The department of the english language and literature course paper theme: Effective Ways of Teaching Grammar subject

Conclusion
The aim of the study, which is the examination of English teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and practices towards teaching grammar or not, has given a rich diversity of views on grammar as well as common bases on its teaching. The interviews have provided a large data collection based on their definitions and positions towards grammar, and their underpinnings and reasons for teaching grammar. In addition, they have given information about the duration and frequency, the material used, the proposed activities and feedback. Results have shown that teachers have various perspectives on grammar teaching. Nonetheless, teachers’ main points are based on a general view of teaching which is grounded on students’ knowledge as well as their learning improvement including grammar. On both levels, feedback is mostly used: formally in writing and as a recast in oral interaction. Moreover, the PPP approach is mainly used for the presentation of grammar characteristics. In addition, explicit and implicit instructions have been acknowledged, as well as input- and output-based instructions and focus on form and focus on forms. These diverse approaches on grammar teaching are not exhaustive, they are included under the guidance of the CLT and adapted in relation to the teaching and learning purposes. Thus, the interviewees have demonstrated that they have a confident conviction to teach grammar towards students’ goals, a strong adaptability to their needs, and a will to enhance their English communicative competence through a variety of exercises and tasks. Moreover, they follow the objectives of the CEFR and the Swedish curricula in English which are not obvious in regard to grammar by revealing flexibility and creativity to find solutions. In addition, English teachers have a common unwritten rule that distinguishes the two levels B 1.1 and B 1.2. For instance, PPPs of specific grammar features are no longer used in the first year at upper-secondary school, whereas they are still part of the grammar teaching in the final year at compulsory school. At last, this empirical study gives an overall idea about grammar in EFL/ESL classrooms, an insight into how grammar teaching is thought out and enacted and thus could have pedagogical implications.

References

1. Fangjie zhang. (1993). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English with Chinese Translation. Beijing: The Commercial Press, Oxford University Press.
2. Guowen Huang. (2000). “Communicative Competence and Communicative Language teaching”. Foreign Language Teaching & Research in Basic Education, 1, 30.
3. Jian zhang. (2006). “Laying Equal Stress on Listening and Speaking with Top Priority to the Latter”. Computer-assisted Foreign Language Education, 5, 56.
4. Larsen-Freeman,D. (1995). On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the myths. In F.Eckman et al. (Eds), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages [A]. Studies in Second language acquisition, 6, 186-214.
6.Scott, Thornbury. (2001). “Why Teach Grammar”. Foreign Language Teaching & Research in Basic Education, 1, 51-54.
7. Scott,Thornbury. (2003). “Grammar as Process”. Foreign Language Teaching & Research in Basic Education, 3, 48-49.
8. Rodgers,T. 2003. Methodology in the New Millenium. English Teaching Forum 41/4: 2-13
9. Widodo, H.P. 2005. Teaching Children Using a Total Physical Response (TPR) Method: Rethinking. English Journal. 235-248.
10. Khamhaengpol, A.; Sriprom, M.; Chuamchaitrakool, P. Development of STEAM activity on nanotechnology to determine basic science process skills and engineering design process for high school students. Think. Skills Creat. 2021, 39, 100796. [CrossRef]
11. Su, C.-H. The Effect of Users’ Behavioral Intention on Gamification Augmented Reality in Stem (Gar-Stem) Education. J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 2019, 18, 450–465. [CrossRef]
12. Nicolescu, B. The Transdisciplinary Evolution of the University Condition for Sustainable Development. In Transdisciplinary Theory, Practice and Education; Fam, D., Neuhauser, L., Gibbs, P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [CrossRef]
13. Chung, C.-C.; Lin, C.-L.; Lou, S.-J. Analysis of the Learning Effectiveness of the STEAM-6E Special Course—A Case Study about the Creative Design of IoT Assistant Devices for the Elderly. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3040. [CrossRef]
14. Fan, S.-C.; Yu, K.-C. Core Value and Implementation of the Science, Technology Engineering, and Mathematics Curriculum in Technology Education. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 2016, 61, 153–183.
15. Chen, C.; Huang, P.-H. The Effects of STEAM-Based Mobile Learning on Learning Achievement and Cognitive Load, Interactive Learning Environments (Online). Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 1–17. [CrossRef]
16. Flintoff, F. Hacking the catalogue: Developing extended cataloguing processes in library makerspaces for shareable, Trackable and accessible dynamic resources supporting steam education. Int. J. Arts Sci. 2017, 9, 505–510.
17. Boulton, C.A.; Kent, C.; Williams, H.T. Virtual learning environment engagement and learning outcomes at a ‘bricks-and-mortar’ university. Comput. Educ. 2018, 126, 129–142. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, R.; Wiesemes, R.; Gibbons, C. Developing digital fluency through ubiquitous mobile devices: Findings from a small-scale study. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 570–578. [CrossRef]
19.Park, C.; Kim, D.-G.; Cho, S.; Han, H.-J. Adoption of multimedia technology for learning and gender difference. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 92, 288–296. [CrossRef]
20.Ferrington, G.; Loge, K. Virtual reality: A new learning environment. Comput. Teach. 1992, 19, 16–19.