See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334223880

Form-focused Grammar Instruction: Effects on Grammar Accuracy and Oral

and Writing Proficiency in English

Conference Paper · July 2019

CITATIONS READS

2 1,583

1 author:

Richard Lamban Oandasan

University of the Philippines
1 PUBLICATION   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Linguistic landscape and MTB-MLE in the Philippines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Lamban Oandasan on 04 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Form-focused Grammar Instruction: Effects on Grammar Accuracy and
Oral and Writing Proficiency in English

Richard Lamban Oandasan, Midway Maritime Foundation Inc, Philippines

The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2016

Official Conference Proceedings

Abstract
One of the main goals of second language learners is to develop awareness of
language structure (Bialystok, 1989). To achieve this goal, there has been a paradigm
shift from form-focused to meaning-focused type of instruction over the years.
However, through a number of researches, some researchers have explored the
effectiveness of switching back to form-focused grammar instruction (FFGI) to
develop proficiency in a language. Motivated by this “pendulum-shift” to pedagogical
grammar, the researcher investigated the effectiveness of FFGI and its relationship to
two macro skills in language development, speaking and writing. This study aimed to
explore the effects of form-focused grammar instruction (FFGI) on grammar accuracy,
oral and writing proficiency. It also aimed to establish the correlation between oral
and writing proficiency after the participants’ exposure to FFGI.
The study adopted a one-group pretest-posttest design. An oral exam by Cromwell
and an online writing test for writing proficiency were administered to the participants
of the study. Afterwards, the participants were exposed to the intervention (FFGI).
The same tests in the pre-test were administered during post-test. The findings
revealed that there was a significant difference in the participants’ pre- and post-test
scores in the grammar accuracy test. Conversely, there was no significant relationship
between grammar accuracy and oral and writing proficiency. It was concluded that
FFGI can contribute to the improvement of grammar accuracy of students. However,
knowledge of grammar rules does not automatically result in oral and writing
proficiency.

Keywords: oral proficiency, writing proficiency, form-focused grammar instruction,

grammar accuracy

iafor
The International Academic Forum
www.iafor.org
Introduction

An understanding of language and its structure is essential for communicative

purposes. This is in conjunction with one of the components in Savignon’s (1976)
communicative competence model which is grammatical competence. It pertains to
the ability to recognize the lexical, morphological, syntactic, and phonological
features of a language and to make use of these features to interpret and form
sentences. Clearly, it implies the importance of grammar in language learning and
teaching.

The Philippine education system puts premium on the understanding of the English
language structure in developing the communication skills, both oral and writing, of
Filipino students as reflected in the curriculum of both basic and tertiary education.
Even with the Enhanced Basic Education program (K to 12 curriculum), grammar
lessons remain to be integral components of the English subject. In a larger scale, it
recognizes the vital role that English plays in producing highly-skilled and globally-
competitive citizens.

However, there are alarming realities that English quality is seriously deteriorating
and that mastery of English among Filipinos is declining. By a common observation,
Filipino students can no longer communicate well in the English language as
evidenced by the decline in their proficiency. In a survey conducted in 2004, it was
observed that the English proficiency of Filipino overseas workers, both skilled and
non-skilled, has likewise declined (Funtanilla, 2005). What is even alarming is the
poor performance in English proficiency examinations even among teachers
themselves (Melencio, 2007). For instance, the mean score of 117, 728 permanent
Grade 1 and 2 public school teachers in the entire country who took the Test of
English Proficiency for Teachers (TEPT) and Process Skills Test (PST) in 2012 was
50.53. This indicates low level of proficiency based on the descriptive equivalent set
by the Department of Education (DepEd).

Indubitably, these alarming observations challenge English teachers to develop

writing and oral proficiency among students. English teachers face the greater
responsibility of enhancing such skills to help students realize the goals and specific
learning outcomes set by the English curriculum while dealing with the other factors
affecting second language learning and teaching. As Funtanilla (2005) noted in her
study, language specialists who view language as something learned through use and
practice are convinced that the more exposed a learner is to the structure and use of
the target language, the better he/she learns. Bachman’s (1990) grammatical
competence strands, cited by Brown (2000), were also used by Malik (2012) in his
study where he indicated that the language competence aspect that affects English oral
proficiency the most was limited knowledge and poor understanding of the English
language.

In conjunction with these findings, there are several issues related to the development
of students’ oral and writing proficiency. Some of these issues concern the current
pedagogical practices that may have a contribution to students’ low oral and writing
examination results. Thus, it is timely to find out whether or not teachers are able to
capitalize on the time used for grammar drills and exercises. It is worthy to investigate
whether or not such drills have aided or contributed to the development of English
proficiency of the students who have been exposed to grammar instruction for a long
period of time. More than the time spent in learning and understanding the structure
of the English language, the manner in which grammar lessons are taught sparks
interest in the researcher given that it is an important factor in the teaching-learning
process. Consequently, it motivated the researcher to look into grammar teaching
methodologies in order to develop English proficiency.

This study aimed to explore and assess the effectiveness of form-focused grammar
instruction in promoting not just the oral but also the writing proficiency of students.
Likewise, it investigated the correlation between speaking and writing, two important
language skills, after implementing a form-focused grammar instruction. In essence,
this study capitalized on FFGI as a tool in addressing difficulties specific to the
declining writing and oral proficiency in English of a group of Filipino students.

Need to Focus on Grammar

The selection of form-focused grammar instruction as an intervention was grounded

on several theories and related studies. According to Enverga-Florece (2006), the
conscious understanding of the target language system and its features: phonology,
orthography, morphology, and syntax is necessary if learners are to produce correct
language forms and use them appropriately in verbal or written communication. It
presupposes that teaching of grammar is a sufficient condition for language.

Concerning form-focused instruction, Hayashi (1995) cites three positions in relation

to learning the structure of a language. First is the non-interface position which claims
that formal instruction such as FFGI has little effect on second language acquisition
and learning because explicit knowledge does not become implicit knowledge
(Krashen, 1982). The second position is the strong interface position which claims
that knowledge acquired explicitly becomes implicit knowledge through constant
practice (Sharwood-Smith, 1981). Finally, the weak interface position (Ellis, 1990),
affirms that FFGI can be useful in natural communication depending on the target
structure. Among these positions, the main influence in the researcher’s conduct of
form-focused grammar instruction was the strong interface position and the weak
interface position. Thus, various activities that drill the students’ mastery of the
grammar structure were carefully chosen and implemented during the intervention.

The study also anchored its framework on the claim of Swain (1985) in his output
hypothesis which states that speaking or writing can help students move from
semantic to syntactic processing such as adjectival agreements, subject-verb
agreements, subordination, and coordination. This claim was supported by Malik’s
study in 2012. The study investigated the factors affecting students’ fluency level in
the second language and their effects on oral proficiency and fluency. The results
indicated that oral fluency was most of the time affected by grammar. After analyzing
the recording of 50 students, the researcher captured more mistakes in grammar
followed by vocabulary and pronunciation. These mistakes were highly correlated
with pauses due to hesitation and word repetition. It is therefore clearly understood
that grammar as well as vocabulary produced direct impact upon the dependent
variable pauses due to hesitation and word repetition. Based on the results of the study,
it can be concluded that if students do not have proper knowledge of grammar rules
and their automatic application in verbal speech (pertaining to the output component
of Swain’s hypothesis), they will not be able to consciously raise their awareness of
grammar structure and consequently, this will prevent them from speaking more
fluently.

Clearly, the study shows the importance of Swain’s suggestion: learners should be
engaged not only in input which she believes, involves comprehension and that
requires little syntactic organization but also in output which includes negotiation of
meaning and talking about language in order to succeed in acquiring and learning the
language. With these observations and findings, the study did not only focus on
providing input (form-focused grammar instruction) but also concentrated on
analyzing participants’ outputs (speaking and writing tasks during the implementation
of the intervention) to further explore and validate the claims in Swain’s output
hypothesis.

Form-Focused Grammar Instruction

The history of second language teaching and learning has alternated between two
opposite approaches - those that focused on analyzing the language, i.e., language
usage (focus on forms) and those that focused on using the language, i.e., language
use (focus on meaning) (Afshari, 2012). The focus on forms (FonFs) pertains to the
systematic teaching of language structure and features while focus on form (FonF)
refers to the instruction that focuses on the communicative tasks or activities with the
language feature taught incidentally, that is, only when the need arises.

While the advent of these approaches has yielded some significant contributions to the
field of second language teaching and learning, it has also posed a dilemma as to
whether or not teachers should focus on form or meaning. Further, it has elicited
several conflicting and various views and criticisms among linguists, teachers, and
researchers. Moreover, it has paved the way for certain studies that attempted to
determine which methodology is more effective in learning and teaching a second
language.
The approach focusing on form has numerous definitions but to simplify, Spada has
provided a nicely-worded definition: “any pedagogical effort which is used to draw
the learner’s attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly” (1997:73). In
essence, it is not just confined to the language form per se since the other end of the
continuum implies indirect reference to forms, learner’s paying attention to specific
linguistic features in input and the integration of forms into communicative tasks or
grammar consciousness raising by Ellis. Accordingly, in this study, communicative
activities were incorporated in speaking and writing tasks applying the rules of
grammar. The form-focused was solely done during the delivery of instruction on
grammar lessons.

Conceptual Framework

Below is the conceptual framework of the current study. It reflects the effects of a
method in teaching grammar (form-focused grammar instruction or FFGI) on the
essential components of communicative competence and language skills in English
(oral and writing proficiency) and the extent of its significance. First, it indicates how
FFGI is related to grammar accuracy which reflects the first research question.
Second, it depicts the relationship between grammar accuracy and both writing and
oral proficiency in English which is indicated in the second research question. Finally,
it shows the possible relationship between oral and writing proficiency in English.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the study

Research Questions

The focus of this study was the evaluation of the effectiveness of form-focused
grammar instruction (FFGI) in developing oral and writing proficiency in English of
college students. After the implementation of FFGI, it further investigated the
correlation between oral and writing proficiency in English. Specifically, the study
sought to address three research questions. First, Is there a significant difference in
the study participants’ pre and post test scores in the grammar accuracy test after
going through form-focused grammar instruction? Second, Is there a significant
relationship between the students’ grammar accuracy and English oral proficiency
and the students’ grammar accuracy English writing proficiency? Finally, Is there a
significant correlation between students’ oral and writing proficiency in English after
they undergo form-focused grammar instruction?

Research Design

To obtain the necessary information for this research, a One-Group-Pretest-Posttest

design was employed. The pre-test and the post-test consisted of two sets of tests: one
for oral proficiency and another one for writing proficiency. Results of these tests
were collated and interpreted in light of the questions posed for this study. An explicit
aspect of this study was the use of form-focused grammar instruction as an
intervention emphasizing on the structure of the language rather than its meaning. The
study also utilized a descriptive correlation method to determine the relationship
between the oral and writing proficiency of students in English after the
implementation of FFGI. This method was deemed the most appropriate for this study
as it attempted to explain the relationships and the extent of the significance between
and among its variables.

Research Locale/Participants

To realize the objectives of this study, forty-two (42) college students of a private
non-sectarian university in Manila enrolled in an English grammar course during the
first term of AY 2014-2015 served as study participants. They were mostly from the
College of Business Administration but were pursuing majors such as Customs
Administration, Operations Management, and Accountancy. One participant was
taking International Relations while another was majoring in Multimedia Arts.
However, at the end of the term, there were only thirty-one (31) participants left due
to attrition related to absences, course dropping, and unavailability of either the pre-
test or the post-test results in speaking and/or writing.

Instruments

As this study operated on a One-Group-Pretest/Posttest design, two sets of tests for

the pre-test stage and the post-test stage were utilized. Cromwell’s oral pre-test (short
autobiography) and a standardized grammar accuracy test including five open-ended
questions on some selected topics was utilized to determine their writing proficiency.

Oral Pre-Test/Post-Test. The researcher used one of Cromwell’s speaking tasks in his
oral exam – narration of short autobiography. This oral pre-test was deemed
appropriate for the self-introduction activity at the start of the course. During the pre-
intervention phase of the study, the participants were asked to introduce themselves
by sharing their autobiography. The self-introduction of each participant was set at
two to three minutes. Accordingly, it was recorded using a digital camera and
afterwards rated by three English professors using the oral proficiency rating scale to
ensure objectivity and uniformity of rating. The highest possible score for the test was
35 points. The same oral test, which was the autobiography, was used after the
intervention to measure improvement in the participants’ oral proficiency.

Purdue Online Writing Test. In order to assess the grammar accuracy and the writing
proficiency of the participants, the researcher adopted the Purdue Writing Test, an
online standardized test. This was chosen because it had already undergone validation
as it was used in a study by Funtanilla (2005) and the test items are consistent with the
grammar topics outlined in the course syllabus of the selected participants. The test
consists of two sections: grammar and free writing. The grammar section consists of
60 items about basic grammar and proper use of the eight parts of speech. The free
writing consists of five topics from which study participants can choose. These topics
include the following: the importance of attending a college or university, a
comparison between knowledge gained from experience and knowledge gained from
books, the qualities of good neighbors, success as a result of hardwork, and parents as
best teachers. In the free writing, the participants were instructed to choose one topic
and write a short composition about it in at least three paragraphs. The objective part
of the test was rated by the researcher while the free writing test was rated by the
three faculty raters from the English department. They were the same raters who
assessed the oral proficiency of the participants.

Oral Proficiency Scoring Rubric. For objective rating of the oral tests, the researcher
adopted the oral proficiency rating scale used by Ibanez (2001) in her study on
cooperative language learning approach towards English as a Second Language (ESL)
Oral Proficiency. The rating scale has categories that include the four aspects of
communicative competence by Savignon namely, grammatical competence,
sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. The
categories are rated on a scale of 1 to 5, the total scores are added up, and a simple
average is taken from the examinee’s overall rating. This was used by the three
professors of English from the College of Arts and Sciences – Department of English
and Literature (CAS-DEL) in the research locale.
Writing Proficiency Scoring Rubric. To objectively assess the written outputs of the
students, the researcher utilized Lee and Paulson’s (1992) Evaluation Criteria for
Compositions which was also used by Baetiong (2004) and recently by Envarga-
Florece (2006) in their respective dissertations. The analytic marking scheme consists
of five criteria arranged according to the assigned numerical score each of the criteria
received. The criteria include content, organization, vocabulary, language, and
mechanics. Among the writing rubrics, this was selected as it had undergone a series
of validations having been used in two related studies. Likewise, the descriptors for
each criterion are very detailed particularly for language and mechanics. This was
also use by the same raters for oral proficiency.

Lesson Plans. The researcher prepared twenty-five (25) sets of lesson plans for the
entire semester based on the grammar topics outlined in the syllabus. Prior to the
implementation, the lesson plans were submitted to the evaluators for their review and
validation. Some of the evaluators’ suggestions were considered in the revision and
execution of the plan. The lesson proper usually began with motivational activity.
Afterwards, the researcher discussed the lesson using form-focused instruction.
Guided practice and individual practice followed the instruction. One of the key
features of the plan was the reinforcement activities that always came in pairs – one
for oral proficiency labelled as Speak Up and another for writing proficiency Write
Up.

Data Collection Procedure

The data collection consisted of three phases: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-
intervention. Each phase comprised of an activity for oral and writing proficiency
with corresponding data to be collected.

Data collection started after administering the two tests during the pre-intervention
phase of this study. For the oral pre-test, the participants introduced themselves
through their autobiography. The participants were given two to three minutes to
share their autobiography. As they spoke, their speeches were recorded using a digital
camera facilitated by the researcher himself. Two class meetings were allotted for the
oral pre-test because the initial forty-two (42) participants could not be
accommodated in one class meeting only. Thereafter, the speech samples were
transcribed, analyzed and evaluated using the oral proficiency rating scale to account
for the grammatical lapses in the course of the oral test. On a separate class meeting
after the oral pre-test, the students took the Purdue Writing test consisting of 60
objective items on basic grammar and an essay part with five (5) topics. In other
words, the oral and writing pre-tests were administered on separate class meetings.
For the essay part of the pre-writing test, Lee and Paulson’s (1992) Evaluation
Criteria for Compositions was used in rating the participants’ composition. The results
gathered from both the oral and written tests at this stage served as baseline
performance data for the study.

Data Analysis

In analyzing the data obtained for this study, the following statistical tools and
techniques were used to ensure valid, scientific, and systematic presentation, analysis,
and interpretation of data: weighted mean, frequency count, standard deviation,
Pearson r for the third research question about the correlation between students’ oral
and writing proficiency in English after they undergo FFGI, and the T-test for paired
samples.

The weighted mean was used to compute the participants’ average scores in the tests.
In comparing two means from a single sample arranged in a before-after panel design,
the t-ratio was the most appropriate statistical tool to employ (Weirs, 2007).
Accordingly, in this study, the t-ratio is used to compare two means (oral proficiency
and writing proficiency means) from a single sample (a college class) arranged before
and after the intervention (FFGI). Further, the parametric test (t-test) was used to
determine whether or not the difference between the means was significant.

Results

Grammar Accuracy before and after FFGI

Table 1 shows the results of the study participants’ pre and post-test scores in the
grammar accuracy test. The mean score of the participants in the pre-test is 34.39 and
the standard deviation (SD) is 6.291. On the other hand, the mean score in the post-
test is 36.13 and the SD is 6.874. This indicates an increase of 1.74 points.

Table 1
Pre-test and post test scores in the grammar accuracy test

To determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the study

participants’ pre and post-test scores in the grammar accuracy test, the paired sample
T-test was employed. Based on the Paired Sample T-test, the null hypothesis stating
that there was no significant difference between the grammar pre-test and post-test
scores was rejected because the p-value (p=.037) is less than 0.05. This means that
the participants’ pre- and post-test scores in the grammar accuracy test are
significantly different in favor of the post-test scores. Thus, this means that the
students’ grammar accuracy score has improved after going through FFGI.

Grammar Accuracy and English Oral and Writing Proficiency

Table 2 indicates that the participants’ grammar accuracy has an inverse relationship
with English oral proficiency. The Pearson’s correlation value is -0.156. This value
points to a moderate inverse relationship which means that even if there was an
improvement in grammar accuracy, it did not necessarily lead to an improvement in
the participants’ oral proficiency. Despite the presence of a moderate inverse
relationship, the p-value at 0.402, which is greater than the set level of significance
(p=0.05), suggests that there is not enough evidence to show that the relationship
between grammar accuracy and English oral proficiency is not significant.
Table 2
Relationship between the participants’ grammar accuracy and English oral
proficiency

The same results were observed for the relationship between grammar accuracy and
English writing proficiency as specified in Table 3. The Pearson’s correlation value is
-.308. This value implies moderate inverse relationship which means that even if there
was an improvement in grammar accuracy, it did not lead to an improvement in the
participants’ writing proficiency. However, after statistical treatment, the p-value is at
0.092 which is likewise greater than the set level of significance (p=0.05). This shows
that the relationship between grammar accuracy and English writing proficiency
is also not significant.

Table 3
Relationship between the participants’ grammar accuracy and English writing
proficiency

The data shown above suggest that neither an increase nor a decrease in English oral
and writing proficiency can necessarily be attributed to an increase or decrease in
grammar accuracy. The non-interface cognitive model of Krashen (1982) can be used
to partly explain the non-significance of the relationship between grammar accuracy
and writing and oral proficiency. Using the model, Krashen claimed that form-
focused instruction has little effect on second language acquisition. Explicit grammar
knowledge which is learned from the instruction does not become implicit knowledge
which can be automatically used in natural communication. This means that even if
the students learn the rules, they do not understand them immediately and thus, they
cannot be expected to use them spontaneously and accurately in interaction whether in
task-based or real-life communication.

Participants’ Oral and Writing proficiency after they undergo FFGI

Based on the data shown in Table 4, oral and writing proficiency have positive
moderate relationship with a correlation value of 0.293. However, the p-value (p-
value = 0.11) is more than the 0.05 level of significance; therefore, the positive
moderate relationship is not significant. In essence, this means that there is no
significant correlation between the participants’ oral and writing proficiency in
English after they undergo FFGI. This suggests that an improvement in oral
proficiency does not necessarily translate to an improvement in writing proficiency
and vice versa.

Table 4
Correlation between the participants’ oral and writing proficiency before and after
FFGI

Conclusions and Implications

Based on the findings obtained in this study, the following conclusions were drawn:
First, form-focused grammar instruction contributes to the improvement of
grammar accuracy of students. The explicit discussion of grammar rules and target
structures, drills, repetitions and error correction aids in learning a language as also
noted by Sheen (2003). The marked improvement in the participants’ grammar
accuracy score indicates their explicit knowledge of the target language. As explicit
knowledge is mostly considered to be the starting point of second language
proficiency (e.g., DeKeyser, 1998; O'Malley, Chamot, & Walker, 1987; Sharwood
Smith, 1988), there is a direct relationship between teaching grammar and second
language proficiency. Bialystok (1994) shares the same view that learners of second
language learners can utilize explicit information for developing analyzed linguistic
knowledge. Based on the assumption that language is a structured knowledge system,
Bialystok argues that one of the main goals of L2 learners is to develop awareness of
the structure of language. As posited by Macaro (2006), the effectiveness of FFGI is
not conclusive but the focus on grammar will be beneficial. Grammatical ability is
highly correlated with second language (L2) proficiency. Students who learn grammar
do not only focus on form but also grasp meanings when sentences are complicated.
Further, students who have high grammatical ability can understand meanings and
write well-organized compositions even though they still produce errors on those that
were not explicitly taught. Thus, the teaching of grammar using form-focused
instruction is still valuable in language classrooms.

Second, the knowledge of grammar rules does not automatically result in

improved oral and writing proficiency. In this study, there was no significant
relationship found between grammar accuracy and oral and writing proficiency.
While it is true that the study participants improved in their grammar accuracy after
going through FFGI, there were a number of instances when they were not able to
apply the correct language forms as evident in the incorrect grammar structures in
their oral and written outputs. Despite being exposed to FFGI, the participants’
outputs still reflected a number of errors related to tense consistency, subject-verb
agreement, correct use of prepositions, pronoun-antecedent agreement, and
parallelism. However, the persistence of these errors cannot be misconstrued as FFGI
being an ineffective teaching methodology in developing students’ proficiency in the
language. Conversely, the improvement in grammar, oral and writing proficiency
cannot also be fully associated with FFGI being an effective approach to improve the
students’ communicative ability. Because of sample size constraints and the interplay
of other factors not accounted for in this study such as first language background,
second language proficiency level, learning styles, structure complexity, and affective
filter of the study participants, the results were not fully conclusive particularly
regarding the relationship between the participants’ grammar accuracy and writing
and oral proficiency as well as the correlation between the students’ oral and writing
proficiency in English after their exposure to FFGI. In this context, the effectiveness
or ineffectiveness of FFGI cannot be generalized. In order to address this weakness,
the study may be replicated involving a bigger group and considering the previously
stated factors that may have an effect on second language learning.

To further determine the effectiveness of FFGI as a methodology in developing

language proficiency, future researchers can replicate the study by a) involving more
participants for the results to be more conclusive; b) extending the study for a longer
period of time (longitudinal study) to establish the effect of sustained FFGI; c)
including an experimental group that will undergo non-FFGI for comparison and
contrast of effect; and d) integrating it with other pedagogical interventions like
communicative approach, process writing, and reading-writing connection for further
establishment of its pros and cons. The future researchers, who are particularly
interested in pedagogical grammar, can also conduct a similar study that will take into
account the developmental level of the learners. This recommendation was based on
the weak interface model which claims that the effect of explicit instruction such as
FFGI in learning a target language form relates to the learners’ stage of development.
The researchers can implement FFGI among three groups based on level of
proficiency such as beginning, intermediate, and advanced and consequently, compare
the groups in terms of who would benefit the most from explicit instruction.

In summary, language proficiency is not solely affected by a particular kind of

instruction. Explicit knowledge acquired from explicit instruction such as FFGI does
not necessarily convert to implicit knowledge of real-life communicative functions
particularly involving speaking and writing. Nonetheless, the teaching of grammar,
regardless of whatever approach or methodology, will always find its niche and value
in the domains of a language class.
References

Afshari, S. (2012). Reexamining the role of implicit and explicit focus on form:
Iranian EFL context. Iran: Macrothink Institute, International Journal of Linguistics,
ISSN 1948- 5425, Vol. 4, No. 2.

Baetiong, L. (2004). Cognitive academic language proficiency threshold level skills in

Filipino and cross-lingual transfer. UP Diliman, Quezon City.

Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. Fourth Edition.

New York: Pearson Education Company.

Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is communicative approach? ELT

Journal

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51,

Supplement 1:1-46.

Ellis, R. (1990). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Learner uptake in communicative
ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.

Enverga-Florece, E. (2006). Writing proficiency as focus of expressive and integrated

language teaching approaches. Diliman, Quezon, City: UP DIliman

Funtanilla, S. (2005). A comparison of the effectiveness of grammar-based approach

and the integrated-communication based approach on the teaching of english
grammar: basis for proposed program of instruction. MLQ University, Manila.

Hayashi, K. (1995). Form-focused instruction and second language proficiency.

Retrieved on October 7, 2014 from http://rel.sagepub.com/

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman

Malik, Nadeem, (2012). English as a second language in relation with verbal fluency
in SBK women university quetta. International Journal of Academic Research in
Progressive Education and Development January 2012, Vol. 1, No. 1.

Macaro, E., & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction
make all the difference? Language Teaching Research. Retrieved on October 7, 2014
from http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/10/3/297

Melencio, G. (2007). Filipino english teachers take language proficiency

examinations. Retrieved on April 14, 2015 from
https://filipinotefl.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/filipino-english-teachers-take-
language-proficiency-examinations/
 Savignon, S. J. (1976, April). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom
practice. Paper presented at the Central States Conference on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages, Detroit, Michigan.

Savignon, S.J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL
Quarterly, 25, 261-277.

Savignon, S. J., & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL

contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. IRAL, 41(3), 223-49. Retrieved on
November 3, 2013 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.010

Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form-a myth in the making. English Language Teaching
Journal, 57(3), 225-233.

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A

review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.

Spada, N. &Lightbown. (2008) Form focused instruction: Isolated or integrated?.

TESOL Quaterly. Vol. 42 (2). June 2008. Pp.181-207

Spada, N. and P.M. Lightbown. 1993. Instruction and the development of questions in
L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15:205-224.

Suntharesan, V. (2013). Implicit grammar teaching activities. Retrieved on November

3, 2013 from http://www.languageinindia.com/

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. 235-256). Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Weiers, R. (2007). Introduction to business statistics. Pennsylvania, USA: Cengage

Learning.

Weigle,S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Series Eds. Alderson, J. Charles & Lyle. F.
Bachman. Cambridge University Press. pp. 108-139.

Xiao-xia, Q. (2006). Form-focused instruction in a communicative language

classroom. USA: Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN1539-8072, Dec. 2006, Volume

Contact e-mail: mmfirlo@gmail.com

View publication stats