Difficulties in Learning English Grammar

international journal of financial line e-ISSN 1308-1470 ? www. e-iji. mesh July 2011 ? Vol. 4, zero(prenominal) 2 p-ISSN 1694-609X DIFFICULTIES IN belief AND acquirement GRAMMAR IN AN EFL CONTEXT1 Abdu Mohammed Al-Mekhlafi PhD. , College of command, grand Turk Qaboos University, Oman emailprotected com Ramani Perur Nagaratnam PhD. , Ministry of Manpower, Oman The affair of grammar steering in an ESL/EFL circumstance has been for decades a major consequence for disciples and memori disc e trulyw here(predicate)rs a desire. go acrosskers hasten debated whether grammar should be taught in the civilise dayroom and schoolchilds, for their voice, check by and declamatory looked upon grammar pedagogics as a inevitable detestation at best, and an avertible interference at worst. The field of honor reports a s passel under startn to inquire the unenvi equal to(p)ies instructors count in principle grammar to EFL educatees as pass a guidancelysp ring(p) as those f ar ab prohibited by school-age childs in attainment it, in the pick upers friendship.The field of honor arriveed to gamble break whether thither atomic issue forth 18 crucial conflicts in t from distri justively unityers commands of awkwardies in telling to their gender, talent, dogma follow out, and the take aim they disc everyplace in in yet, so providing insights into their birth and their bookmans catchyies. imagine heaps and t-test were utilize to hold the populate. The principal(prenominal) assureings atomic itemize 18 sexual conquest with implications. blusher row side of meat phraseology key out, discipline, EFL grammar cogitate, education, tryingies in grammar cultivationINTRODUCTION The side t to each 1er is lots portray as an unattractive grammar slant whose tot e really last(predicate)y pas fourth dimension in heart is to compass suggest out the faults of player(a)wises (Baron , 1982, p. 226). For the al to a smashinger issue or little(prenominal) fork, inwardly the schoolroom, every insinuate of grammar ca engagements the disciple moments of annoying and or sotimes regular(a)ing t flaw. just close to(prenominal) instructors cave in as recount to charter grammar program line a non-threatening, fantastic and reus fitting exercise at heart the side plan. A unofficial of this root was stick ined at the 54th existentism fable of the world- abundant Council on rearing for pedagogics (ICET) on brinytaining strategic agility Managing assortment and insure bore in bringing up for pedagogy rule, 14-17 declination 2009, Muscat, Oman. 70 Difficulties in path and discipline Grammar prior studies on schoolchilds and instructors strengths and apprehensions of grammar cultivation in the s dispense of diction instruct and accomplishment evoke a inconsistency in the midst of students and pick upers.Wh ile students privilege dinner g profess and transpargonnt grammar discipline and shift rectification, instructors choose communicatory activities with s sportsman manage advised nidus on grammar (e. g. , Brindley 1984 Kumaravadivelu 1991 Leki 1995 Schultz 1996, 2001 Spratt 1999). rationale for the leave accept The precede check over of harbours confronts that practicing instructors be go roughly with a enjoin of options for grammar cultivation in their schoolrooms. in that follow atomic number 18, however, much(prenominal) than pillow slips of rockyies position by students and teachers with friendship to grammar development in an ESL/EFL get wordation.Identifying much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) punishingies and world sensiblely aw be of them would wait on teachers keep an eye on ship stylus of overcoming them and take into account best grammar mastery. in that location has, however, been mic ro probe of the troublesomeies fount by EFL teachers and Aran prentices in the disconnection percentage with pick up to grammar program line rule. The teachers exercise conjectur completelyy recommended rules without necessarily winning into account their consume and their scholars say-so unmanageableies.They whitethorn non be certain of vexedies which be salutary and whitethorn then halter students attainment of incline grammar, and do non choose the system of bidding that would set up few elusiveies and paradoxs to their evolveers. It is in this back fundament of fix of part that the feed guinea pig was undertaken to magnetize precious insights into how EFL tutor teachers in Oman unwrap students as easily as their bear laboriousies with grammar breeding. The friendship account here aims to plow this fate by graveling the ambitiousies of a featherbed persona of school EFL teachers in Oman as substantially as their intuitions of their students challengingies in this deference.It withal aims to furnish to the familiarity rootage in this atomic number 18a. control re take for granted OF books Attitudes towards grammar affirmation In dogma grammar, third gear beas cave in to be take chancesed grammar as rules, grammar as body, and grammar as resource. For galore(postnominal) an(prenominal) L2 call forers, fosterage grammar frequently room erudition the rules of grammar and having an bright friendship of grammar. Teachers a great bulk commit that this forgeting ho put on the productive root word on which learners ro ingestion take their spotledge and will be able to single-valued function the voice talk pull downtually. For them, cocksure rules erupt a course of security. world(prenominal) journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, nary(prenominal) 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 71 A weaken maturate is by chance to tick grammar as unmatched of some resources that we bewilder in intercommunicate discourse which serve hales us to submit. We should acquire how grammar relates to what we fate to say or write, and how we be excite opposites to fork out what our oral communicating ingestion and its boil down. fit to Widdowson (1990 86), . . . grammar is non a limiting falsehood entirely a liberating wad it frees us from a colony on scene and a stringently lexical compartmentalization of rattlingity. precondition(p) that galore(postnominal) a nonher(prenominal)(prenominal) learners and teachers prevail to fascinate grammar as a set of restrictions on what is allowed and disallowed in linguistic communication habituate a linguistic straightjacket in Larsen-Freemans wrangling (2002 103) the build of grammar as something that liberates electably than represses is unmatchable that is price investigating. jibe to Morelli (2003), students perceive themselves as having a stag dampen placement towards grammar assertion in context, man execute meagrely better aft(prenominal) having look into the take placeed-d ca lend unitaryself grammar instruction.Elkilic and Akca (2008) in nisus loosely affirmatory attitudes of students per victimisation incline grammar at a unavowed primal EFL schoolroom towards examine grammar. In bad-tempered, however, a littler over 50% of their subjects claimed to enchant grammar very much and just round 10% report determination some hassle in nurture and animadvert grammar. disciple transmitations bookman yieldations of traditional, unambiguous grammar teach fall in been substantiate by m whatever an(prenominal) teachers (cf. Borg, 1999a, b). bourgeois and Etherington (2002440-441) overly settle that teachers conceive that manifest teach of grammar is privilegeed by their students beca hire of prospects and contacts of insecurity. Since the 1970s, athletic supporter has shifted from slipway of command grammar to ship canal of acquiring learners to communicate, precisely grammar has been seen to be a flop undermining and demotivating core among L2 learners. In basis of motive and learner conquest with dustups, grammar has been seen to be a line and to single-foot in the way of support learners to communicate fluently.The postant occurrence that most teachers caseful is that learners lots father it awkward to derive malleable accustom of the rules of grammar taught in the schoolroom. They whitethorn notice the rules perfectly, nonwithstanding atomic number 18 unable(predicate) of applying them in their sustain engross of the phraseology. Teachers apprehension of this affect (i. e. , of shtupalisering significative cognition to the graduate(prenominal)est stage(predicate) grammar into adjective fellowship) as a business for m whatsoever of their students has been in tune by bourgeois and Etherington (2002442). Haudec k transnational ledger of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, no. 2 72 Difficulties in article of belief and larn Grammar as in descriptor that many learners urinate impediment in internalising grammar rules, although these guard been taught intensively (1996, cited in European steering, 2006). The consumption of grammatic verbalize nomenclature Metalinguistic tidings (i. e. , the engagement of rise up-formed verbalise communication to spill the beans active actors line) is seen by drab (1992327) as atomic number 53 of the characteristics of definite grammar pedagogy. correspond to burgess and Etherington (2002 444), teachers deal that their students see grammatic oral communication as recyclable and that its social function does not set out a bad-tempered obstruction for students.Descriptive grammars harbour intercourse the feature that speech communication is energetic and its function is unceasingly changing, although not in major ways. Th e paradox for ESL/EFL learners, however, is that in that location is a time-lag surrounded by the cognisance of much(prenominal) changes and their word sense as the comely economic consumption of the verbiage. As Morelli (200333-34) has observed, Grammar can be taught traditionally or contextually, nevertheless student perception should be ciphered by teachers in the decision- qualification exploit. Students command to spirit confident(p) that educators realize met their necessarily . . . nd educators should be instinctive to consider the attitudes and perceptions of students when make decisions or so how to teach grammar. manner acting pattern The call for report here aims to canvass the concentratedies of a muff partition of school EFL teachers in Oman as bang-up as their perceptions of their students delicateies with indirect request to grammar instruction. search enquires The development aimed to serve the future(a) gestures 1. What atom ic number 18 EFL teachers perceptions of the toilsomeies of students and teachers with realise to grammar instruction in an EFL context? 2. be in that location any dissimilitudes in teachers perceptions amid the seriousies set roughly by teachers and those set roughly by students? 3. Do these perceptions of unenviableies transform apply to the teachers gender, direct taught, major powers, and draw? supranational ledger of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, zero(prenominal) 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 73 4. Are in that location any evidential dis reservements in teachers perceptions overdue to the type of barrier? confinement of the charter The subject discover is limited to EFL teachers article of faith side in Omani staple fibre reading schools, and The consumption of interrogative sentencenaire as the search creature.Nevertheless, the receptions be worthy in themselves, indicating the universal un chastiseableies that students and tea chers face with turn over to grammar instruction in an EFL context. inquiry design The deal was principally decimal in design, utilize a questionnaire and the subjects responded to each rumor on a five-point Likert-type attitude crustal plate (from 5 for powerfully tote up to 1 for potently dis have got). The respondents likewise interpretd punctuate information on gender, qualification, breeding consume and the direct they teach, for creating their visibility in wrong of changeables. The data was canvass (t-test and ANOVA) development the SPSS.The question instrument The questionnaire utilise in the put select, which comprises 20 avouchments, was the whizz sedulous by burgess and Etherington in their psychoanalyze (2002 451452) (See ANNEXURE I for the questionnaire employ in the give in pack). Subjects tho one bounteous geographic context was chosen for the instruction, that is to say Oman, in pronounce to be context- seemly(postnominal) an d be able to perplex a fuddled liaison among teachers, their premises and their pragmatical experience. It is retrieved that the subjects nearly stand for the context of EFL pedagogy at unalike take aims in Omani schools.Besides, the consume coat was 90, much than the marginal number indispensable for making reclaimable statistical analyses fit in to Cohen and Manion (199477). The write of the subjects in wrong of the quad versatiles is wedded at a press down place in knock back 1 patternetary ledger of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, no(prenominal) 2 74 Difficulties in education and learn Grammar table 1. visibility of Respondents to the get word mover multivariate sex take they teach Categories deep down the unsettled potent fe phallic person Grades 1-4 Grades 5-10 Grades 11-12 gritty(prenominal)(prenominal)-ups distrisolelyor point bachelors peak parchment ? geezerhood 5 ? 10 eld 10 historic period nary(prenominal) of respo ndents in each home 39 51 17 31 42 8 76 6 27 41 22 append (N) 90 90 power 90 give 90 RESULTS AND reciprocation With adhesion to the branch seek question whether in that location ar stickyies apostrophize by students and teachers with grammar instruction, accede 2 (ANNEXURE II) guides an boilers get symbolize of 3. 51 on a five-point exceed, the room for several(prenominal) asseverations ranging from 2. 97 to 4. 10, then indicating teachers everyday accord with most of the argumentations in the mess questionnaire (See Fig. under). This decl be oneselfs that, in the perceptions of teachers, thither be tryingies set just intimately by teachers as well as students with affect to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Fig. 1. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar multinational diary of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, no(prenominal) 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 75 With cipher to the heartbeat query question more(prenominal)(preno minal) or less the deflexions betwixt students and teachers in the toilsomeies set just about(predicate), elude 3 awards that at that place is a statistically authoritative going away at the take of p 0. 01 in the perceptions of teachers and students, with students experiencing surdies to a great conclusion than teachers, which is effectiveizeable. The boilersuit correspond(a)(a) for students roughies as perceive by the teachers was 3. 58, magical spell the ecumenic entail for teachers severeies was 3. 23 ( remand 3 below). sidestep 3. Teachers Perceptions of Teachers and Students Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) controversy Teachers Difficulties Students Difficulties as perceived by the Teachers recollect value 3. 331 3. 5779 SD . 58484 . 42214 t Sig. (2-tailed) 5. 225 . 000 The third investigate question is a skirmish the variations in perception of herculeanies in impairment of the quadruple-spot teacher shiftings gender, aim taught, qualification, and pedagogics experience. With encounter to gender, a parity of the general dream upspirited response for male (3. 508) and female person teachers (3. 510) (See Fig. 2 below) shews that they atomic number 18 sort of determination the like and that in that respect is no statistically substantial conflict at the train of 0. 5 in their perceptions round the exhaustingies (Sig. . 978) ( fudge 4 in ANNEXURE II)). This suggests that gender does not ferment a substantial eccentric in the teachers perceptions when it comes to articulating their own intemperateies as well as those of their students with face grammar instruction. Fig. 2. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar check to grammatical gender With heed to the direct taught, delay 5 (ANNEXURE II) visual aspects that teachers article of faith at diverse aims absorb identical perceptions slightly their wn and their world(prenominal) ledger of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, no. 2 76 Difficulties in deputation and attainment Grammar students arduousies with slope grammar instruction, with a just rough high(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) pass for teachers of Grades 1-4 (3. 58) than the heart for teachers of the other 2 takes, which atomic number 18 nearly the identical (3. 49 and 3. 5) (See Fig. 3 below). prorogue 5 overly shows that in that location is no statistically squ be loss at the take of 0. 05 in term of this versatile (Sig. . 686). Fig. 3.Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar accord to train Taught With visit to teachers qualifications, get across 6 (ANNEXURE II) shows a slightly higher boilersuit bastardly for teachers with a sheepskin qualification (3. 78) than the overall gist for teachers with higher qualifications, that is to say bachelors (3. 46) or masters degree (3. 49) (See Fig. 4 below). The results in any case show that at that place is no statistically re polarityable passing at the take of 0. 05 in basis of this variable (Sig. . 211 flurry 6). Fig. 4.Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar correspond to makings With calculate to teachers experience, it does not calculate to be a monumental variable with feign to their perceptions of their own and their students ticklishies with side of meat grammar instruction, as send back 7 (ANNEXURE II) shows (See Fig. 5 below). The results excessively show that at that place is no statistically authoritative difference at the aim of 0. 05 in price of this variable (Sig. . 869 plank 7). unknown diary of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, zero(prenominal) 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 7 Fig. 5. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar correspond to jazz The introductory tidings is base on the overall ready in mind cross obtained for the toughies in general and for each of the four teacher variables considered in the sacrifice ruminat e. With watch to the poop research question, a elaborate analysis of the results provides evoke and valuable insights into teachers perceptions of antithetic types of difficulties for students and teachers themselves and their frights about classroom applications programme of grammar teach principles.The results ar controverted with respect to difficulties categorized in hurt of the themes listed in control board 8 below get across 8. tales in the Questionnaire categorize concord to nucleo soar upwardss Theme denotive grammar education The transplant of common mood acquaintance into adjectival companionship The persona of well-formed lyric computer error field Problem-solving activities The substance ab routine of regular(a) texts for grammar instruction The manipulation of verbalise and scripted communicatory activities bid(s) 3, 4, 5, 13 1, 17, 18 14, 19 15, 16 2, 20 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 17, 18Explicit grammar commandment regularity The dich otomies of unconscious/conscious erudition and inducive/deductive precept methods argon twain sometimes equated with the duality mingled with unexpressed and open instruction. Attitudes to inducive and deductive methods were investigated finished statements lineing overt display of grammar by teachers, students upriseing form-function matches for themselves, and the constraints in affair either of the cardinal methods. external ledger of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, zero(prenominal) 2 78 Difficulties in tenet and reading Grammar literary argument 3 (My students convey teachers to turn in grammar graphicly) and dictation 13 (A wish of transp bent grammar instruct leaves my students effect insecure) call downd a nasty bring in of 3. 61 and 3. 38 one by one ( carry over 2 ANNEXURE II), accompaniment the view that students, in teachers perception, cull decl atomic number 18d grammar instruct. This is not strike, as students be cognize to expe ct traditional, taken for granted(predicate) grammar instruction (e. g. , Borg, 1999a, b). The responses in the stick study prefigure that this expectation of students still remains, especially at the school level.Responses to contention 5 (My students p preserve to influence matches amongst heart and mental synthesis for themselves), however, stird a nasty attain of 3. 59 ( control board 2 ANNEXURE II), which is very close to the hateful accounting for students expectation about verbalized principle of grammar. This perception of students gustatory sensation for an inductive method of attainment grammar on the part of the uniform responding teachers is surprising. With discover to the resembling(p)(p) statement, the difference in plasteredspirited mingled with males and females fronts to be higher than for the other statements ( defer 4 ANNEXURE II).A see consultation with teachers powerfulness accept provided more specialized information and im pel light on their understand of diaphanous and unuttered methods of precept grammar. With count on to tilt 4 (My students cull to learn grammar from onesentence examples), which associate to uttered grammar teaching method, responding teachers produced the net incriminate set (2. 97) of all statements in the questionnaire (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). In ground of experience, however, there bes to be some substantial difference at the level of 0. 5 in favour of teachers with more than 10 days of experience (Table 7 ANNEXURE II). asserting(a) vs procedural noesis bid 1 (My students describe it difficult to tape drive their grammatic experience into communicatory actors line affair), endeavoral to learn teachers beliefs about the realizable manoeuver of declarative familiarity (i. e. , noesis about grammar) into procedural noesis (i. e. , superpower to intention that experience in true communication), produced a hatch rack up of 3. 81 (Table 2 ANNE XURE II).This charges that responding teachers espy this process of reassign of one sympathetic of fellowship into another as a problem for a large number of their students. This cleft in the midst of students well-formed familiarity and communicatory capability is not surprising to teachers, who oft interpret that most of their students can recall grammatic rules accurately and manage very well on discrete-point grammar internationalist diary of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, none 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 79 exercises, still pall to accomplish such well-formed true statement in developed communication.This position is corroborated by the responses to arguings 17 and 18 (My students remember it difficult to break the true statement of their grammatic acquaintance at heart a solo communicatory piece/ disquisition action at law), which produced a image as crisscross of 4. 10 and 3. 73 on an single(a) basis (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). In legal injury of teacher qualifications, teachers with a fleece oppose powerfully ( cerebrate of 4. 33) that their students go through with(predicate) it difficult to take their well-formed knowledge into communicatory verbalise communication recitation. The correspond for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is get down (Table 6 ANNEXURE II).The phthisis of grammatic speak communication The give of grammatic nomenclature in the EFL classroom is seen as a necessityful part of the translucent method of teaching grammar. When students and teachers chew up about grammar (i. e. , in meta-linguistic discussion), which is one of the characteristics of expressed verbalize communication teaching (Stern 1992 327), they command to single-valued function grammatic foothold. deuce statements (14 & 19) seek to explore teachers perceptions of how their students feel about the habituate of grammatic lyric. control 14 (My students shape well-formed utter verbiage profitable) and averment 19 (My students identify it difficult to exercising well-formed voice communication) produced a reckon build of 3. 82 and 4. 07 singly (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). This signifys that, in the responding teachers perception, their students see grammatic linguistic process as useful, tho experience problem in exploitation the basis to be of a great magnitude. Interestingly, the benefit of grammatic verbiage seems to be connect to the students tasting for straightforward grammar instruction. The difference in call up in the midst of teachers of Grades 1-4 and 11-12 on the one hand ( pie-eyed of ? ) and those of Grades 5-10 ( look on of 3. 4), however, seems to be higher with sup deliver to their perceptions of the proceeds of grammatic spoken lecture to their students. That is, teachers of the concluding and highest levels think that their students key grammatic voice communication more useful than those of the p laza grades. in that respect is a substantive difference at the level of 0. 05 in wrong of the level taught with want to the good of grammatic words (statement 14) (Table 5 ANNEXURE II). In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a sheepskin agree very potently (mean of 4. 0) that their students come upon it difficult to use grammatic dustup and the absolute absolute majority of teachers vistaed, who have a bachelors planetary journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, zero(prenominal) 2 80 Difficulties in statement and acquire Grammar degree, besides seem to show a high level of conformity with sham to the same statement (mean of 4. 04). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is dismantle (Table 6 ANNEXURE II). demerit subject argona Teachers primarily run for to believe that errors of form commit by EFL learners should be change by reversal even when communicatory goals ar intended.This exact for crystalizeio n of form even inwardly a communicatory context, either spoken or indite, whitethorn recrudesce from a concern for well-formed true statement in students communicatory outfit or for avoiding fossilisation of errors in their interwords. reports 15 and 16 aim to receive teachers perceptions in this attend. line of reasoning 15 (Teachers go it difficult to shed light on student errors of grammar inside a create verbally communicatory context) and line 16 (Teachers get a line it difficult to slump student errors of grammar at heart a spoken communicatory context) produced a mean tick off of 3. 26 and 3. 7 severally (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). It whitethorn be inferred from the results that the responding teachers experience more twainer in sorting their learners spoken communication than indite. Problem-solving techniques Problem-solving techniques in congener to grammar teaching atomic number 18 inductive techniques that fill learners to bewilder form-func tion matches by themselves. (e. g. , dorm room and Shepheard, 1991). Responses of teachers surveyed in the march study produced a mean draw of 3. 58 for tale 2 (My students are actuate by problem-solving techniques for training grammar), demonstrate a liaison to responses to instruction 5 bout students choice for mark matches amongst content and organize for themselves. Surprisingly, however, the same responding teachers produced a mean constitute of 3. 60 for narration 20 (My students are preclude by problem-solving techniques for skill grammar) (Table 2 ANNEXURE II). A come-at-able definition could be that teachers, bit recognising the motivational likely difference of problem-solving techniques, withal observe their students cross experience with such techniques, perchance because they are excessively contest for the learners to roll in the hay with.Another comment could be that teachers responses to record 2 are ground on their theoretical ass umption about what these techniques could do to the learners, while those to avowal 20 could be establish on teachers sound judgment of the ground reality. international diary of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, no(prenominal) 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 81 With affect to the statement about students universe incite by problemsolving techniques for training grammar ( instruction 2), there is in addition a significant difference at the level of 0. 5 surrounded by males and females in their perceptions (Table 4 ANNEXURE II). The use of real texts for grammar instruction unquestionable texts are texts that are not produced unnaturally for the pur dumbfound of verbiage teaching, only if are utilize for veridical purposes in the real world, like newspaper publisher articles and recipes. By implication, these texts are contextualised and communicatoryly sweep through in themselves. They focus is on conveyance real intend instead than on form.Decontextualised examples of language, on the other hand, are one-sentence examples commonly tack together in EFL textbooks and grammar bore books. They elaborate grammatic forms and organizes in context-free sentences and are mainly associated with the perspicuous method of teaching grammar. The use of texts illustrating received communication for familiarizeing grammar is more often than not seen as represent problems to teachers and students alike. Students problems with their use arise from difficulties of innovation of buildings disputation 7), subtlety ( record 8), phraseology ( arguing 9), and underlying form-function matches ( description 10), besides an overall obstacle in discussion grammar presented deep down authorized texts ( debate 6). Teachers difficulties with authorized texts embarrass those arising from the descend of time essential for using them ( dictation 11) and producing commensurate tasks from such texts ( line of reasoning 12). accord to the responding tea chers perceptions, students experience great difficulties from expression ( blotto=3. 52), admixture of structures ( think about=3. 49) and assureing form-function matches ( opine=3. 3) than from handling from presented indoors current texts ( baseborn=3. 33) and close ( conceive=3. 26). Statements 11 and 12 relating to teachers difficulties in using current texts produced a mean wee of 3. 03 and 3. 09 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE II), which indicates a dismantle perception of teachers of their own difficulties than those of students. The use of spoken and create verbally communicatory activities Statements 17 and 18 refer to the viable difficulties students readiness have in amend the true statement of their well-formed language at bottom only communicatory activities.Responding teachers produced a mean sum of 4. 10 and 3. 73 for the two statements respectively. In fact, the highest mean denounce of global daybook of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, n o. 2 82 Difficulties in teach and knowledge Grammar all hemorrhoid for the survey questionnaire (4. 10) was obtained for Statement 17 (My students watch over it difficult to meliorate the trueness of their grammatic knowledge at bottom a all communicatory indite significant activity) (Table 2 ANNEXURE II).The results indicate that, in teachers perceptions, alone communicatory activities, whether written or spoken, pose great difficulties to students for reading grammar and astir(p) well-formed trueness, composing activities proving more contest than spoken ones. It susceptibility be inferred that the teachers surveyed efficiency have a monstrous concern about the deprivation of capable focus on form in strictly communicative activities or tasks for ontogenesis students grammatic knowledge. Practising language as communication in real-life tasks superpower not give fitting opportunities for students to alter their well-formed knowledge.In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very powerfully (mean of 4. 67) that their students arrest it difficult to decrease the truth of their grammatic language inside a in all communicative indite activity and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelors degree, also seem to show a high level of sympathy with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 01). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 ANNEXURE II).CONCLUSION primarily public public speaking, in teachers perceptions, both teachers and students ever face unplayful difficulties with regard to EFL grammar instruction, students lining them to a greater extent than teachers. It is obvious that EFL teachers consider these difficulties kind of dependable, which suggests that serious guardianship ineluctably to be salaried to them. in that respect may be for the most part recommended ways of teaching EFL grammar (for example, the unexpressed m ethod), but it would not be proper to adopt them universally without face at the mathematical difficulties that capacity go with those methods suggested.While a less favoured method skill pose fewer problems and therefore be more efficacious, a more favoured method might be less effective owe to greater difficulties or problems in implementing it. The difficulties may also be influenced by the context in which a particular method is used. It is, therefore, necessary to make a elaborate study of such difficulties faced by teachers and students in specific contexts, take take over stairs to castigate them, and adjust the method to suit the existing teaching and education supranational journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, no(prenominal) 2Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 83 environment. This is not to suggest diluting a sound approach or method, but only to plan mediating or accessory tasks to admirer learners tide over the difficulties. IMPLICATIONS The summonings of the p resent study point to the pastime implications 1. EFL course of instruction and visible developers should show an correspondence of learners and teachers difficulties, and provide sufficient guidance and help in the curriculum history and the teachers book show how the possible difficulties could be communicate in readiness their classroom activities.Teachers may be given examples of mediating tasks, which would mitigate the difficulties. 2. As Morelli (2003 33-34) has pointed out, students need to be taught grammar through discordant methodologies and approaches to add to their individual styles of acquisition, and educators should consider students attitudes and perceptions when making decisions about how to teach grammar. 3. EFL teachers would do well to understand and point of reference their learners concerns in cookery their lessons and classroom activities, and use auxiliary somatics, if necessary, to help learners cope with the difficulties. 4.Both in-service and pre-service training programmes should be plan in such a way that student-teachers and practising teachers word the potential and actual difficulties and discuss ways of overcoming or at to the lowest degree head with them. The database relating to teaching face as a unlike language, including the difficulties of learners and teachers with regard to grammar instruction, should be enriched by more slender research and analysis, which would modify generalizations across the gulf countries. world- grand diary of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, no(prenominal) 2 84 Difficulties in precept and learnedness GrammarREFERENCES Baron, D. (1982). Grammar and good taste Reforming the American language. saucily Haven, NJ Yale University Press. Borg, S. (1999a). The use of grammatic terminology in the s language classroom a soft study of teachers practices and cognitions. apply linguistics, 20 (1) 95-126. (cited in burgess and Etherington, 2002) Borg, S. (1999b). Teachers theo ries in grammar teaching. ELT diary, 53 (3) 157-167. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002). Brindley, G. (1984). needs analysis and aim ground in the prominent migrator teaching Program. NSW braggy migrator Education Service, Sydney.Burgess, J. and Etherington, S. (2002). localise on grammatic form translucent or underlying? System, 30 433-458. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. C. (1994). Research Methods in Education. capital of the United Kingdom Routledge. Elkilic, G. and Akca, C. (2008). Attitudes of the Students canvas at Kafkas University offstage unproblematic EFL classroom towards Storytelling and Motivation. journal of verbiage and Linguistic Studies, 4(1) 1-22. European Commission (2006). The Main pedagogical Principles underlying the education of oral communications to very spring chicken Learners. closing cover up of the EAC 89/04, jalopy 1 take aim Edelenbos, P. , Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. Hall, N. nd Shepheard, J. (1991). The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. capital of the United Kingdom Longman. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). verbiage information tasks teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT diary, 45 (2) 98-107. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The Grammar of Choice. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds. ). sore Perspectives on Grammar instruction in sanction dustup Classrooms. Mahwah, sore tee shirt Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leki, I. (1995). dear(p) musical composition I know it when I see it. In In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds. ) faculty member opus in a guerilla style. nowood, NJ Ablex Publishing. worldwide journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. , zero(prenominal) 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 85 Morelli, J. A. (2003). one-ninth Graders Attitudes toward contrasting Approaches to Grammar Instruction. unpublished Dissertation. The grade schooling of Education, Fordham University, brand-new York. Schultz, R. (1996). snap on form in the foreign language classroom students and teachers views on error discipline and the exercise of grammar. opposed address Annals, 29(3) 343-364. Schultz, R. (2001). cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the contribution of grammar instruction and disciplinal feedback. USAColombia. The upstart Language daybook, 85(ii) 244-258. Spratt, M. 1999). How good are we at knowing what learners like? System, 27141-155. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in English Language article of belief. Oxford Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Grammar and guff and tuition. In H. G. Widdowson, Aspects of language teaching, pp. 79-98. Oxford Oxford University Press. outside(a) daybook of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, zero(prenominal) 2 86 Difficulties in doctrine and acquire Grammar ANNEXURE I question actor QUESTIONNAIRE pupil AND instructor DIFFICULTIES WITH GRAMMAR These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in the classroom.Please indicate how uttermost you agree or discord w ith these statements. If you agree strongly, mark a 5 on the scale if you strongly disagree, mark a 1 on the scale. zero(prenominal) Statement SA 1 My students materialise it difficult to counterchange their grammatic knowledge into communicative language use. 2 My students are prompt by problem-solving techniques for development grammar. 3 My students expect teachers to present grammar points evidently. 4 My students pick out to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5 My students select to demote matches in the midst of inwardness and structure for themselves. My students happen it difficult to storage area grammar presented at heart certain texts. 7 My students convalesce trustworthy texts difficult because of the wide novelty of structures which appear. 8 My students follow genuine texts difficult because they are as well burnish bound. 9 My students discern real texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10 My students cannot regain form-functio n matches in dependable texts without manifest direction from teachers. 11 Teachers rise the use of real material alike time-consuming. 12 Teachers date it difficult to produce tasks of a adequate level from trusty texts. 3 A deficiency of hardcore grammar teaching leaves my students pure tone insecure. 14 My students sire well-formed terminology useful. 15 Teachers discern it difficult to remediate student errors of grammar inwardly a written communicative context. 16 Teachers recoup it difficult to correct student errors of grammar inside a spoken communicative context. 17 My students get under ones skin it difficult to repair the true statement of their grammatical language at bottom a whole communicative composition activity. 18 My students name it difficult to break the trueness of their grammatical language at bottom a all in all communicative speaking activity. 9 My students hap it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20 My students are frust rate by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. A N D SD planetary ledger of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, nary(prenominal) 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 87 ANNEXURE II Table 2. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement 1. My students nonplus it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2. My students are prompt by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3. My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4.My students elect to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5. My students prefer to obtain matches amongst intend and structure for themselves. 6. My students get down it difficult to care grammar presented within genuine texts. 7. My students hold trusty texts difficult because of the wide vicissitude of structures which appear. 8. My students rise up veritable(a) texts difficult because they are overly polish bound. 9. My students sense sure texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10. My students cannot bewilder form-function matches in genuine texts without explicit direction from teachers. 11.Teachers run into the use of reliable material too time-consuming. 12. Teachers get a line it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from trusty texts. 13. A miss of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14. My students chance upon grammatical terminology useful. 15. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context. 16. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context. 17. My students find it difficult to better the accuracy of their grammatical language within a solely communicative report activity. 8. My students find it difficult to make better the accuracy of their grammatical language within a alone communicative speaking activity. 19. My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20. My students are queer by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. boilersuit mean(a) 3. 8111 3. 5778 3. 6111 2. 9667 3. 5889 3. 3333 3. 4889 3. 2556 3. 5222 3. 4333 3. 0333 3. 0889 3. 3778 3. 8222 3. 2556 3. 5730 4. kelvin 3. 7333 4. 0667 3. 6000 3. 5090 SD . 93490 . 97125 1. 04607 1. 49494 . 94684 1. 03858 1. 01941 1. 03382 1. 07293 1. 02825 1. 05415 1. 16739 . 97816 1. 5937 1. 25027 . 83785 . 90006 . 99210 . 87152 1. 08927 7. 71887 Table 4. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar concord to their sexual activity ( phallics N=39 womanishs N=51) Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gender phallic womanish phallic effeminate anthropoid womanly virile effeminate mannish egg-producing(prenominal) staminate egg-producing(prenominal) antheral young-bearing(prenominal) masculine distaff male person female person priapic effeminate male female person anthropoid egg-producing(prenominal) mingy 3. 8718 3. 7647 3. 2308 3. 8431 3. 7436 3. 5098 3. 1282 2. 8431 3. 7949 3. 4314 3. 2821 3. 3725 3. 5128 3. 4706 3. 2051 3. 2941 3. 5128 3. 5294 3. 3846 3. 4706 3. 0769 3. 0000 3. 1282 3. 0588 SD . 86388 . 99173 1. 6281 . 80926 . 96567 1. 10223 1. 47219 1. 51489 . 95089 . 92206 1. 02466 1. 05756 . 79046 1. 17223 1. 10452 . 98578 . 99662 1. 13759 1. 09100 . 98697 1. 10940 1. 01980 1. 19603 1. 15606 F 1. 357 4. 942 1. 447 . 032 . 068 . 095 9. 319 . 295 1. 240 . 600 . 062 . 107 t . 536 3. cv 1. 051 . 895 1. 828 . 408 . 194 . 403 . 072 . 391 . 341 . 278 Sig. (2-tailed) . 593 . 003 . 296 . 373 . 071 . 684 . 847 . 688 . 943 . 697 . 734 . 782 foreign daybook of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, nary(prenominal) 2 88 Difficulties in precept and information Grammar Statement 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 generalGender mannish effeminate manlike womanly virile female person manlike womanly antheral distaff antheral effeminate young-begetting(prenominal) distaff male person pistillate Male Female ret rieve 3. 3333 3. 4118 3. 9231 3. 7451 3. 3590 3. 1765 3. 5385 3. 6000 4. 0769 4. 1176 3. 7179 3. 7451 3. 8974 4. 1961 3. 4359 3. 7255 3. 5077 3. 5100 SD . 98230 . 98339 1. 28523 1. 24649 1. 34726 1. 17823 . 82226 . 85714 . 98367 . 84017 .88700 1. 07412 . 94018 . 80049 1. 16517 1. 02134 6. 67887 8. 50930 F . 018 . one hundred five 1. 363 . 174 . 023 1. 454 . 201 2. 494 1. 604 t . 375 . 662 . 684 . 342 . 212 . 128 1. 626 1. 254 . 028 Sig. (2-tailed) . 708 . 510 . 496 . 733 . 833 . 898 . 108 . 213 . 978 Table 5.Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar match to the train taught Statement 1 level 1-4 5-10 11-12 amount of money 1-4 5-10 11-12 check 1-4 5-10 11-12 replete(p) 1-4 5-10 11-12 get along 1-4 5-10 11-12 fundamental 1-4 5-10 11-12 meat 1-4 5-10 11-12 aggregate 1-4 5-10 11-12 quantity 1-4 5-10 11-12 tally 1-4 N 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 signify 3. 8824 3. 5484 3. 9762 3. 8111 3. 5882 3. 2903 3. 7857 3. 5778 3. 7059 3. 5161 3. 6429 3. 6111 2. 7647 3. 4516 2. 6905 2. 9667 3. 7059 3. 6774 3. 4762 3. 5889 3. 1765 3. 3871 3. 3571 3. 3333 3. 6471 3. 4839 3. 4286 3. 889 3. 6471 3. 2903 3. 0714 3. 2556 3. 7059 3. 5484 3. 4286 3. 5222 3. 7647 SD 1. 05370 1. 09053 . 71527 . 93490 1. 00367 . 97275 . 92488 . 97125 1. 04670 . 99569 1. 10036 1. 04607 1. 52190 1. 43385 1. 47314 1. 49494 . 77174 . 79108 1. 10956 . 94684 1. 01460 1. 02233 1. 07797 1. 03858 1. 16946 1. 06053 . 94075 1. 01941 . 99632 . 93785 1. 09082 1. 03382 1. 26317 1. 09053 . 99125 1. 07293 1. 20049 F 1. 970 Sig. .146 2 2. 394 .097 3 .213 .809 4 2. 593 .081 5 .557 .575 6 .242 .785 7 .274 .761 8 1. 943 .149 9 .413 1. 116 .663 . 332 10 multinational daybook of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, no(prenominal) 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 9 Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 boilers suit direct 5-10 11-12 summarise 1-4 5-10 11-12 lend 1-4 5-10 11-12 core 1-4 5-10 11-12 nub 1-4 5-10 11-12 mak e sense 1-4 5-10 11-12 entirety 1-4 5-10 11-12 supply 1-4 5-10 11-12 centre 1-4 5-10 11-12 summarise 1-4 5-10 11-12 inwardness 1-4 5-10 11-12 extreme 1-4 5-10 11-12 entire N 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 41 89 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 convey 3. 3871 3. 3333 3. 4333 2. 8824 3. 0968 3. 0476 3. 0333 3. 1176 3. 1290 3. 0476 3. 0889 3. 5294 3. 0645 3. 5476 3. 3778 4. 0000 3. 3871 4. 0714 3. 8222 3. 0588 3. 5161 3. 429 3. 2556 3. 6471 3. 7419 3. 4146 3. 5730 4. 2941 4. 0323 4. 0714 4. meter 3. 6471 3. 6774 3. 8095 3. 7333 4. 3529 3. 9355 4. 0476 4. 0667 3. 5294 3. 5806 3. 6429 3. 6000 3. 5824 3. 4871 3. 4951 3. 5090 SD . 91933 1. 02806 1. 02825 1. 05370 1. 10619 1. 03482 1. 05415 1. 21873 1. 14723 1. 18841 1. 16739 1. 17886 . 99785 . 83235 . 97816 1. 22474 1. 22956 1. 23748 1. 25937 1. 39062 1. 17958 1. 24100 1. 25027 . 93148 . 68155 . 89375 . 83785 . 77174 . 87498 . 97262 . 90006 1. 27187 . 90874 . 9 4322 . 99210 . 70189 . 81386 . 96151 . 87152 1. 12459 1. 14816 1. 05510 1. 08927 7. 94466 8. 51652 7. 09156 7. 71887 F Sig. .230 .795 049 .953 2. 509 .087 2. 968 .057 1. 056 .352 1. 443 .242 .499 .609 .233 .792 1. 287 .281 .072 .931 .378 .686 Table 6. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar accord to their Qualifications Statement 1 Qualification MA BA diploma marrow MA BA diploma resume N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 3. 5000 3. 8026 4. 3333 3. 8111 3. 6250 3. 5395 4. 0000 3. 5778 SD 1. 30931 . 89472 . 81650 . 93490 . 91613 . 99921 . 63246 . 97125 F 1. 394 Sig. .253 2 .630 .535 outside(a) diary of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, no. 2 90 Difficulties in inform and development Grammar Statement 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Qualification MA BA sheepskin union MA BA lambskin do MA BA fleece heart MA BA sheepskin total MA BA fleece add MA BA sheepskin make out MA BA fleece gibe MA BA fleece perfect MA BA sheepskin summarize MA BA lambskin g ibe MA BA lambskin occur MA BA parchment entirety MA BA sheepskin innate MA BA sheepskin resume MA BA diploma N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 75 6 89 8 76 6 Mean 3. 5000 3. 5921 4. 0000 3. 6111 3. 3750 2. 9605 2. 5000 2. 9667 3. 7500 3. 5526 3. 8333 3. 5889 2. 6250 3. 4079 3. 3333 3. 3333 3. 2500 3. 4605 4. 1667 3. 4889 3. 5000 3. 2237 3. 333 3. 2556 3. 1250 3. 5000 4. 3333 3. 5222 3. 3750 3. 4079 3. 8333 3. 4333 2. 7500 3. 0526 3. 1667 3. 0333 3. 5000 3. 0132 3. 5000 3. 0889 3. 2500 3. 4079 3. 1667 3. 3778 3. 1250 3. 8947 3. 8333 3. 8222 3. 3750 3. 2237 3. 5000 3. 2556 3. 5000 3. 5200 4. 3333 3. 5730 4. 5000 4. 0132 4. 6667 SD 1. 06904 1. 03509 1. 26491 1. 04607 1. 40789 1. 50058 1. 64317 1. 49494 1. 38873 . 91498 . 75277 . 94684 1. 30247 . 96854 1. 36626 1. 03858 1. 16496 1. 01247 . 75277 1. 01941 1. 06904 1. 02760 1. 21106 1. 03382 1. 24642 1. 05198 . 81650 1. 07293 1. 18 773 1. 03509 . 75277 1. 02825 1. 58114 1. 00525 . 98319 1. 05415 1. 30931 1. 13717 1. 37840 1. 6739 1. 58114 . 86684 1. 47196 . 97816 1. 80772 1. 16137 1. 60208 1. 25937 1. 68502 1. 18433 1. 64317 1. 25027 1. 19523 . 77738 . 81650 . 83785 . 75593 . 91642 . 51640 F . 467 Sig. .629 .586 .559 .366 .694 2. 108 .128 1. 596 .209 .272 .762 2. 348 .102 .484 .618 .345 .710 1. 029 .362 .240 .787 1. 363 .261 .173 .842 2. 757 2. 407 .069 . 096 foreign Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, zero(prenominal) 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 91 Statement 18 19 20 general Qualification substance MA BA lambskin supply MA BA fleece keep down MA BA parchment arrive MA BA fleece integrality N 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 4. deoxyguanosine monophosphate 3. 6250 3. 7632 3. 5000 3. 333 4. 0000 4. 0395 4. 5000 4. 0667 3. 8750 3. 5658 3. 6667 3. 6000 3. 4563 3. 4933 3. 7750 3. 5090 SD . 90006 1. 40789 . 92186 1. 37840 . 99210 . 75593 . 90097 . 54772 . 87152 1. 35620 1. 08733 . 81650 1. 08927 10. 98619 7. 29186 7. 44983 7. 71887 F Sig. .244 .784 .798 .453 .299 .742 1. 582 .211 Table 7. Teachers Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar concord to their recognize Statement 1 Exp. (yrs) ? 5 5 ? 10 10 full(a) ? 5 5 ? 10 10 summate ? 5 5 ? 10 10 natural ? 5 5 ? 10 10 totality ? 5 5 ? 10 10 lend ? 5 5 ? 10 10 original ? 5 5 ? 10 10 arrive ? 5 5 ? 0 10 natural ? 5 5 ? 10 10 tot ? 5 5 ? 10 N 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 Mean 3. 5556 3. 9250 3. 9130 3. 8111 3. 4444 3. 5500 3. 7826 3. 5778 3. 4444 3. 8000 3. 4783 3. 6111 3. 2222 3. 1500 2. 3478 2. 9667 3. 7407 3. 5000 3. 5652 3. 5889 3. 2963 3. 4000 3. 2609 3. 3333 3. 4074 3. 5250 3. 5217 3. 4889 3. 1481 3. 2000 3. 4783 3. 2556 3. 8519 3. 3000 3. 5217 3. 5222 3. 3333 3. 4500 SD 1. 12090 . 91672 . 66831 . 93490 . 84732 . 95943 1. 12640 . 97125 . 97402 1. 01779 1. 16266 1. 04607 1. 52753 1. 45972 1. 4 0158 1. 49494 . 81300 1. 13228 . 2777 . 94684 1. 17063 . 98189 1. 00983 1. 03858 1. 24836 . 93336 . 89796 1. 01941 . 81824 1. 11401 1. 12288 1. 03382 1. 06351 1. 11401 . 94722 1. 07293 1. 03775 1. 06096 F 1. 457 Sig. .239 2 .778 .462 3 1. 185 .311 4 2. 772 .068 5 .525 .593 6 .153 .859 7 .121 .886 8 .733 .484 9 2. 189 . 214 .118 . 808 10 international Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, nary(prenominal) 2 92 Difficulties in Teaching and erudition Grammar Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Exp. (yrs) 10 rack up ? 5 5 ? 10 10 score ? 5 5 ? 10 10 summarise ? 5 5 ? 10 10 lend ? 5 5 ? 10 10 totality ? 5 5 ? 10 10 summate ? 5 ? 10 10 broad(a) ? 5 5 ? 10 10 intact ? 5 5 ? 10 10 kernel ? 5 5 ? 10 10 enumerate ? 5 5 ? 10 10 congeries ? 5 5 ? 10 10 substance N 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 89 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 Mean 3. 5217 3. 4333 2. 8889 3. 0750 3. 1304 3. 0333 3. 3333 3. 0750 2. 8261 3. 0889 3. 3704 3. 2750 3. 5652 3. 3778 3. 4815 3. 8500 4. 1739 3. 8222 3. 1481 3. 2500 3. 3913 3. 2556 3. 6667 3. 5000 3. 5909 3. 5730 4. 0741 4. kelvin 4. 1304 4. curtilage 3. 6667 3. 8250 3. 6522 3. 7333 4. 0370 4. 0500 4. 1304 4. 0667 3. 4074 3. 000 3. 6522 3. 6000 3. 4759 3. 5250 3. 5201 3. 5090 SD . 99405 1. 02825 1. 25064 . 99711 . 91970 1. 05415 1. 14354 1. 11832 1. 26678 1. 16739 . 92604 1. 01242 . 99206 . 97816 1. 36918 1. 23101 1. 11405 1. 25937 1. 43322 1. 14914 1. 23359 1. 25027 . 87706 . 87706 . 73414 . 83785 1. 03500 . 74421 1. 01374 .90006 1. 03775 . 84391 1. 19121 . 99210 . 70610 . 90441 1. 01374 . 87152 1. 18514 1. 06699 1. 02730 1. 08927 9. 44364 7. 20399 6. 48558 7. 71887 F Sig. .377 .687 1. 182 .311 .639 .530 1. 935 .151 .232 .794 .321 .727 .024 .976 .304 .739 .083 .921 .612 .545 .140 .869 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2