collected data. The following is an analysis of the writing skills' development for each student's proficiency level. 150

PAGE 159

151 The Beginning Level Writing Samples Chul Soo Song and Ki Young Kwak were at the beginning levels of the reading/writing class during the Summer C semester of 1998. They both provided the researcher with their writing samples during this Summer C term of 1998. Their writing samples were all personal journals because they were at the beginning levels of the reading/writing class. Ki Young Kwak. He had problems in distinguishing between nouns and adjectives (he wrote, "First, I like car's travel, but I don't have car because I'm not fun."). He had problems with question formations, definite article, indefinite article, future tense, prepositions, infinitives, gerunds (he wrote, "I like car's travel "), and verbs (he wrote, "I need to information because I want to the computer") originally (in his first writing sample). But in his writing samples over time, he progressed in his use of articles, gerunds (he wrote, "He does not give up waving."), prepositions, verbs (he wrote, "I had to give up new job," "I think I'm going to have my company," etc.), future tense, and adjectives (he wrote, "She thinks he is strange," "She is afraid of him," etc.). In the very beginning part of his writing samples, in case of articles, there were six instances that required correct article uses. But Kwak showed only one correct article use. In his latter writing samples, there were 22 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed 1 7 correct article uses. In the case of tenses, at the very beginning, there were four instances that required correct

PAGE 160

152 future tense uses, and Kwak showed three correct future tense uses. In his latter writing samples, there were five instances that required correct future tense uses, and he showed five correct future tense uses on his own. In the case of prepositions, at the very beginning, there were two instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed one correct preposition use. In his latter writing samples, there were 15 instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed 14 correct preposition uses on his own. Chul Soo Song. He had problems with basic English sentence structures (he wrote, "I changed take air plane in Atlanta airport," "Next day, gone back to Atlanta and safely arrived from Atlanta to here," and "That not bad with first experience at U.S.A."), articles (there were 10 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed five correct article uses on his own), adjectives (he wrote, "He was help to me "), past tense (there were 35 instances that required correct tense uses, and he showed 20 correct tense uses on his own), and prepositions (there were 25 instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed 1 8 correct preposition uses on his own) in his first writing sample. He had problems with gerunds (he wrote, "I was very tired because of long time travel by air plane."), infinitives (he wrote, "Because of Delta Airline made a mistake to unconfirmed my ticket when check in, all additional expenses beared by Delta Airline."), past participles (he wrote, "That plane gone to Walton beach."), present participles (he wrote, "I was watch to T.V. and slept."), passives, personal pronouns (he wrote, "If shawl's genuine owner ask to she, "where is my shawl" she has a responsibility about lose to shawl and touched

PAGE 161

other person's suitcase."), clause constructions (he wrote, "And then It's very expensive. Because of It's made of silk and very beautiful"), be verbs (he wrote, "That not bad with first experience at U.S.A."), subject-verb agreement (present tense third person singular 's'), and vocabulary in his first writing sample. He progressed much in his use of basic English sentence structures, be verbs, gerunds, infinitives, past participles, past tense (there were 29 instances that required correct tense uses, and he showed 25 correct tense uses on his own), prepositions, articles, passives, and in his command of English vocabulary in his latter writing samples. But he still had problems with gerunds, passives, be verbs, clause constructions, prepositions (there were 28 instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed 23 correct preposition uses on his own), articles (there were 24 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed 18 correct article uses on his own), adjectives, and subject-verb agreement (present tense third person singular 's': He wrote, "Our nation's bathroom have a hole on the floor."). He also showed problems with plural 's' and with modal uses (he wrote, "I enjoy doing to lestin to music. Especially, I favorite to Korea traditional music. Of course, that has many kind music. I must favorite to "samulnori" among the rest."). His constant and serious problem in relation to prepositions was that he used 'to' constantly after verbs and before direct objects (he wrote, "Sometime, I feel to my ancestor's breathing sound when listen to "samulnori," "Everybody experienced to scaring by new culture when he traveled a strange country," "Of course, I suffered to culture shock," etc.).

PAGE 162

154 In the middle part of his writing samples, he tried a past perfect tense although it was wrong in its use. He also tried a present perfect tense although it was wrong in its use. He succeeded in trying a complex sentence structure using the phrase 'not only-but also-' in the middle point of his writing samples. He had difficulty in using possessive adjectives although he progressed a lot in using other adjectives correctly. He progressed a lot in using prepositions correctly except the fact that he used 'to' after verbs and before direct objects constantly as stated already. He also tried conditional sentences although they were wrong in their uses in the middle part of his writing samples. He showed a problem in using dummy 'do' in negative sentences (he wrote, "I not need to work "). He used adverbs like 'hardly' appropriately to express his meanings in the middle part of his writing samples. He used a present perfect tense correctly in the latter middle part of his writing samples. At the end of his middle part writing samples, he progressed quite a lot in his use of prepositions, modals, and passives. And he still showed some problems with subject-verb agreement (present tense third person singular 's'), conditional sentences, and clause constructions (he wrote, "For example, if any city's government want to restoration of there a river through the city "). He tried a past tense passive progressive in his quite latter writing samples, and it was correct in its use. He showed big progress in article uses as time went by. He also showed big progress in his use of possessive adjectives. He tried also a future tense passive progressive in his latter writing samples, and it was correct in its use. But he still had problems with subject-verb agreement (present tense

PAGE 163

155 third person singular 's': He wrote, "Today, our society have a prejudice of race."), plural 's,' be verbs, articles, and passives (he wrote, "My most wonderful day don't forget forever."). He continuously used the strange preposition 'to' after verbs and before direct objects like "I will put to the one apple tree." He progressed a lot in his use of conditional sentences (he wrote, "If I can establish to my company, I will set up to Ecotechnology company "). He also acquired somewhat the uses of present participles as time went by. But he sometimes omitted subjects in sentences. He tried in his quite latter writing sample a relative pronoun although it was wrong in its use. He tried also comparative structures in his latter writing samples although they were wrong in their uses. Overall, until the end of his writing samples, Chul Soo Song had problems with correct use of articles, plural 's,' subject-verb agreement (present tense third person singular 's'), possessive adjectives, prepositions, and passives. These grammatical items were the ones that did not develop a lot as time went by. Except for these problems, he showed big progress within only one semester (the Summer C term of 1998) in his use of basic English sentence structures (he wrote, "Deep impact is a science fiction movie and Amagedon too," "Many people watched both movies," etc.), clause constructions (he wrote, "Deep impact have a absurd story that our earth fall into dangerous situation by a meteoric stone and so is Amagedon."), complex sentence constructions, be verbs (he wrote, "Franklin was ambassador and Jefferson was Foreign minister," "Franklin was an important man in American revolution," etc.), past tense, future tense, and simple present tense (except the third person subject-verb agreement).

PAGE 164

156 He showed progress also in his use of infinitives (he wrote, "A big dump truck ran fast downtown at midnight to get to school."), gerunds (he wrote, "First, before meeting with the dean from 1 1 :00 to 12:00, he read application resumes from 9:00 to 1 1 :00."), adjectives (he wrote, "It is very difficult," "The racism's root is deep thing," etc.), personal pronouns (he wrote, "A boy looked everywhere to find his mother yesterday in New York," "She was seem like to angel when I saw her first time," etc.), present participles (he wrote, "The dog was being loved by the man very long long ago "), and past participles (he wrote, "My room is located on the other side of the clean room."). He tried new and difficult grammatical structures like conditional sentences, comparative structures, etc. in his latter writing samples. In terms of his entire writing development, he showed big progress in his command of English vocabulary, in length of writing (the amount), in organization of writing, and in content in his writing samples in addition to the grammatical improvements as already stated. By content, the researcher means that at first he wrote only personal experiences, but in his much latter writing samples, he succeeded in discussing race, American philosophers and politicians, and in writing short movie reviews. The Intermediate Level Writing Samples Young Soo Park was in the intermediate level reading/vmting class during the Summer C term of 1998. He showed the researcher his writing samples from

PAGE 165

157 the last Spring semester of 1998 until the end of the Summer C term of 1998. So the researcher succeeded in tracking his writing development for two consecutive school semesters. During the last Spring semester of 1998, he was at the beginning level of the reading/writing class. The writing samples collected during this Spring semester of 1998 were personal journals in genre, and the writing samples collected during the Summer C term of 1998 were personal journals and essays. He had grammatical problems with past tense (he wrote, "When I heard this song at the first time, I feel deep impression," "It is three years ago," etc. There were 46 instances that required correct tense uses, and he showed 37 correct tense uses on his own), prepositions (there were 37 instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed 31 correct preposition uses on his own), correct use of passive and active voices, relative adverbs, complex sentence constructions with subordinate and main clauses (he wrote, "I arrived here, I feel that this town is smaller than I thought."), articles (there were 12 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed six correct article uses on his own), comparative structures (he wrote, "But I think this university is more larger than Young Nam university "), subject-verb agreement, adverbs (he wrote, "In my hometown, I can find it too easy."), adjectives (including possessive adjectives), infinitives (he wrote, "So, I had to felt the U. S. A. is very large."), and plural 's.' He also had vocabulary problems in expressing his ideas (he wrote, "It courage me," "So, I have to do economical life in here," etc.). These problems were the ones that he showed in the very beginning part of his writing samples

PAGE 166

158 during the Spring semester of 1998. He had problems with gerunds, past and present participles (he wrote, "I'm uninteresting whole things that surround me."), pronouns, future tense (he wrote, "I'll going to GYM to play sports."), and conditional sentences (he wrote, "If I'll change my life style, I can write about my happiness ") additionally in the beginning part of his writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998. He still had problems with past tense, correct use of active and passive voices (he wrote, "When I was a second class private, an accident was happened."), adjectives (he wrote, "Sometimes it is good but I think almost cases are bad."), adverbs (he wrote, "Of course, it is different each person but I saw so many times that they did act so selfish "), articles, and subject-verb agreement (he wrote, "I always thanks that I live until now.") as time went by. But he progressed quite fast in his command of vocabulary to express his ideas. He acquired how to construct complex sentences with subordinate clauses and main clauses, and the use of possessive adjectives pretty soon. However, he showed problems still with the uses of past and present participles (he wrote, "I'm interesting to computers."), modals, and articles. Prepositions and future tense were acquired gradually. But conditional sentences were not acquired easily by him over time. Passive and active voices, plural 's,' articles, and subject-verb agreement (he wrote, "But there are poor equipment for resident," "There are a lot of convenience equipment for student," etc.) were not acquired easily over time also. And he had the past tense problem continuously (he wrote, "Three years ago, my ideal woman is my ex-girlfriend.").

PAGE 167

159 He had problems with conditional sentences (he wrote, "If I have 1 million dollars, I build a building for my college."), comparative structures (he wrote, "I can understand them and they have more bigger merits than demerits and above all because we are friend."), prepositions (he wrote, "Whenever I met who was similar with ex-girlfriend, she reminded me my ex-girlfriend," "In now, I want to escape from her," etc.), and present perfect tense (he wrote, "But an important thing that doesn't changed is this character that can respect other's opinion.") nearly at the end of his beginning level writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998. He seemed to acquire passive and active voices to some degree at this time. He showed problems with tense agreement between a subordinate clause and a main clause at this time. Correct use of adjectives with nouns was still a problem for him until this time. Comparative sentence constructions and plural 's' were the problems that were noticed until the end of his beginning level writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998. In sum, he showed slow progress in his use of past tense (in the end of his beginning level writing samples, there were 26 instances that required correct tense uses, and he showed 24 correct tense uses on his own), passive and active voices, complex sentence constructions with subordinate and main clauses, adverbs (he wrote, "But now fortunately, I control myself"), infinitives (he wrote, "We didn't have enough classrooms but the office of the university didn't help to build them," "We don't have enough buildings to study and to do research," etc.), future tense, and pronoun uses during his beginning level writing samples.

PAGE 168

160 If the researcher compares Chul Soo Song and Young Soo Park who both provided the researcher with their beginning level writing samples (they gave her pretty thick writing samples), she could say that Young Soo Park showed better writing skills in grammar, content, vocabulary, and organization. Differences existed between them: Young Soo Park was more concerned about his oral communication skills in English than Chul Soo Song was, and practiced them by making lots of interaction opportunities with native speakers and international students outside the classes of the intensive English language program. On the contrary. Song did not make much effort to increase and practice his oral communication skills outside the classes of the program although he was concerned about his speaking skills a lot. Also their reading lists were different: Chul Soo Song said that he did some subject matter readings and readings through the Internet web sites in the library, but Park read lots of novels, newspapers, magazines, and did readings through the Internet web sites additionally. Park also told the researcher that one of his hobbies was reading books. In Young Soo Park's intermediate level writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998, he tried relative pronouns, which were correct in his use (he wrote, "So people who live in 'Chung-hak' town have long hair."). Also his uses of passive and active voices were correct in this period of time; he looked as if he acquired these firmly now (he wrote, "Before they get married, they braid their hair," "People don't have to cut one's hair because hair was given by their parents," "That town is getting changed," etc.). However, he showed problems

PAGE 169

161 Still with articles, prepositions (he wrote, "They believe Confucianism," "After one year, I went in the army," etc.), adjectives (including possessive adjectives), plural 's,' subject-verb agreement (he wrote, "They use electronic goods and someone wear modem style clothing."), and gerunds. He showed his good command of present progressive. He showed progress gradually in his intermediate level writing samples in his command of the English article system. Modals were acquired in this period of his writing samples. Past perfect tense was not a grammatical item that he succeeded in using on his own. Gerunds, relative clause constructions, plural 's,' comparative structures, conditional sentences, present perfect tense, and subjectverb agreement were all acquired in the mid term essay for his intermediate reading/writing class. He received an A+ grade on this work. Also the past tense problems and the tense agreement problems that he showed continuously during his beginning level writing samples disappeared in the latter part of his intermediate level writing samples. Prepositions and articles were still somewhat problematic. Adjectives (including possessive adjectives) were used appropriately in the latter part of his intermediate level writing samples. Indirect question sentences (he wrote, "What do you need to do is you have to think about what do you really want to say in a song.") were not acquired by him until the end of his intermediate level writing samples. The quoted sentence above was from the final essay for his intermediate level reading/writing class during the Summer C term of 1998. He had fluent command of superlative and comparative structures in his final essay for the reading/writing class during the

PAGE 170

Summer C term of 1998 (he wrote, "This is the most important thing when you write a song," "If you keep trying to write a song, you would be able to write a better song," etc.). Until the end of his intermediate level writing samples, relative clause constructions, gerunds, prepositions, and articles were not acquired perfectly although he made big progress on them compared with his beginning level writing samples. In sum. Young Soo Park made progress at the stage he transferred to an intermediate level in his reading/writing proficiency. In his intermediate level writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998, he showed quick progress in his command of articles (nearly at the end of his intermediate level writing samples, there were 27 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed 21 correct article uses on his own), prepositions (nearly at the end of his intermediate level writing samples, there were 29 instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed 27 correct preposition uses on his own), and subject-verb agreement (he wrote, "They have a special school. The teacher teaches Confucianism," "Writing a song is not as hard as people usually think," etc.). He also showed quick progress in his command of tense agreement, plural 's' (he wrote, "Many people love cars. Particularly people whose countries were built and developed by this incredible invention love them so much," "Kids have dreams having cars, which can take them any places they dreamed of," etc.), past tense (in the middle part of his intermediate level writing samples, there were 42 instances that required correct tense uses, and he showed 41 correct tense uses on

PAGE 171

163 his own), present perfect tense, conditional sentences, comparative structures, relative clause constructions, adjectives (he wrote, "Today, most people have dissatisfaction of society, boyfriend/girlfriend, their parents, school and lots of things," "One of my favorite singer does this way," etc.), and gerunds. However, he had some problems with relative clause constructions (he wrote, "It's up to you that depends on people "), gerunds, indirect question sentences, articles, and prepositions until the end of his overall writing samples. He made progress also in his organization of paragraphs to express his ideas, the length of his writing, and vocabulary in addition to grammar over time from his beginning level writing samples to his intermediate level writing samples. And overall he showed good writing skills also in his command of genres of writing (he wrote contents appropriately depending on different genres of personal journals and essays). The Advanced Level Writing Samples Young Hee Jun, Chul Ho Park, and Hyun Woo Choi were in the most advanced level reading/writing class during the Summer C semester of 1998. Young Hee Jun and Chul Ho Park provided the researcher the most diligently among all Korean students with their writing samples for two school semesters of 1997/1998. Their writing samples were the thickest among all of the writing samples the researcher collected. Young Hee Jun provided her writing samples of both the last Fall semester of 1997 and the Summer C semester of 1998 for the

PAGE 172

164 researcher. She was at the advanced levels of the reading/writing class during both of these semesters. Chul Ho Park was also at the advanced levels of the reading/writing class during the Spring semester and the Summer C semester of 1998, and he provided the researcher with his writing samples of both of these semesters. Hyun Woo Choi provided the researcher with his writing samples only during the Summer C semester of 1998. As already stated in Chapter 3, diverse genres of personal journals, essays, reading reviews, and research papers were covered at these advanced levels of the reading/vmting class. At first look, these advanced level writing samples were different from those of the beginning level and the intermediate level in their written amount and the authors' fluent command of genres of writing. All of these three students wrote quite long paragraphs, and differentiated like an expert the contents and the organizations of writing depending on different genres. Young Hee Jun. She had grammatical problems, in the beginning part of last Fall semester's (of 1997) writing samples, with conditional sentences (she wrote, "The French Quartor is located downtown. So, If I want to get there from uptown, I usually took the old street car which is for tourists."), articles (there were 28 instances that required correct article uses, and she showed 24 correct article uses on her own), and gerunds/infinitives (she wrote, "Another interesting thing that many tourists do is take horse drawn carriage in order to look around the French Quartor.").

PAGE 173

165 She showed great command of grammar from the very begimiing part of her writing samples except for the small problems with the above grammatical items: She had command of subject-verb agreement (present tense third person singular 's' She wrote, "I visited New Orleans during the last vacation. I went to a big festival in New Orleans called "Mardi Gras" which means "fat Tuesday."), pronouns, possessive adjectives, adjectives, past tense (there were 35 instances that required correct tense uses, and she showed 34 correct tense uses on her own), future tense, present perfect tense, comparative structures, relative pronouns and adverbs, passives, prepositions, plural 's,' (she wrote, "There are some traditional things that happen during "Mardi Gras.") modals, and compound and coordinate conjunctions (she wrote, "One interesting tradition that occurs during Mardi Gras is that on Bourdon Street women show their breasts in exchange for beads and recently men have started showing their rear ends (butts).") from the very beginning part of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997. Her vocabulary was good also. And as stated already, the above grammatical items that she showed great command in from the very beginning of her writing samples were the ones in which the beginning and the intermediate writing level Korean students progressed over time gradually. Therefore, at this point, it might be possible to say that Jun's practice of her grammar by studying grammar textbooks first and then reading other materials a lot, and also by utilizing other educational materials around her (by interacting a lot with native speakers, by asking a lot of -J

PAGE 174

166 grammatical questions of her grammar teacher, and by watching lots of movies and TV) somewhat contributed to her better writing skills. She had some problems with conditional sentences, passives (she wrote, "I don't think this is real story but it could be happen in real life."), relative pronouns (she wrote, "Recently, I can't go wherever I want and spend a lot of time outside because of the dog who I got in my birthday."), prepositions (there were 27 instances that required correct preposition uses, and she showed 22 correct preposition uses on her own), articles, and pronouns (she wrote, "Most rapes occur during the freshman and sophomore years for college students, and six rapes were reported at UF in Fall 1997. Most date rape often is found in cases that involve alcohol, GHB or rohypnol and 'roofies', so students should be carefiil when they know someone who is fun to be around when he drinks and they should not trust anybody giving you drinks.") in the beginning part of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997. She had command of infinitives and gerunds except for the problem already stated. However, she omitted direct objects (she wrote, "When I have stress, American movies make me more stressful because I am not able to understand perfectly ") sometimes, which was a strange phenomenon for this advanced level student. But she developed her command of conditional sentences as time went by (she wrote, "In fact, if the corals were endangered and finally extinct, we couldn't see the beautifiil view of under the sea anymore when you take a trip to the oceans or even through TV screen because no one couldn't find any beautiful coral in any place.").

PAGE 175

167 She had command of present progressive. She had command of past progressive. However, she had a small problem with superlative structures (she wrote, "When you were a child or even after you were grown up, you might have had a lot of bad experiences breaking up with your friends. Those kinds of situations usually make your heart break, and sometimes the friends who were best friends before suddenly become your enemies, trying to hurt you every time."). She had command of present participles in her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997 (she wrote, "I tried to stand up to go home, pretending not to be drunk, but I couldn't focus very well"). She had command of past perfect tense also. She had command of past participles (she wrote, "One of my treasures I got as a birthday gift from my fiancee is a stuffed tiger. I usually love stuffed animals."). She acquired passives and relative pronouns in her continued writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997. Her command of the English article system (especially she acquired indefinite article uses as time went on) and prepositions developed in the middle part of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997. Her use of pronouns developed from the middle part of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997. However, in the middle part of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997, she showed some adverb problems (she wrote, "I agree with the article that talked about endangered coral forest and necessity of saving it because the coral forest is home to roughly as many as species as the rain forest and damaged nature usually influences our life," etc.). Genitive 's' was omitted sometimes (she

PAGE 176

168 wrote, "Parents' less expectation for the youngest child make the youngest child' life go easily and the oldest child be stressful in his life," etc.). She overused the modal 'could' which means potential in her writing samples. And still she had some problems with preposition uses. She had fluent command of present and past participles which were difficult grammatical items for the beginning and the intermediate writing level students before. Articles were not acquired yet in her latter writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997. She had command of superlative structures in the latter part of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997. Possessive adjectives were problematic for her in the middle part of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997 (she wrote, "In Korea, parents sometimes think that it is all the oldest child' fault if his younger children have some problems in their lives."). She had fluent command of English modals to express her points except for her overuse of the modal 'could' (she wrote, "During your whole life, you might have a lot of friends who you sometimes really like or sometimes not, and those friendships end for different reasons such as betrayal, different personalities, or someone who you like," "For example, when two men like a one pretty woman at the same time, or in the opposite case, their relationship would be uncomfortable and sometimes they would fight with each other," "As Yakelovich advocates that workers be more involved in decisions that affect their work, students should be more involved in decisions that affect their education such as length of class, activities after class, selection of textbooks for class," etc.).

PAGE 177

169 She somehow overused a passive structure also by writing in the latter part of her writing samples, "The friendship also can be ended because of the different environments that they have already experienced since their childhood and each person's different personality that was made from the different enviroimient." She sometimes used too long sentences for readers to follow and catch the meanings. She still omitted a direct object almost at the end of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997 by writing, "Furthermore, if an idea was established by workers or students themselves, they might not complain even if it did not work well in reality because they chose the option." In sum, Young Hee Jun showed good command of most important grammatical items from the very beginning of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997. However, she had some problems with conditional sentences, adverbs, articles, prepositions, superlative structures, pronouns, genitive 's,' and jwssessive adjectives. But she progressed slowly in her command of adverbs (she wrote, "As most Korean people, I also like spicy food," "I usually love stuffed animals," "Our country was originally an agricultural society," etc.), conditional sentences, superlative structures (she wrote, "I went to the movies and with my bad luck I happened to see the worst movie in the theater," etc.), articles, prepositions (at the end of her essay writing samples, there were 105 required instances of correct preposition uses, and she showed 101 correct preposition uses on her own), genitive 's' (she v^ote, "The company could get more specific and precise opinions through the suggestion box because even if the workers' representatives

PAGE 178

attend the administrators' meetings, the representatives can't announce each worker's opinion and problem," etc.), possessive adjectives, and pronouns (she wrote, "According to changes in society and industrial development, many people wanted to have good jobs and make a lot of money. They also wanted to offer good educational opportunities to their children," "Asian people are used to expressing every year with the 12 animals. These consist of the monkey, snake, tiger, sheep, horse, rabbit, mouse, dog, pig, cow, chicken, and the dragon," etc.) during her writing samples of the Fall semester of 1997. Overall, she made big progress in articles (there were 41 instances that required correct article uses, and she showed 39 correct article uses on her own), adverbs, and genitive 's' at the end of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997. Her preposition problem was mainly nonuse of prepositions where they should be used (she wrote, "However, I believe that there are some real friendships that can be maintained in any situation, and if someone has at least one friend who they can trust their whole life, they can say that that friendship is successful "). And she showed some idiosyncratic language uses of her own not shown by any Korean student until now: She overused the modal 'could' and the passive structure. She sometimes omitted direct objects as shown already. And she used too long sentences sometimes for readers to follow and catch the meanings of them. Besides the grammatical improvements in the end of her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997, she progressed much in her use of paragraph structures in her essays (she wrote her essays well: Good organization of

PAGE 179

171 paragraphs and good contents were noticed at the end of her essay writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997). Also she wrote an essay on her subject matter which was marketing. These were noticed in her writing samples only during the Fall semester of 1997. At the very beginning part of her writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998 (in an essay), she had an organization problem of her ideas. She still overused 'could' (she wrote, "During his college time, he couldn't spend his time on his family because he lived in an apartment by himself"). She overused definite article, 'the.' She still had preposition problems (she wrote, "The beach was crowded by people," "As soon as he got the U.S. he traveled to the Western america like California and during the trip he decided to stay in Arkansas," etc.). Suddenly she showed a gerunds/infinitive problem when she wrote, "I hate my skin turns to dark." in her writing sample during the Summer C term of 1998. She showed a problem with possessive adjectives. However, she had command of diverse English verb tenses to express her ideas, and had fluent command of modals still (which were shown in her writing samples during the Fall semester of 1997). Still also, her preposition problem was mainly the fact that she often did not use any preposition where it should be used. Definite article was a problem for her rather than indefinite article because she had much better command of indefinite article than definite article. She usually omitted definite article in the places where it should be used or overused it in the places where it was unnecessary (she wrote, "Most people are worried about the children who have grown up by one parent, but I don't think that it is a big

PAGE 180

172 problem because even the children who have grown up by the both parents so far and have been in really nice education environment could have some problems."). Overuse of passive structures during the Fall semester of 1997 disappeared in her writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998. Also her omission of direct objects disappeared in her writing samples during the Summer C semester of 1998. She had command of all the other modals except for 'could'; she had a little problem with the modal 'could' still. She still continued to use her idiosyncratic long sentences sometimes, which makes readers find it hard to follow and catch the meanings of them. In sum, Young Hee Jun had problems until the end of her writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998 with articles and prepositions. However, she developed her command of the modal 'could': She started to use it consistently to mean potential in her latter writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998. Her organization of ideas in essays developed also at the end of her writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998. In addition, she showed very important progress in her idiosyncratic language uses as already stated above (like overuse of passives, etc.) during her writing samples of the Summer C term of 1998. Chul Ho Park. He had problems with plural 's,' (he wrote, "We want to speak English well, watch TV, and get the more score in test.") articles (he wrote, "It was really wonderful experience to go to the Disney World." There were 42 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed 28 correct article uses on his own), and prepositions (mainly nonuse of them in places where they are

PAGE 181

173 necessary: He wrote, "It's usually related with the TOEFL, GRE, or GMAT," "There are differences between academic pressiire in here and in my country," "I may take the TOEFL test someday, but I believe that these happy experience could be helpful my test score," "I should have seen the "Titanic" bigger theater," etc. There were 69 instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed 59 correct preposition uses on his own) in the very beginning part of his writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998. Also, he had problems with adverbs (he wrote, "I nearly thought the characters existed really, especially the old woman," "A number of extra helped make the movie lively," etc.), adjectives (he wrote, "First, we must eliminate our shameful and ask about what we don't know like children."), infinitives (he wrote, "Historically, women who were in the house like chat because there were a lot of households around their houses and they wanted to chat "), modal 'could' (overuse of it besides the places meaning potential: He wrote, "I had already been waiting for almost 1 hour, so I couldn't give up. Fortunately, after 10 minute it was fixed, so I could enjoy it "), and vocabulary in the very beginning part of his writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998. He had some idiosyncratic language use problems of his own by starting a sentence with 'because' and by using the word 'besides' wrongly. He started a sentence with 'because' (he wrote, "Because they speak very fast, they speak slang."), and used 'besides' as an adverb (he wrote, "Besides, I don't know why I feel Academic Pressure," "Besides, I think I didn't like my major because if I want to apply what I learned, that is very difficult in my usual life.").

PAGE 182

174 The most noticeable development in his personal journal writing samples over time was that he showed a clear paragraph organization skill to express his ideas, which was not shown in the very beginning part of his journals during the Spring semester of 1998. As time went by, he succeeded in using 'because' correctly (he wrote, "They have to finish the textbook, because their teachers did," "They don't like questions, because they need time to finish it," etc.) and succeeded in using plural 's' correctly (he wrote, "In our country, we had to study hard because we should get good scores."). He also showed big progress in his command of articles as time went by (there were 43 instances that required correct article uses in the end of his writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998, and he showed 39 correct article uses on his own). He developed his command of adverbs over time also (he wrote, "For instance, I rarely find the black scientist in the movie, and 1 rarely find the black people in the TV Ad.," "I don't know her life exactly," "But, I'd like to have the stamps paradoxically," etc.). He showed a passive problem suddenly in one of his journals written during the Spring semester of 1998 (he wrote, "A lot of people jumped down, most of them could have been died "). He showed a gerunds problem also in one of his journals written during the Spring semester of 1998 (he wrote, "In fact, when I speak English, I have to change my think simply because I don't know complicate expression."). He still had a plural 's' problem (he wrote, "This is not kind of things which can be solved by law") and an adjective problem (he wrote, "In fact, when I speak English, I have to change my think simply because I don't know complicate

PAGE 183

175 expression ") as he moved on from the very beginning part of his writing samples to the middle part of them during the Spring semester of 1998. He showed a very weird problem of question formation as an advanced writing level student (he wrote in the middle part of his journals during the Spring semester of 1998, "Why people want to buy Princess Diana's stamps?"). And he still showed the 'because' problem at this point. However, he showed a development in adjectives as time went by. Nearly at the end of his journals during the Spring semester of 1998, he showed a development in his command of infinitives. He still had 'could' problems and preposition problems (he wrote, "And power is connected each other"), but he showed an important development in his appropriate command of plural 's' at this time (he wrote, "We have to be careful for using words," "We have to make many friends in the world," etc.). He showed an important development also in his command of gerunds as time went by during his writing samples of the Spring semester of 1998 (he wrote, "I'd like to listen "Cold Irons Bound," and I want to be good at understanding the words in the song"). In his essay writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998, he showed slow progress in his command of 'because' clause construction. His uses of 'besides' were still problematic as stated already. He showed a development in his command of question formation in his essays during the Spring semester of 1998. He showed a possessive adjective problem nearly at the end of his essays during the Spring semester of 1998 (he wrote, "Someone will not waste their time to choose similar things because they have their own bases of decision.").

PAGE 184

176 In sum, Chul Ho Park showed grammatical progress in his writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998. He developed his command of 'because' clause construction in the end of writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998. He developed his command of articles, infinitives (he wrote, "I think power is very important to live," "I want to have power," "In my case, to study hard is the best way to obtain power," etc.), gerunds, passives (he wrote, "If someone who was bom in normal family is honorable, he or she must be in stamps," "The chance of honor must be given to everybody," etc.), plural 's,' adverbs, adjectives (including possessive adjectives: He wrote, "But I didn't know the dangerous meaning of Oreo. We have to be careful for using words," "If she was ugly, I don't think people want to buy her stamps," "We should be diligent in our life and make our own time table. Explorers are usually repeating their goals," etc.), question formation, and vocabulary in his writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998 slowly as time went by. However, he still showed some problems with preposition uses (the main problem of this was his nonuse of prepositions where they should be used: He wrote, "While we are exploring, we will be a lot of variable situation.") and a little problem with vocabulary as an advanced writing level student (he wrote, "We should be patient for doing our effort."). In addition to his development over time in his ability to use paragraphs to organize his ideas in journals at this period of time, he showed an excellent organization skill of paragraphs in writing essays (he was an expert in five paragraph essays). Therefore, his essays were very organized in expression of ideas because he used such well organized paragraphs.

PAGE 185

177 In the very beginning part of his writing samples during the Summer C semester of 1998, he showed problems with present participles (he wrote, "I didn't finish my undergraduating course." and "I like to read novel and impressiving stories."). He still showed article problems (he wrote, "I used to read books when I was child," "If you learn the way of using search engines, it will be helpful for being familiar with internet," etc.). He still showed a problem with 'could' (his overuse of it besides the places where it is necessary). He still had some vocabulary problems in expressing ideas at the beginning part of his writing samples during this period (he wrote, "This is not a problem about beauty and ugly but about kindness and gentle."). On vocabulary, the researcher might say at this point that Young Soo Park and Young Hee Jun who showed good command of English vocabulary in their writing samples were better writers than Chul Ho Park only in terms of vocabulary. Their secrets of having better command of vocabulary in writings than Chul Ho Park seemed to be due to their readings. They read newspapers, magazines, novels, and subject matter books. In contrast, Chul Ho Park tried only easy readings like local student newspaper, 'Chicken Soup for the Soul,' (an easy essay book) and TOEFL reading passages. He said that he read neither newspapers nor magazines. He also told the researcher that he did not yet (at that time of the second interview with him) have confidence in reading books written in English. However, he developed his command of prepositions at this period of time (he wrote, "1 agree with the analysis," "If you run on the machine, you don't have

PAGE 186

178 to worry about this and you can only concentrate on your exercise," etc. There were 70 instances that required correct preposition uses nearly at the end of his writing samples during this Summer C semester of 1998, and he showed 64 correct preposition uses on his own). He showed progress in his command of present participles very quickly at this period of time (he wrote, "This was an impressing story, and we can learn some important things from this story."). His command of articles developed also as the researcher read through his writing samples of the Summer C semester of 1998 (he wrote, "It is necessary that the apartments be close to a grocery store," "The apartments should be close to this university," "What students believe is only a bus because this town is not a city which has enough public transportation," etc. Nearly at the end of his writing samples, there were 56 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed 53 correct article uses on his own). He gradually developed his command of vocabulary as he moved on to the latter part of his writing samples during this Summer C term of 1998. The greatest development in Park's article uses over time in his writing samples was that he acquired when and where to use definite article and indefinite article, but he sometimes omitted the appropriate article in different situations. Preposition uses were another greatest development in his writing samples over time (although he showed a few preposition problems in his second draft of the final research paper for the reading/writing class of the Summer C term of 1998). He also seemed to acquire the modal 'could' use nearly at the end of his writing samples during the Summer C semester of 1998 (he wrote, "If most of the people in the world would

PAGE 187

179 use the Internet, we could not imagine what would be going to happen to us," "Charging people on an entropy-based scale could force people to work differently online," "We could see the reason from the theory of "The Tragedy of the Commons," etc.). In the final draft of his research paper, there was big progress in his command of prepositions (there were 118 instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed 1 14 correct preposition uses on his own), articles (there were 125 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed 121 correct article uses on his own), and modal 'could' which were his major grammatical problems from the beginning of his writing samples during the Spring semester of 1998. In sum, Chul Ho Park showed quick progress in his command of present participles, and he developed his command of vocabulary gradually before drafts of the final research paper for the reading/writing class of the Summer C term of 1998. Then he showed a pretty quick development in vocabulary, prepositions, articles, and modal 'could' on his drafts of the final research paper for the class in this term. In his final version of the research paper submitted in the reading/writing class of the Summer C term of 1998, almost no grammatical errors were noticed, and organization of sections (Introduction, Conclusion, etc.) and paragraphs was good. As already stated, articles and prepositions developments were the biggest and the most significant grammatical improvements in his overall writing samples.

PAGE 188

180 Hvun Woo Choi. He showed passive problems in the very beginning part of his writing samples during the Summer C semester of 1998 (he wrote, "Amazon area located more than 50% in South America," "Jungle forest can't be use to construct or fuel," and "Even though forest fire is often happened several region in the worid, Amazon is different other place, because it is wide scope."). He showed also subject-verb agreement (mainly present tense third person singular 's') problems (he wrote, "At first, the various and special rare animal which live in Amazon area reduce day by day, because of forest fire," "Nuclear weapons was used in Worid War II first time, and all of people live in the World realized how it is dangerous and cruel, and the UN already negotiates about nuclear weapon to reduce that," etc.) and a possessive adjective problem (he wrote, "They have to think about our fiiture effect by forest fire and their intention.") at this very beginning part. He showed preposition problems (he wrote, "Trees are different to human," "But it is not only their problem but our problem who live in earth, so we must prevent using nuclear weapon despite of any reason," etc. There were 60 instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed 51 correct preposition uses on his own) and a plural 's' problem (he wrote, "In these day, some animals are already crisis to disappear ") in addition to present perfect tense problems (there were 52 instances that required correct tense uses, and he showed 47 correct tense uses on his own) also at this very beginning part. He pretty quickly showed developments in his command of passives (he wrote, "Nuclear weapon can be used to get their benefit."), present tense third

PAGE 189

181 person singular 's,' (he wrote, "Living in apartment is much better than dormitory ") plural 's,' (he wrote, "We can meet our friends in school and also invite our apartment if we feel like lonely.") and possessive adjectives (he wrote, "But recently India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapon to provoke rival nation's explosions. Moreover they said it is not a reason to threaten any of their neighbors. But it is not only their problem but our problem who live in earth, so we must prevent using nuclear weapon despite of any reason," etc.) in his writing samples right after the very beginning part of his writing samples during the Summer C semester of 1998. He showed article problems in the beginning part of his writing samples (there were 21 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed 8 correct article uses on his own). Problems with vocabulary (he wrote, "And we should effort to find better way to solve this problem.") and present participles (he wrote, "It is connected with not only people who live in Amazon, but also everyone live in earth," etc.) were also noticed at this part of his writing samples. He showed comparative structure construction problems (he wrote, "Nuclear weapon is getting strong than before," etc.) and an adverb problem (he wrote, "It can be serious harmful to another country.") at this part of his writing samples. In the middle part of his writing samples, he showed a quick development in his command of comparative structures (he wrote, "Many students of University live in apartment or dormitory, and also they sometimes hesitate which is better," "But living in apartment is much better than dormitory, that is why many students move to apartment from dormitory," "And also dormitory is not

PAGE 190

182 much cheaper than normal apartment," etc.). He showed some problems with prepositions and articles in this part (he wrote, "Second, living in dormitory has good advantage which is on proximity to school, and they who live in dormitory don't need car or bicycle, but people who live in here know that car is necessary though we don't go to school," etc.). However, he showed progress in his command of adverbs in this part (he wrote, "Usually they make noisy and messy room and use another roommate's stuff without any excuse," etc.). And he showed a development in this part of his writing samples in his use of paragraphs to organize his ideas. In the final part of his writing samples during the Summer C semester of 1998, which was drafts of his research paper for the reading/writing class, he showed a significant development in his command of prepositions (he wrote, "Michel de Nostredame, better known as Nostradamus, was bom at noon on December 14, 1503. in St. Remi, France," "Do we have to prepare some confrontation against future crisis?," etc. In the final draft of his research paper, there were 213 instances that required correct preposition uses, and he showed 202 correct preposition uses on his own). He also showed a significant development in his command of present participles (he wrote, "After six years roving, he eventually settled down in the town of Salon, France, and he married his second wife in 1554," "However, Nostradamus' prophecies are still interesting to people because it came true many time," etc.). And he showed another significant development in this part of his writing samples, which was a development in his command of articles (he wrote.

PAGE 191

183 "The prophecies of Nostradamus are very famous in the world," "For example, when I saw a TV program about his prophecies on TLC, the people who live in a small town in the United States were preparing their living area under the ground and kept food there," etc. In the final draft of his research paper, there were 156 instances that required correct article uses, and he showed 143 correct article uses on his own). Vocabulary was developed a lot in this part of his writing samples compared to the first part of his writing samples. He showed a development also in his command of present perfect tense in this part (on the second draft of his research paper, there were 156 instances that required correct tense uses, and he showed 150 correct tense uses on his own). Few preposition problems were noticed in his final draft of the research paper for the reading/writing class of the Summer C term of 1998. Except for the few preposition problems and the few article problems in the final draft of his research paper, he showed almost no grammatical errors in this last writing sample during the Summer C semester of 1998. His organization of paragraphs to express his points and ideas was good also as he moved on from his begiiming part of writing samples to the end of his writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998. In sum, Hyun Woo Choi showed a quick grammatical development in his command of plural 's,' passives, present tense third person singular 's,' adverbs, present participles, present perfect tense, possessive adjectives, and comparative structure constructions before the final part of his writing samples during the Summer C term of 1998. He showed some problems with prepositions, articles.

PAGE 192

184 and vocabulary from the beginning part of his writing samples during the Summer C semester of 1998. Then he showed significant developments in prepositions and articles in the final part of his writing samples. His command of vocabulary showed a big improvement also in this part of his writing samples. He showed a development in his command of paragraph structures as already stated above in addition to the grammatical developments during the Sunmier C semester of 1998. The following are tables summarizing the Korean students' developments in their command of high fi-equency grammar items (tenses, articles, and prepositions) over a 7-month period of the Spring and the Summer C semesters of 1998. Case 1 refers to Chul Soo Song, case 2 refers to Ki Young Kwak, case 4 refers to Young Soo Park, case 5 refers to Young Hee Jun, case 6 refers to Chul Ho Park, and case 7 refers to Hyun Woo Choi. Table 2. Percentages of Correct Use of Tenses Period Case 1 Case 2 Case 4 Case 7 Beginning of the Semester 57% 75% 80% 90% Number of Correct Use/Number of 20/35 3/4 37/46 47/52 Instances End of the Semester 86% 100% 98% 96% Number of Correct Use/Number of 25/29 5/5 41/42 150/156 Instances

PAGE 193

185 Table 3. Percentages of Correct Use of Articles Period Case 1 Case 2 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Beginning of the Semester Number of Correct Use/Number of Instances End of the Semester 75% 77% 78% 95% 97% 92% Number of Correct Use/Number of 18/24 17/22 21/27 39/41 121/125 143/156 Instances Table 4. Percentages of Correct Use of Prepositions Period Case 1 Case 2 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Beginning of the Semester Number of Correct Use/Number of Instances End of the Semester 82% 93% 93% 96% 97% 95% Number of Correct Use/Number of 23/28 14/15 27/29 101/105 114/118 202/213 Instances 50% 17% 50% 86% 67% 38% 5/10 1/6 6/12 24/28 28/42 8/21 72% 50% 84% 81% 86% 85% 18/25 1/2 31/37 22/27 59/69 51/60 Summary Basic English sentence structures, pronouns, subjectverb agreement (present tense third person singular 's'), adjectives (including possessive adjectives), 'be' verbs, adverbs, passives, articles, prepositions, plural 's,' gerunds, infinitives, conditional sentences, English verb tense systems, present and past participles, comparative and superlative structure constructions, and modals were the main grammatical problems for the Korean begirming writing

PAGE 194

186 level students. But they progressed quickly in their command of articles, gerunds, prepositions, infinitives, tenses, adjectives, basic English sentence structures, 'be' verbs, clause constructions, personal pronouns, present participles, and past participles as time went by. They also showed a little ability in their command of paragraph structures nearly at the end of their writing samples during the Summer C semester of 1998. In the intermediate level writing samples, still English verb tense systems, complex sentence constructions with subordinate and main clauses, pronouns, plural 's,' conditional sentences, subject-verb agreement, adjectives (including possessive adjectives), adverbs, passives, modals, present and past participles, articles, prepositions, comparative and superlative structure constructions, gerunds, and infinitives were problematic. Only one Korean student provided the intermediate level writing samples for the researcher. He showed a gradual development in his command of paragraph structures for organization of ideas in his writing samples over the two consecutive school semesters. His vocabulary developed significantly over time, and he showed grammatical development in his command of tenses, passives, complex sentence constructions with subordinate and main clauses, adverbs, infinitives, pronouns, articles, prepositions, subjectverb agreement, plural 's,' conditional sentences, comparative structures, and adjectives (including possessive adjectives) over time through his entire writing samples over the two consecutive school semesters. One important factor found that could have influenced Korean students' writing

PAGE 195

187 (mostly grammatical) skills development over time seemed to be the amount of reading and speaking interactions in the student's part. In the advanced level writing samples, some grammatical problems with articles, prepositions, conditional sentences, subject-verb agreement (mainly present tense third person singular 's'), adjectives (including possessive adjectives), genitive 's,' adverbs, passives, pronouns, infinitives, gerunds, plural 's,' comparative and superlative structure constructions, modal 'could,' present participles, and present perfect tense existed. From the very start of the advanced level writing samples, the three Korean advanced writing level students showed good command of diverse English verb tense systems, gerunds and infinitives, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, past and present participles, conditional sentences, comparative and superlative structure constructions, modals, etc. This was a significant difference from the beginning and the intermediate writing level students' writing samples. The advanced writing level students showed a significant development in their command of the above problematic grammatical areas over time in their writing samples. As seen in the quantitative data analyses of these six Korean students' grammatical improvements, bigger grammatical improvements were shown in the writing samples of Young Soo Park, Young Hee Jun, Chul Ho Park, and Hyun Woo Choi than in the writing samples of the two beginning level students. Also, these four students had better command of English grammatical items than the two beginning level students. And the three advanced writing level students had

PAGE 196

188 better command of English grammatical items than the one intermediate writing level student. Young Soo Park, Young Hee Jun, Chul Ho Park, and Hyun Woo Choi had command of basic English sentence structures and 'be' verbs from the very start of their writing samples. However, the two begirming level students developed their command of these grammar items over time. These four students acquired possessive adjectives, comparative and superlative structure constructions, conditional sentences, adverbs, plural 's,' passives, and subjectverb agreement later on, which the two beginning level students did not have command of until the end of their writing samples. Hyun Woo Choi, Chul Ho Park, and Young Hee Jun had command of the English verb tense system except the present perfect tense, complex sentence constructions with subordinate and main clauses, relative clause constructions, past participles, and modals except 'could' from the very start of their writing samples. However, Young Soo Park did not have command of them from the very start of his writing samples. The three advanced writing level students acquired superlative structures, gerunds, present participles, and modal 'could,' which Young Soo Park did not have good command of until the end of his writing samples. The four Korean students who showed better command of grammar and bigger grammatical improvements than the two begirming level students had commonalities: They reacted positively to the communicative grammar instructional process and its teachers. And they all participated in the spoken

PAGE 197

189 interaction activities a lot outside the classes of the program to develop their oral proficiency in English. Young Hee Jun and Young Soo Park did lots of readings additionally outside the classes of the program. The three advanced writing level students participated more in the outside oral interaction activities than Young Soo Park did, and showed better command of grammar and bigger grammatical improvements in the end. Chul Soo Song and Ki Young Kwak showed grammatical improvements by the end of their writing samples. They did not react positively to the communicative grammar instructional process and its teachers. However, Chul Soo Song did some readings by himself, and Ki Young Kwak participated in some oral interaction activities both in and outside the program setting. Therefore, it seemed that these activities may have influenced these two students' grammatical improvements in the end. Therefore, the amount of reading in and out of the reading/writing class and spoken interactions in and out of the intensive English language program in the student's part seemed to be important for influencing Korean students' writing skills development over time. Also asking questions a lot of grammar teachers in and out of the grammar class with great interest and concern for one's grammar to improve one's grammar (which was the learning strategy of the three advanced level students) seemed to be another significant factor that could have influenced Korean students' writing skills development over time. Vocabulary was good for the advanced writing level students, and it was also good for the one intermediate writing level student. Reading a lot may have

PAGE 198

190 influenced one's command of vocabulary in his/her writing. Organization of ideas using paragraphs was developed also over time for the advanced writing level students, although they showed better skills initially in using paragraph structures than the beginning and the intermediate writing level students. However, the advanced writing level students showed some idiosyncratic language use problems of their own like overuse of passives, starting a sentence with 'because,' overuse of the modal 'could,' omission of direct objects sometimes, etc. Finally, there were some grammatical items from which all six Korean students suffered across writing proficiency levels, although they developed their command of those grammatical items a lot in the end. Those grammatical items were articles, adjectives (including possessive adjectives), adverbs, prepositions, modal 'could,' and plural 's.' Therefore, this phenomenon might suggest a pedagogical implication to future English teachers in South Korea (see Chapter 7). The Korean students' positive reactions to communicative grammar instruction may have influenced their writing skills development over time in addition to those already stated possible factors (the amount of reading and spoken interactions reported from the Korean students). These significant factors found might provide also pedagogical implications for future English educators in South Korea (see Chapter 7).

PAGE 199

CHAPTER? SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to investigate Korean students' writing skills development in English, which is their second language, in relation to all possible factors found influencing the development over time. To work on this purpose, the following work was done. The researcher investigated how communicative grammar instruction takes place in the grammar classrooms in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America, and she explored seven Korean students' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program with special focus on their experiences in the grammar classroom. Then, she investigated the nature of their writing skills development over time in relation to all factors that may have influenced that development. The time period for this study was two consecutive school semesters (the Spring and the Summer C semesters of 1998 in the intensive English language program setting). To study the purpose, the researcher observed communicative grammar instruction in the grammar classrooms for one school semester of the Summer C term of 1998 using diverse measures of textbook analyses, field notes, audiotaped transcripts, and interviews. She conducted in-depth interviews with Korean 191

PAGE 200

192 Students using an ethnographic technique. And she collected Korean students' vsriting samples over time for two school semesters. Then she analyzed all of her data collected to answer the research questions. In this chapter, the researcher summarizes and discusses the results of the study and considers implications. Summary of the Results This study describes communicative grammar instruction in an intensive English language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America during the Summer C semester of 1998, seven Korean students' English language learning experiences both in and outside the program with a special focus on their experiences in the grammar classroom, and their writing skills change over time with an exploration of all factors that may have influenced that change. Results indicate that across all three different proficiency levels of the grammar classes for speakers of English as a second language, three phases of grammar instruction took place: They were first, the introduction, second, the explanation, and third, the communicative language production work using the learned grammatical items. Therefore, a communicative grammar approach was used in these three grammar classes. All three (different by proficiency level) grammar classes used an inductive grammar presentation method where the teachers first presented rich example sentences and cases of a new grammar item to be taught to their students, then students found out the grammar rule

PAGE 201

193 themselves as hypothesis, and the teachers finally presented the specific grammar rule to the students. Then direct detailed explanations of new grammar to be learned with rich example sentences to show the points to be taught followed the introduction. The key and the most important feature of the grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program was that there were rich communicative grammar practice activities at the end of each unit. Either speaking activities or writing activities using the already learned grammar points or a combination of both asked the students to practice the learned grammar in the context of real communication with one another or with the instructor. Related to these rich communicative language production activities in the grammar classrooms in the program was the existence of a supportive, but also challenging classroom atmosphere to facilitate the students' production of language. This was also one of the most significant features of the grammar instruction observed in the grammar classroom of the program. Teachers were highly dedicated to their job and worked hard, always making themselves available to the students at any time they needed the instructor. Students interacted with the teacher a lot to ask questions and to communicate with him/her as language production work in a supportive and comfortable ("nonthreatening") classroom atmosphere. Finally, the last significant feature of the grammar instruction provided in the grammar class of the intensive English language program was that it used a variety of authentic meaningful materials to teach grammar: Newspapers (the

PAGE 202

194 local student newspaper and other newspapers), audio-taped recordings of native speakers' speech in real life situations, and a video-tape recorded with the TVshow "The X-Files" were used besides the textbook materials. They may have enriched the students' English grammar learning experiences, raising their interests and motivation to learn English language. Ki Young Kwak liked communicative grammar instructional process, but did not like his grammar teacher for her lack in time management skills and for trying to be too friendly with her students in the program setting. Chul Soo Song thought the communicative granmiar practice activities done in his grammar class to be helpful for grammar, but he thought they did not fit with him and, instead, practiced his grammar through individual activities. But he liked his grammar teacher in that she gave individual attention to her students on their learning progress. The other five Korean students who participated in this study (except Kwak and Song) reacted positively to and liked the communicative grammar instructional process and their grammar teachers. Their main reasons why they liked communicative grammar instructional process and their grammar teachers were several: The first was diverse and interesting grammar practice activities provided in the grammar classrooms. Grammar was directly connected with their proficiency in speaking and writing skills, and was practiced following those goals. Those activities were fresh, interesting, and helpful for the students' development of speaking and writing skills for which grammar is basically learned.

PAGE 203

195 The second was the very comfortable, supportive, but challenging classroom atmosphere and availability of teachers, which might help the students' inquiry in class and facilitate their grammar learning. These five Korean students actively used this classroom atmosphere and the natural learning process by pursuing one's own inquiry assumed by all classmates and teachers to facilitate their own grammar learning. They freely approached their grammar teachers if they had any grammatical question of their own, and their classmates and the teachers assumed this learning process to be necessary and natural. Grammar teachers also helped in class for students to do the best of their job assigned to them, which could have helped the Korean students acquire English grammar. The third was good textbooks selected for use in the grammar classrooms (different by proficiency level). Those textbooks were systematic and organized in having students acquire new grammar items through self-study by providing lots of example paragraphs written in authentic language, intensive grammar practice exercises, well organized chapter summary at the end of each chapter, and spoken/written style issues. Therefore, textbooks chosen could have helped these five Korean students' grammar learning in the grammar classrooms. A final reason was the rich and authentic educational materials used in the grammar classes to facilitate students' grammar acquisition. Authentic materials like an audio-tape recorded with native Americans' speech in real life, a videotape recorded with the famous TV-show, newspapers (for example, the local student newspaper), etc. were used to teach grammar and to prompt students' production of language in the grammar classes. All of these reasons for which

PAGE 204

196 five Korean students liked communicative grammar instructional process and their grammar teachers were innovative things that they had never experienced in South Korea during their English language learning for at least six years. Three Korean students (Hyun Woo Choi, Chul Ho Park, and Young Hee Jun) showed their views that this kind of grammar instruction should be implemented also in South Korea to facilitate students' English language learning. The learning strategies of the Korean students explored in this study showed interesting and significant findings: Six Korean students (except Song) followed faithftilly the communicative grammar teaching approach in their use of strategies to practice grammar. They noticed the gap of their grammatical knowledge by observing real language uses by native speakers, and learned from that work how they should use grammar in their speech. And then they practiced their already learned grammar in the grammar classroom through spoken interactions with native speakers or through writing submitted to the instructors of the reading/writing class. Young Soo Park used private speech as another grammar practice strategy of his own to increase grammar practice opportunities. They practiced their grammar communicatively in accordance with the approach of their grammar classroom, not in rote memorization of grammar rules as was done following the grammar-translation or the audiolingual approach in South Korea (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). Five Korean students (except Kwak) liked and enjoyed their English language learning experiences in the intensive language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. They liked the

PAGE 205

197 grammar, the reading/writing, and the oral skills classes provided by the program because these classes taught necessary English language skills in which Korean students showed weaknesses. They also liked them because teaching approaches of these classes were new, fresh, and inexperienced ones compared with their English learning experiences in South Korea. One advanced level (in all of these classes) Korean student said that he really learned a lot in the program not only in terms of English language skills, but also in terms of computer using skills which are necessary and important skills for every English language learner. However, Young Soo Park did not like his English interaction class because the interaction leaders did not treat their students as fully educated adults in the students' home countries. Chul Ho Park and Young Hee Jun did not like their conversation strategies class because they felt this class not to be helpful for developing their English proficiency. Ki Young Kwak did not like all of his beginning level classes because he thought they did not provide him with systematic language teaching approaches that a beginning level second language learning student needs. Four Korean students (except Song and Kwak) also enjoyed the American setting outside the intensive English language program to learn English language more. They watched TV, movies, and listened to radios for better listening skills in English. Some students read lots of English materials like subject area reading materials, magazines, newspapers, novels, etc. in addition to the required readings in their reading/writing classes. However, these four students participated actively in oral interaction activities outside the program for their better oral skills in

PAGE 206

198 English. This phenomenon was due to their primary aim coming here in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America, which was a development of oral communication skills in English. Therefore, they interacted with native Americans by visiting nursing homes, by attending American churches, by interacting with their conversation partners, by interacting with their American friends, by participating in sports activities with native speakers and other international students, etc. Young Soo Park interacted a lot with other international students in his part-time job setting in addition to his interactions with native speakers in other places. Ki Young Kwak and Chul Soo Song did not find rich interaction opportunities or activities with native speakers outside the program setting, and they thought this was some kind of a big problem for their speaking skills' development. But Kwak participated somewhat in interactions with native speakers by going with his interaction leaders to American parties sometimes. All six Korean students showed significant over time improvement in their writing samples collected over two school semesters in their command of grammar, organization, vocabulary, content, and length. Some grammatical items were problematic for all six Korean students regardless of their writing proficiency levels ahhough these items developed over time. They were articles, prepositions, modal 'could,' adjectives (including possessive adjectives), adverbs, and plural 's.' Therefore, these grammar items need special care and concerns from the teachers' part in the near future in South Korea.

PAGE 207

199 Some factors were found to be significant that may have influenced these Korean students' writing skills' development over time; They were the Korean students' positive reactions to communicative grammar instruction, the amount of reading reported by the students, and the amount of spoken interactions enjoyed by the students outside the intensive English language program. Therefore, communicative grammar instruction might deserve an implementation in the near future in South Korea because four Korean students (except Song and Kwak) reacted to it positively, and this may have influenced their writing skills' development over time, given the fact that past grammar pedagogies in South Korea like the grammar-translation method and the audiolingual approach failed to develop Korean students' English language skills (Ellis, 1993). Also other factors found to be significant that could have influenced these Korean students' writing skills' development over time might deserve pedagogical implications for future English teachers in South Korea (see Implications in this chapter). Discussion In this study, the grammar instruction provided in the grammar classes for speakers of English as a second language in one major university's intensive English language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America confirmed Savignon's (1991) study of communicative language teaching in the fact that there was an interrelatedness of skills in both written and oral I communication, and there was the important need for learners to have the

PAGE 208

200 experience of communication and to participate in the negotiation of meaning to develop their communicative competence. Also another common feature of communicative language teaching with Savignon's (1991) study was found in this grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program: Activities like role plays and pair and other small-group activities as communicative language practice activities were employed. Savignon's (1991) study of communicative language teaching emphasized that in communicative approaches to grammar, explicit attention to form should be paid not only to sentence-level morphosyntactic features but also to broader features of discourse, sociolinguistic rules of appropriacy, and communication strategies themselves. Grammar instructional process in the intensive English language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America addressed this point exactly: In the advanced grammar class, sociolinguistic rules of appropriacy and communication strategies were taught for advanced grammar level students. The grammar instructional process in this study also confirmed Mitchell and Redmond's (1993) study of the need for communicative grammar instruction. In the study, these researchers advocated strongly the need for communicative grammar instruction because, to develop very proficient second language users, second language educators should not focus on grammar or communication in the second language classrooms, but on grammar and communication. This was exactly what happened in the grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the

PAGE 209

201 United States of America (see Chapter 4). Also these researchers provided significant features of communicative grammar instruction: Lots of contextualized grammar exercises, a guided inductive lesson using the target language, and lots of example sentences showing how the grammatical structure in focus works. These significant features coincided with those of the grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program. Another study that is confirmed by this study is Oxford, Lavine, and Crookall's (1989) study of the relationship between language learning strategies and a Communicative language approach. The researchers said in this study that the principles of a Communicative approach to language learning and teaching foster the use of appropriate and positive learning strategies, and the necessity of language teachers' (in a Communicative approach) learning strategy instruction for their students. Learning strategies were taught in addition to grammar in the intermediate level grammar classroom in this intensive English language program (see Chapter 5), and so the current study also confirmed Oxford et al.'s study of Communicative language approach. Therefore, common features of communicative language instruction existed in this study confirmed by the previous studies of communicative language instruction as already stated, and so the grammar instruction investigated in this study is communicative grammar instruction. But there were other features which were not suggested in the previous studies of communicative language instruction in this communicative grammar instruction. One of those features was that an affective classroom atmosphere where students were able to pursue one's own

PAGE 210

202 grammatical inquiry freely existed in the communicative grammar instruction provided in this intensive English language program. Another feature was that rich authentic educational materials were provided to enrich students' grammar learning experiences and to facilitate grammar instruction; A video-tape recorded with the famous TV-show, newspapers, an audio-tape recorded with real speech of native speakers of English, etc. were provided in this communicative grammar instruction. Therefore, this current study might extend research literature on communicative language instruction. Oxford, Hollaway, and Horton-Murillo's (1992) study of cross-cultural ESL/EFL language learning styles and strategies may be contradicted by this study: They said Korean students view a teacher to be the authority and are disturbed if this does not happen based on their cultural background, which was not true in this study (only one student, Ki Young Kwak, resisted much friendliness from a language teacher's part). The six Korean students who participated in this study viewed their teachers as facilitators and helpers for their English language learning and liked their teachers, not showing big resistance or disturbance at the differences in the way teachers act in this setting and in South Korea. Krashen's (1977) study may be contradicted by this study also. He said that second language learners differed in their approach to their own language learning based on their previous educational experiences of language learning. Therefore, conscious rule learning and heavy monitor use language learning groups were more likely to choose those approaches to language learning than

PAGE 211

203 Other learners because they were accustomed to those approaches in their previous language learning experiences. The six Korean second language learners who participated in this study followed the Communicative approach to grammar instruction and chose their own language learning strategies in accordance with that new language teaching approach (communication practices using learned grammar), not using very long used learning strategies of rote memorization of grammar rules in South Korea (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). Only one Korean student (Chul Soo Song) did not follow communicative language learning strategies, but followed his long used independent study habit in South Korea. The current study, however, may support Watkins, Reghi, and Astilla's (1991) study of Asian learners. This study showed that students of different cultures who received different educational approaches to learning did not differ in their learning processes due to their cultures. And so little evidence was found in this study to support the contention that Asian learners were more prone to rote learning than were other cultural groups. Therefore, the current study which explored seven Korean second language learners' perspectives on their English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program with a special focus on their experiences in the grammar classroom may contradict some research literature on learning style, strategies and culture and support others. It might build a new theory on Korean second language learners' learning style, strategies, and view of grammar instruction. This study found that the Korean students' positive reactions to communicative grammar instruction, the amount of reading outside the classes of

PAGE 212

204 the intensive English language program, and the amount of spoken interactions done outside the program may have influenced the developments in six Korean students' writing skills. Donelson (1967) studied variables distinguishing between effective and ineffective writers in the tenth grade. He found that effective writers more tended to be girls rather than boys, they had more number of magazines and more books in the home, the greater amount of formal education had been found in parents of effective writers, and effective writers read more widely and more frequently. This was first language research. Grabe (1991) said that fluency and amount of LI reading have a relationship to vocabulary development. Stotsky (1983) noted that better writers were better readers, better writers read more, better readers wrote more syntactically mature prose, and reading experiences improved writing more than grammar instruction or further writing exercises. These studies which investigated the writing skills' development were all first language studies, and the current study may confirm the findings of these studies in the point that the amount of reading may have influenced writing skills' development over time. The current study might extend literature on second language reading-writing relationship, and might also extend the literature on communicative approaches to teaching English by providing an insight that Korean second language learners' positive reactions to communicative grammar instruction may have influenced their writing skills' development over time. Mangelsdorf (1989) talked about the parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. He viewed these two as communication

PAGE 213

205 processes, and therefore said it is much better for these two skills to be taught together. These two language skills were dialogues with audiences, and therefore negotiation of meaning was involved for their development. The current study may confirm this study in that better negotiators of meaning through spoken interactions might be better communicators also in written mode of communication, a finding that may present pedagogical implications for both speaking and writing skills' development to future English educators in South Korea. Implications This study of communicative grammar instruction for Korean second language learners' writing skills in English might provide important pedagogical implications in the area of grammar instruction and writing instruction for English educators in the near future in South Korea. The researcher explores those possible pedagogical implications, and then limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are drawn. Given the fact that past foreign language pedagogies like the audiolingual method and the grammar-translation method did not work for students' language learning in South Korea (Ellis, 1993), Korean second language learners' positive reactions to communicative grammar instruction which may have influenced their writing skills in English in this study provide implications on grammar instruction for English educators in South Korea. Communicative grammar instruction could

PAGE 214

206 be implemented in South Korean setting as a new English grammar pedagogy. Therefore, textbooks used for grammar instruction, classroom atmosphere in which grammar is taught, grammar practice activities used in a grammar classroom, and educational materials used in a grammar classroom might need to be changed from the state in South Korea to that of communicative grammar instruction as described in this study. The Korean students who participated in this study were very goal-oriented and thought English grammar to be practiced together in real communicative contexts of speaking and writing for which it is learned. Therefore, activities in a grammar classroom might need to be communicative speaking or writing activities where students should use their learned grammar to communicate with other people in the class. This would increase not only the students' grammatical ability (Savignon, 1991), but also would develop speaking skills or writing skills. Textbooks might need to have lots of example paragraphs where newly learned grammar items are used in authentic language so that students can discover the uses of those grammar items inductively. They also might need to have diverse intensive grammar practice exercises: Sentence writing form, fiU-inthe-blanks form, multiple choice form, and error analysis could be used as practice exercises of learned grammar in a textbook. A well organized summary could be inserted at the end of each chapter in a grammar textbook in addition. Classroom atmosphere for grammar learning might need to be changed from the state in South Korea to that of communicative grammar instruction as described here in this study Students who are learning grammar should be able to

PAGE 215

pursue their ovm grammatical inquiries in class interacting with a grammar teacher and also interacting with classmates. Non-threatening, supportive, but challenging classroom atmosphere might be needed to facilitate students' grammar learning. This study also raises an issue about teacher training in South Korea: English teachers need pre-service teacher training in communicative language teaching to implement communicative grammar instruction in South Korea, and need to be experts in their field of teaching. This would serve their students' needs better, which would enhance the students' English language learning. Educational materials to teach grammar might need to incorporate more diverse and authentic language input to whet students' motivation and interests to learn grammar, and to be used as useful materials to teach and learn grammar. One of the most interesting findings of this study was that there were some grammatical items across the students' writing proficiency levels that were unsusceptible to the students' acquisition of them. They were articles, prepositions, adjectives (including possessive adjectives), adverbs, modal 'could,' and plural 's.' Therefore, grammar teachers in South Korea might also need to pay special attention to these items for their students' better acquisition of them. In this study, besides the Korean students' positive reactions to communicative grammar instruction, the amount of reading reported from the Korean students and the amount of spoken interactions done outside the classes of the intensive English language program may have influenced Korean second language learners' writing skills' development in English. Therefore, it might be

PAGE 216

208 possible to have some pedagogical implications for development of Korean second language learners' writing skills in English. Integrated skills instruction where speaking, listening, reading, and writing are taught altogether might have a possible pedagogical implication for Korean second language learners' writing skills' development (and also for speaking skills' development) for which grammar is learned (see Chapter 5). Group work and cooperative learning could be used regularly to promote discussions of the readings and to work with information from the readings to enrich students' writing experiences in an integrated skills' class. Also students might need to read extensively for vocabulary and the overall writing skills' development given the findings of this study (Grabe, 1991). Electronic mail could be used a lot for reading and writing experiences of Korean students. This could be used between a teacher and students, and between students and students. Korean students might have rich English interaction opportunities through this medium. For Korean students' rich reading experiences, the teacher could give pre-reading, reading, and post-reading activities to the students. Reading texts could be English magazines, English newspapers, short English essays, short English stories, easy English novels, and subject area related materials (math, science, social studies, etc.). In the prereading stage, an overview or a simple plot summary can be used to help students' prediction strategies. Students' prediction strategies can be expressed either orally or in quickwrites in a journal entry.

PAGE 217

209 During the reading stage, students are assigned to read the work. During this stage, the students can exchange their own ideas about the assigned reading with one another. Individual students can compare their personal reactions with one another and the teacher. Post-reading activities can extend the appreciation of the work. During post-reading, students can write to clarify their thinking and deepen understanding. The students may write their own reactions to the readings as the post-reading writing activities (Sasser, 1985). Given the tentative finding in this study that the amount of spoken interactions might help the development of writing skills for Korean second language learners, it is possible especially in an integrated skills instruction curriculum to have the following activities where speaking and writing skills are developed together. These activities are helpful for the development of these two skills because the negotiation of meaning and better expression of ideas in speaking might help another similar negotiation of meaning and better expression of ideas in writing: Peer review activities where students read drafts of each other's essays and make suggestions for revisions, oral presentation activities on subjects students are planning to write or are in the process of writing, and dialogue journal activity in which students write back and forth with another person, often another student and/or the teacher to express opinions and feelings in written informal language are all activities where writing skills could be developed in combination with speaking processes (Mangelsdorf, 1989). Students could be better communicators of their ideas in writing by having speaking processes, which would eventually improve their writing skills.

PAGE 218

210 Limitation of this study is the short time period of the study. A longer time period might enable the researcher to present more enriched and thicker descriptions of the communicative grammar instruction provided in the intensive English language program of one major university in the Southeastern part of the United States of America to future English teachers in South Korea. A second limitation of the study is that the researcher focused only on Korean second language learners' writing skills' development over time in combination with all possible complexity of factors. Not only writing skills development but also speaking skills development is a focus of English education in South Korea (Canale & Swain, 1980); therefore, an investigation of how speaking skills improve over time in this kind of an intensive English language program might give an insight to English teachers in South Korea for better English education. This work could be one future research issue. This study investigated especially seven adult Korean second language learners learning English as a second language in the setting of one major university's intensive language program in the Southeastern part of the United States of America. Five of them reacted to communicative granmiar instructional process and their teachers positively. The issue of whether this grammar instruction might work for Korean students in South Korea is a completely different issue, and should be studied also in a South Korean setting as a followup to this study. This would be another future research issue. At best, this study presents some insights and possibilities for grammar instruction to English educators in South Korea, and the findings of this study cannot be generalizable

PAGE 219

211 because the study setting is different from that of actual implementation of the approach. Also other factors found that may have influenced developments in Korean second language learners' writing skills in English are tentative given the nature of this study, and the pedagogical implications drawn based on these findings need to be implemented in South Korea as strategies for Korean students' writing skills development. This could be another future research issue.

PAGE 220

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOLS Informed Consent (Form A): Grammar Teachers June, 1998 Project title: A study of communicative grammar instruction for Korean second language learners' writing skills in English. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of Korean students' writing development over a 7-month period in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to all factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. What you will be asked to do in the study: The researcher will request your permission for taking field notes and using audio-tapes in your classroom to observe the class. Also she will interview you about your beliefs in English grammar learning and about your educational approaches in your own classroom. During the interview, you do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Time required: Classroom observations will take the whole amount of time of this current Summer C semester of 1998. The interview may take from 45 minutes to 1 hour. Risks: There are no more than minimal risks. Benefits/Compensation: There is no compensation nor other direct benefit to you. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law, and the data of this study will also be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. 212

PAGE 221

213 Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Sung Hwa Yang, a Ph.D. Candidate majoring in ESOL at the Instruction & Curriculum Department in the College of Education, University of Florida / Her home phone number: (352) 84651 13 / Her Supervisor's name: Dr. Clemens Hallman, in the Multilingual and Multicultural Education Program at the Instruction & Curriculum Department in the College of Education, University of Florida. Whom to contact about your rights in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 1 12250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 3261 1-2250; ph. 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: Date: Principal Investigator: Date: Informed Consent (Form B): Korean Students June, 1998 Project title: A study of communicative grammar instruction for Korean second language learners' writing skills in English. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of Korean students' writing development over a 7-month period in which they attended the intensive English language program in relation to all factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. What you will be asked to do in the study: The researcher will ask you to tell her your name and your reading/writing class level. And she will interview you about your views on the grammar instruction that you are now receiving at the intensive English language program of this university, your views on the English language learning, your learning strategies following the communicative grammar instruction, and your perspectives on English language learning experiences both in and outside the intensive language program. During the interview, you do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Time required: The interviews may take approximately 2 hours.

PAGE 222

214 Risks. There are no more than minimal risks. Benefits/Compensation: There is no compensation nor other direct benefit to you. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law, and the data of this study will also be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Sung Hwa Yang, a Ph.D. Candidate majoring in ESOL at the Instruction & Curriculum Department in the College of Education, University of Florida / Her home phone number: (352) 8465113 / Her Supervisor's name: Dr. Clemens Hallman, in the Multilingual and Multicultural Education Program at the Instruction & Curriculum Department in the College of Education, University of Florida. Whom to contact about your rights in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 1 12250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 32611-2250; ph. 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: Date: Principal Investigator: Date: Informed Consent (Form C): ReadingAVriting Teachers July, 1998 Project title: A study of communicative grammar instruction for Korean second language learners' writing skills in English. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of Korean students' writing development over a 7-month period in which

PAGE 223

215 they attended the intensive English language program in relation to all factors that may have influenced any change in the students' writing skills. What you will be asked to do in the study: The researcher will ask your permission to get access to Korean students' writing samples over time. Time required: Getting your permission will take only a few minutes. Risks: There are no more than minimal risks. Benefits/Compensation: There is no compensation nor other direct benefit to you. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law, and the data of this study will also be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw fi-om the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Sung Hwa Yang, a Ph.D. Candidate majoring in ESOL at the Instruction & Curriculum Department in the College of Education, University of Florida / Her home phone number: (352) 8465113/ Her Supervisor's name: Dr. Clemens Hallman, in the Multilingual and Multicultural Education Program at the Instruction & Curriculum Department in the College of Education, University of Florida. Whom to contact about your rights in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 1 12250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 32611-2250; ph. 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: Date: Principal Investigator: Date:

PAGE 224

APPENDIX B INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS Grammar Teacher Interview June 9-16, 1998 1 How much do you think grammar is important for the English language learning students? What is your belief about grammar learning? How do you think it can be acquired best? 2. What have been and wall be your plan and activities for your class to teach grammar? Do you think your class to be pretty much communicative? Or do you think you take a communicative approach in teaching grammar? And how do you correct students' grammatical errors either in speaking or in writing? 3. How do you "help" each student in your class for their better acquisition of English grammar? Do you feel any culture differences or conflicts in doing your activities in the class? And how do you feel Korean students doing their job in your class, that is to say, do they follow you well in your class or do you feel that they have hard time in learning your way of teaching the English grammar? First Korean Student Interview June 16-July 1, 1998 1 What is the purpose of learning English grammar? 2. How can you improve your English grammar? And how do you think English grammar should be taught? (1. & 2.: Brainstorming on grammar instruction) 3. What is a grammar teacher's role in a grammar class? And what do you think of your grammar teacher now? 216

PAGE 225

217 4. What do you think of the grammar class that you are now in? Do you hke it or not? And why? (3. & 4.: Perspectives on communicative grammar instruction) 5. What advice can you give (especially from your own experience) about how to be a better language learner (especially grammar)? 6. How do you practice your grammar? (5. & 6.: Learning strategies used to practice grammar) Second Korean Student Interview July 9-24. 1998 1 Which class do you like the most in this intensive English language program (which class do you enjoy the most)? And why? Which class you do not like very much? And why? (1 .: English language learning experiences in the intensive language program) 2. What do you read? Do you read a lot? What English language learning activities you do on your own outside the classes of this intensive language program? And what are your personality and hobbies? (2.: English language learning experiences outside the intensive language program)

PAGE 226

REFERENCES Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching bv principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1 (1), 147. Celce-Murcia, M. (1985, February). Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in language teaching. TESOL Newsletter, pp. 1,4-5. Celce-Murcia, M., & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of verbal behavior. Language. 35 (1), 26-58. Cohen, R. A. (1969, October). Conceptual styles, culture conflict and nonverbal tests of intelligence. American Anthropologist, 71 (5), 828-856. Cummins, J. (1980). The exit and entry fallacy of bilingual education. NABE Journal, 4 (3). 25-59. Diesing, P. (1971). Patterns of discovery in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine. Donelson, K. L. (1967). Variables distinguishing between effective and ineffective writers in the tenth grade. The Journal of Experimental Education, 35(4), 37-41. Dunn, R. S., & Griggs, S. A. (1988). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 1-23. Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Ouarterlv. 27 (1). 91-1 13. 218

PAGE 227

219 Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly. 25 (3\ 375-406. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research. London: Routledge. Kang, H. W. (1992). Cultural interference in second language reading. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 95-1 19. Keefe, J. W., & Languis, M. (1983). Learning Stages Network Newsletter (New Yorkl 4 (2). Krashen, S. D. (1977). The monitor model for adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, &. M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 152-161). New York: Regents Publishing Company. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press. Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching. A pplied Linguistics, 6 (2), 173-189. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 12, 429-448.

PAGE 228

220 Mangelsdorf, K. (1989). Parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 134-145). New York: Longman. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative a pproach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mitchell, J. T & Redmond, M. L. (1993). Rethinking grammar and communication. Foreign Language Annals, 26 (1), 13-19. Moreno, V & Di Vesta, F. J. (1991). Cross-cultural comparisons of study habits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (2), 231-239. Oxford, R. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for teacher training. System. 17, 235-247. Oxford, R., Ehrman, M., & Lavine, R. Z. (1991). Style wars: Teacherstudent style conflicts in the language classroom. In S. S. Magnan (Ed ), Challenge in the 1990s for college foreign language programs (pp. 1-25). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R. L., Hollaway, M. E., & Horton-Murillo, D. (1992). Language learning styles: Research and practical considerations for teaching in the multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom. System, 20 (4), 439-456. Oxford, R. L., Lavine, R. Z., & Crookall, D. (1989). Language learning strategies, the communicative approach, and their classroom implications. Foreign Language Annals, 22 (1), 29-39. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and education. New York: Academic Press. Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21. 87-111. Richards, J. C, & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). A pproaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 229

221 J Sasser, L. (1985). Teaching literature to language minority students. In P. A. RichardAmato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers (pp. 300-315). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley Publishing Company. Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly. 25 (2\ 261-277. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1989). Intensive ESL programs in Quebec primary schools. TESL Canada, 7, 1 1-32. Stem, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60, 627-642. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Watkins, D., Reghi, M., & Astilla, E. (1991). The Asian-leamer-as-a-roteleamer stereotype: Myth or reality? Educational Psvchology. 11 (1). 21-34. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988, December). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly. 22 (4). 575-592. Worthley, K. M. E. (1987, July). Learning style factor of field dependence/independence and problem solving strategies of Hmong refugee students. Master's thesis. University of Wisconsin, Stout. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2"'* ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yoshiwara, F. M. (1983). The education of Asian and Pacific Americans: Historical perspectives and prescriptions for the future. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. I 1

PAGE 230

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sung Hwa Yang, the daughter of Jae Chul Yang and Jung Won Baeck, was bom in Seoul, South Korea, on December U, 1971. After graduating from Dong Duk Women's High School in Seoul, South Korea, in 1990, she received a B. A. degree in English literature from Seoul National University in 1994. She then entered the Graduate School of the Foreign Language Education Department in the same university, majoring in English education. She attended the Graduate School for one semester as a master's degree student, and then moved to the University of Florida for her continued study in the Graduate School. She transferred her credit hours earned as a master's degree student in the Seoul National University to her master's work in the University of Florida, and continued her graduate study in the area of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (T)(ESOL). In 1996, she earned a Master of Education degree in Second Language Education in the University of Florida. In 1997, she also earned the TESOL Certificate from the Linguistics Department in the University of Florida. After achieving her master's degree, she started her doctoral work in Second Language Education in the University of Florida. Her research interest has been English education for adult second language learners with a focus on grammar and writing. 222

PAGE 231

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, m scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Clemens L. Hallman, Chair Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Assistant Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. M. David Miller Professor of Foundations of Education

PAGE 232

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms t acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Roger M. Thompson Associate Professor of English This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College ( Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial ftilfillment the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May 1999 Dean, Graduate School