Minicase Raines and Warren Finance Essay Example for Free

Minicase Raines and Warren Finance Essay The disadvantage of using company collateral to back the bonds is, the asset used as collateral cannot be sold during the term of the bond and must maintain its value. 2. Seniority of the bond. The seniority of the bond is the order in which bonds will be paid in the event of bankruptcy. The more senior the bond, the higher priority of being paid if there is a bankruptcy, and the lower the coupon rate because the risk to the bond owner is lower. 3. The presence of a sinking fund. A sinking fund is an account set up by the trustee of the bonds. The trustee saves and pools money to purchase, pay off, or call bonds early. Setting up a sinking fund will lower the risk, thus lowering the coupon rate. The risk to the company is not having available funds to feed the trust. 4. A call provision with specified call dates and call prices. A call provision could be included to call the bonds if interest rates drop substantially. The call provision will raises the coupon rate but protect you from paying a high rate for a long period in the event rates drop. 5. A deferred call accompanying the call provision. A deferred call accompanying the call provision would give the bond purchaser a protection period where the bond could not be called. Adding this provision will prohibit you from calling the bond for a set time (call period), and puts you at risk of paying a high interest rate for the deferred period. Therefore, you have a lower coupon rate than a call provision with no deferral period but still higher than a bond with no call provision at all. 6. A make-whole call provision. A make-whole call provision is the safest call for the investor and a lower coupon rate for you. The discount rate is based on the current Treasury rate plus a small-specified percentage. The investor is protected by being made whole if there is a call. 7. Any positive covenants for purchaser and some SS might consider. Positive covenants on bonds are proactive and reduce the coupon rate. Applying positive covenants to the bond makes it more attractive and secure to the investor by applying conditions that protect the investor’s interest. You may wish to consider a covenant to furnish your audited financial statements to the investors. This is something you already do and it would decrease the coupon rate. If you choose to secure with assets (see number 1), including a covenant to assure that the asset is in good working condition would lower the coupon rate. 8. Any negative covenants for purchaser and some SS might consider. Negative covenants on bonds are restrictive and reduce the coupon rate. Applying negative covenants to the bond makes it more attractive to the investor but may hinder the operation by putting limitations on your business actions. You may want to consider a clause that you will not merge with another firm and that you will not issue any additional long-term debt. 9. A conversion feature. A conversion feature allows a bond to convert to stock and unless your company is planning to go public, this would not apply to you. If SS has any plans to go public, you should consider a conversion feature. This feature would benefit the bondholders if the company did go public and if included could lower the coupon rate. 10. A floating-rate coupon. A floating-rate coupon is much like an adjustable rate loan. The coupon rate, tied to a published rate such as the Treasury bill interest rate over a set period, is adjusted per a set schedule such as every six months. There is a disadvantage of doing this when rates are low but will be more attractive to the investor, thus a lower margin. A cap on how much the rate can be increased or decreased would be a good addition if you choose this option. This would be a consideration if you choose not to have a call provision.

Classical influences in federalist papers-Madison Essay Example for Free

Classical influences in federalist papers-Madison Essay James Madison was the fourth President of the United States and was honored with the title of ‘Father of the American Constitution. ’ Madison is the epitome of intellectual forces, which came together in American politics by the end of the eighteenth century. Bernard Bailyn has hypothesized that the classics in colonial America was ‘illustrative, not determinative of thought. ’ To defy this notion and explain Madison’s ability to perform the role of an architect of a system that successfully integrated political and philosophical views, an assessment of Madison’s life and education will be important. A complex synthesis of classical, modern, philosophical, and rational thought has been revealed by the foundation of the American Republic, as well as, the impact of classical antiquity that was considered thoughtfully. In this regard, a combined political wisdom of thousands of years of human experience was reflected by the implementation of the abovementioned complex synthesis for the formation of a system of government. Simplistic theories of interpretation have been defied by a degree of reflection and contemplation that completed that republican government, which is accounted as one of the most purposefully design by the history of mankind. In two years, after the completion of his first year’s exams, the degree was finished by the Madison in English, Greek, mathematics, and Latin. During this time, Reverend John Witherspoon considered Madison as one of his favorite students, and it was an honor as the Reverend was the president of the college. Employing a syllabus that was classical and Christian Witherspoon taught Madison moral philosophies which greatly affected him for the rest of his life. Tangible manifestation in the Federalist Papers was found by the ability of Madison regarding the classical, as well as, modern political philosophy, which was often referred as quasi-Calvinist cognizance. Wherein the plan for a fractured government was described and advocated by Madison. In addition, any individual person or entity sought precluding of usurpation of the power of governance. This theological system of belief also reveals itself in an existing political philosophy. As per the political thinking of the Calvinist, the grace of God is responsible for all the authority. In this regard, due rights are received by both authority and liberty, when the relation between the citizens and rulers is standardized unbridled authority on the part of rulers lead to despotism, autocracy, and tyranny; unbridled liberty on the part of citizens generates into license, revolution, and anarchy. License, anarchy, and revolution have been generated by the unbridled liberty on the part of the citizens. Stewards from the God are found in the rulers, as proper constitution is formed in the government according to the principles of Calvinism. For God’s sake, the highest motives are considered for the obeying of the rulers by the citizens. An example for the understanding of development of the political, classical, and philosophical amalgamation for the debates that were performed during the formation of the American Constitution was presented by a strong proponent of the classics, Calvinist, and the Scottish Enlightenment Witherspoon. The diverse approach of Witherspoon to education provides an important explanation for understanding Madison’s talent of successfully merging classical and modern political theory into a feasible plan for a secure democratic state. In other words, an extensive intellectual focus was maintained by Witherspoon, by which, discordant philosophical, as well as, theological concepts were blended into an educational program effectively and coherently. When Madison came into politics his instant tasks were clear, first he wanted to put up a proposal for a democratic republican government acceptable to the representative body at the Constitutional Convention, and second, to assure the ratification of the proposed Constitution. From an extensive view point, Madison wanted to produce a classic dissertation on the American system of government, which would enlighten future generations about democratic republicanism. Madison was able to attain both of these goals through one channel and that was The Federalist Papers. This information helps in understanding how extensive knowledge of the classics was acknowledged by Madison and the other two authors. In Federalist no. 14 Madison presents a question, which can function as a good outline of his approach concerning the issue of the significance of the classics to the American people: It has been the glory of American people, as a blind veneration for antiquity, custom, knowledge, experience’s lessons, and objections of their senses has not been suffered by them, as the opinions of former times, as well as, other nations have been paid with a decent regard by these people. The Federalist has considered this thinking approach an obvious thing, since ancients have been referenced frequently by Madison, and their strengths and weaknesses have been borne in mind. When Thomas Jefferson sent the published texts of Polybius from France, the issues of the proposed government were considered by Madison, while positive and negative examples were considered and utilized from the ancient sources by him. Therefore Madison opposes the objections of people who mention the example of Ancient Greece as a sign of un-workability of a permanent republic. He argues that Greece was a democratic system that was often confused with a republic; Madison distinguishes between the two by mentioning that a democracy requires the people to be in assembly in order to carry out the business of the state, whereas a republic requires only the assembly of legislative body to work effectively. Hence he includes both democratic and republican doctrines in his government blueprint. The importance of the classics in the American Republic origin was demonstrated by the evaluation of specific sections comprising of papers of the Federalist, and specifically, the Madison. In addition, classical antiquity’s major references were also included in these sections as mentioned before, Madison frequently opted for classical tradition method to convey his political message, yet Madison often referred to antiquity as a negative prototype for a political culture. One area in which Montesquieu’s political philosophy complements Madison’s tactic is the issue of religion. After historical bigotry of the religion was criticized, and trade was meddled with it, it was commented by him that when the established religion satisfied the state, the establishment of another religion is not allowed. In this regard, establishment of any state religion was banned by the framers of the Constitution. Few smart and wise individuals should be communicated with the important political truths for their wise implementation, which was provided by the writings of the political philosopher, as the relationship between the political community and philosophy was considered as volatile. At the same time, harmful truths were concealed from these individuals by these writings as well. This concept was well aware by the student of Montesquieu, Madison. In the result, the classical and modern political philosophy was concealed by the furthering of his project. In this sense, the role of a crucial link in the chain of thoughts of the Romans and Greeks was played by the Madison, who was served by the Montesquieu. Classics are where Madison’s popular audience was at a majority and this is one fact that he used to his benefit in writing The Federalist Papers. In addition, major references to classical antiquity were contained in six out of eighty-five of the Federalist Papers. Passing references and explicit references regarding the specific indebtedness with a clear sign were contained in the twenty-three Federalist Papers. If these facts are considered, the link between classical antiquity and the origins of the American Republic appears to ignore a serious question. Mark Diamond states that the most immediate kind of political work was the Federalist, which was a piece of campaign propaganda. In addition, a view to the permanence of its argument was also provided to thoughtful men. The widest electorate was at once addressed by it, but able and educated men were also considered, by whom, the fate of the Constitution could be determined. Short-term objective was accomplished by the Federalist, in which, public opinion had to be influence with the relation of political system of the United States. Federalist As mentioned before, the people of New York were persuaded by the publishing of the Federalist for the ratification of the Constitution. It also made an attempt to elucidate different provisions of the Constitution and to enlighten the people by giving reasons, as to why other provisions like bill of rights had been excluded. It was argued by the Publius that an exceptional opportunity of reason and choice had by the Americans for the creation of own type of government. In contrast, earlier constitutions were determined by the chance of force. Publius argued that the Constitution shaped a republican style of government which was effective and sound in nature, but yet was controlled by checks and balances.

Theories of Learning for Classrooms

Theories of Learning for Classrooms Learning is the process that results in a relatively enduring change in a person or persons (Alexander et al, 2009: 186). Learning is a dynamic process whereby the students knowledge and skills are different before to after learning (Winn, 1990). Teaching is by definition the promotion of learning and ought therefore to be informed by the best of our knowledge about learning. Learning and teaching poses a synergistic relationship; that is teachers need to teach with an approach that reinforces how students naturally learn (Muijs brooks book). A number of educational researchers offer learning paradigms to explain how individuals learn. The way students learn can be used to foster effective teaching practices, and ultimately align teaching with positive learning and educational experiences. Understanding how knowledge is developed and comprehended can allow teachers to shape the methodological delivery of their subject content to match the theoretical frameworks, underpinning how knowledge is processed. Attending to the nature of student learning can allow teachers to improve their practice and in turn the quality of the learners experience (Macleod Golby, 2003). The extremes of this learning theory spectrum are represented by the Behaviourist and Constructivist theories of learning. Behaviouristic Theory of Learning Learning, according to behaviourists (Watson, Pavlov), is defined as acquisition of new behaviour. The focus of behaviourism is on the conditioning of observable human behaviour and is based on the principal conception that a reaction is made in response to a specific stimulus. This reaction leads to a consequence. If the consequence is pleasant and positive, the behaviour change becomes reinforced. With consistent reinforcement, the behaviour pattern becomes conditioned and is automatically activated upon stimuli presentation. Physiologically, behaviourist theories propose that learning is achieved through reinforcement of a particular neural pathway, which links the stimuli and response in the brain. This activation and reinforcement results in a faster, smoother implementation of certain reactions and responses. The connections between the stimuli and specific responses are built correctly and then reinforced over time through practise and repetition, which ultimately strengthens the neural pathways, resulting in a more efficient response to the stimuli. (Pritchard). Behaviourists term this form of learning conditioning, whereby with consistent reinforcement the behaviour pattern becomes conditioned. Classical conditioning involves the reinforcement of a natural reflex or behaviours which occur naturally as a response to a specific stimulus. In contrast, operant conditioning involves reinforcing a behaviour by praising it, or discouraging undesirable behaviour with punishment. The rewarding phases of this conditioning processing is known as reinforcement. However, this stimulus-response relationship discounts any mental processes which may be involved in learning. Researchers, including Vygotsky 1962 amongst others, began to criticise the behaviourist approach, as it was seen too teacher centred and directed, void of meaningful learning and the teacher process was focused too much on individual rather than collaborative group work. In addition, the constructivist perspective challenged the implied separation between mental processing and knowledge, which had to be bridged by the role of a teacher. Constructivist Theory The constructivist movement was formed on Piagets (1976) and Vygotsky (1986) work who view learning as the effect of mental construction, whereby learners combine their existing knowledge with new information, to construct meaning and formulate their understanding. The constructivist theory proposes that learning is an active process, a social activity, contextual, centred on constructing meaning and regards the learner as a responsible agent in their knowledge acquisition (Loyens 2007. In constructivist learning, individuals draw in their experience of the world around them and work to make sense of what they perceive in order to build an understanding of what is surrounding them (Harris, 1994). Since constructivism involves learners to interact with their immediate learning environment, learning has been considered to be situation-specific and context-bound activity (McInerney and McInerney, 2002. Constructivism is an umbrella term to encompass the wide range of constructivist perspectives, which can be separated into two branches; cognitive constructivism (Piaget, 1976) and social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1986). Both sub-types believe that knowledge is actively constructed by individuals Birenbaum 2003, however through the use of different mediums; either through a series of internal, intellectual stages (cognitive constructivism), or by social interaction including interactions with world based, external experiences (social constructivism). The numerous perspectives on constructivism within these two sub-types could be essentially grouped around a rooted assumption about learning. That is, knowledge is actively constructed by the learner (Birenbaum 2003; Harris and Alexander 1998) Piagets developmental stages theory, which represents cognitive constructivism, presents four age-referenced development stages which provide a theory of gradual cognitive development up to the age of eleven years old. The stages refer to an explicit age range and characterise the cognitive abilities necessary at each stage to construct meaning of ones environment. Social constructivism emphasises the role of language in the process of intellectual development. Vygotsky considered dialogue, usually but not always with a more knowledgeable other, as a vehicle by which concepts are considered, shared and developed. The dialogue, which is based on learners pre existing and current knowledge (schemas), is then exploited to develop and construct new ideas and understanding. Vygotsky advocates that the process of learning involves moving into and across a zone of proximal development, which is aided by the intervention of another through support. The zone of proximal development is a theoretical space of understanding which is just above the level of an individuals current understanding. The process of giving support to learners at the appropriate time and level of sophistication to meet the individual needs is termed scaffolding. Scaffolding can allow the movement from one zone to another and assists in the passing through the zone of proximal devel opment. From reviewing the literature, educational researchers which employ these constructivist principles select aspects from both strands of this learning theory (Biggs, 1979, Cunningham, 1996), and use constructivist theories as a generalised term. However, as Mathews and Lui highlight, combining the plethora of constructivist variants is questionable, and generalisations made may have less significance and loss of meaning. Therefore, for the purpose of this assignment, the term constructivism will reflect a collaboration of both social and cognitive strands; however specific branches and the implications of these strands are highlighted where necessary. Critique of learning theories and associated implications upon classroom practice A review of the literature suggests that behaviouristic learning does not offer students the chance to develop deep meaning and understanding (Einworth and Collins), but instead has a tendency to promote superficial learning of skills (Fosnot, 1996). Making a correct response and remembering content does not necessarily imply understanding, and consequently the actual understanding achieved through behavioural approaches is challenged. Hounsell, Entwistle, 1997 conclude that the use of rote memorisation represents a learning approach to a surface level of understanding, whilst establishing connections with current knowledge reflects an approach for a deeper level of understanding. In contrast, from a constructivist perspective, the principle of learning using prior experience is beneficial in promoting a deeper and richer understanding (Pressley, Harris Marks, 1992). Demerici advises that information which is connected to a learners prior experiences is more likely to be retained, explaining higher retention rates when a constructivist approach is adopted. (Demirici). According to Fosnot, the focus of attention in constructivist perspective is concept development and deeper understanding. This research suggests that constructivist approaches lead to a great, richer and deeper understanding. It is therefore plausible to suggest that the quality and depth of understanding associated to a constructivist teaching approach is more likely to exceed that of the behaviourist approach. However, as Entwhistle and Smith (2002) identify, the association between memorisation and surface approach may be weak. Kember, 1996; Watkins Biggs, 1996 reported that memorisation can be used to learn unfamiliar terminology, as the first stage to establishing understanding. This concept, where memorisation is part of meaningful learning, is defined as memorising with understanding (Marton, Watkins,Tang, 1997; Meyer, 2000, and has been conducted by students as a successful revision tool (Entwistle Entwistle, 2001) In addition, (Smith, 2001, 2002a) affirms that rote learning can contribute to understanding. Therefore, it appears that behaviouristic learning approaches can be beneficial for certain tasks such as establishing classroom behaviour (Fulton). Teachers could consider deploying beahviorusitlic approaches to the learning of classroom behaviour, especially for pupils who display anxious tendencies and low motivation (Prittard; Fulton). Those of higher academic ability perceive simplistic drill and practice unsatisfying and dull (Prittard). In addition, some students demand understanding, yet adhering to behaviouristic learning approaches does not accommodate this craving. In other situations, the concepts of learning without understanding can fuel frustration, lead to misconceptions and generate a difficult learning environment (Prittard). Controversially, Fox (2001) suggests that the constructivist theory may imply that remembering is not important, and that learning is solely centred on understanding concepts. However, neither of these are true, and being able to remember knowledge is an important prerequisite of learning. In addition, Biggs, (1998) and Jin and Ortazzi, (1998) have reported that constructivist teaching approaches dont consistently guarantee teaching effectiveness. Instead, traditional, more behaviourist approaches to learning in large classes has proven to be successful internationally, such as in China. Fox, 2001, argues that constructivism neglects the role of memorisation and mechanical learning techniques Arguably, due to the varying nature of meaning which is uncontrollably constructed by students, in some cases, rote learning and memorisation may be more useful when teaching factual concepts and where clarity in understanding is required. Rote learning may be used to help students cope better with some aspects of work that they find difficult. However, teachers must consider that rote learning is not an approach to develop understanding and therefore where possible, should be followed by attempts to encourage understanding. Standard school and classroom routines and expectations for behaviour can be learnt through behaviouristic approaches. In the case of behaviour management, a strategy to quieten the class, such as raising of the hand, or counting down from three could be effectively used. In this case, the stimulus, such as the teacher raising their hand or calling out the number three, must be fully explained to the class. In addition, the stimuli must be fully visible and audible to the students, which is possible with a clearly risen hand or an assertive voice. The response desired, such as a student raising of the hand and silence, must be fully understood by students. It is important that the stimulus-response occurrence should be repeated by the teacher and used regularly. The same strategy should be employed every time the teacher wants to quieten the class, establishing consistency of stimuli and behavioural response. This repeated activation strengthens the pathways, affording for a smoother and faster implementation of the response. . Pupils should be made aware of the negative and positive consequences if they do not respond to the stimuli as desired and the consequences need to be kept consistent. Therefore, consistency of behaviour management strategies is crucial and classroom practice must adhere to the same strategise as the same stimuli is presented for a specific response. Behaviourism relies on reinforcement which is employed to condition the behaviour, and therefore is essentially the tool which brings about learning. Therefore rewards and punishments for behaviours must play a crucial role and actively administered within classroom practice. Behaviourism may therefore stimulate and encourage more use of positive reinforcement which has been a long standing effective classroom practice (Elliott and Busse, 1991 fulton book). However teachers must consider that rewarding children who are already highly motivated may not be as effective, and may actually lead to a loss of interest (Fulton) Rewards and praise have been shown to enhance motivation, and serve as an effective behaviour management tool, however, praising students may not come naturally to teachers. However, behaviourist approaches dont take account of mental cognitive processing involved in learning. In contrast, constructivism emphasises that the learners must develop their understanding for themselves and constructivist researchers advocate that mental activity is the lifeblood of learning and the extent of what is learnt (Howe 1999). Teachers cannot assume that the products of learning are solely the teachers effort and thought; instead learning requires effort on the part of the learner. Teachers need to offer scope of activities where the accustomed effort and activity falls on the learners responsibility. Such opportunities would afford learner engagement and optimise the possibility of effective lasting learning taking place (Prittard). A vast array of supportive literature endorses the success of constructive approaches. Research informs that learning through such constructive mediums, like discussion, participation, practice, are successful and associated with learning gains and knowledge retention. Demirci Yavuz (2009). Dericimi also reported a significant difference in post-test grades and retention learning tests grades, with the constructivist approach being more efficient than the conventional, behaviouristic approach. However, the constructivist theory may imply that all individual differences in learning come down to the consequences of each learners history of learning )Loyens, 2008. Furthermore, although we do learn by acquiring knowledge from our environments through interacting with the external world, Fox highlights that the environment also acts upon learners. That is, we act and react and learning can be achieved from both experiences. However, constructivism appears to fail to acknowledge adaptive instinctive responses as reactive forms of learning (Fox, 2001) and the role of talent in cognitive development. Furthermore, Fox (2001) and Bredo, (2000) argues that constructivism discounts the role of innate, motivational and genetic factors in knowledge construction, which have been proven to play a role in cognitive development and ealrning Carey Spelke, 1994). Another assumption refers to an epistemological assumption that students actively seek resources and experiences, which are anchored by their pre-existing knowledge. In addition, it is assumed that learners utilise the construed data to actively construct their knowledge (Renkl). Therefore, this approach to learning relies on students encountering experiences and applying these experiences to their pre-existing knowledge to develop their understanding. However, such experiences and world-based interactions may not be feasible or available to students due to their lifestyle circumstances. Consequently, teachers need to be aware that understanding and meaning is limited to the individual experiences of the students. In accordance with this assumption, the constructivist theory can explain why pupils conceptions and meaning do vary between each other (Taber, 2000). Given that learning is achieved through the constructing activity of the student, the individual can only understand or kno w what he or she has constructed (Dunn and Cunningham, 1996). Therefore, constructivism may be seen as subjective and relative (Duffy and Cunningham, 1996).. This may lead to marking criteria discrepancies, confusion and inconsistency, and student misconceptions, which do not match reality. In addition, Duffy and Cunningham propose that if the constructions and meanings are different amongst students, the little shared understanding may challenge the ease of communication between learners and the class. This may jeopardise the effectiveness of class discussions and social interactions as a tool to enhance learning. Similarly, as construction is activity on part of the learner (Bruner 1966, 1971), what is constructed cannot be controlled by the teacher. Instead the learner has autonomy and self-regulates what understanding is established. Therefore the students constructed understanding may not parallel with other students, with reality or with the teachers construction and understanding. Consequently, teachers must not assume that the construction and understanding of a concept is universal between all students. Instead teachers must actively access and consider the alternative perceptions and understanding of the learners hence why a transmission approach is fruitless. On the other hand, teachers come into the classroom with their own construction and conceptions of subject content, and according to Patrick 1988, are not neutral. Therefore, a teachers understanding can colour the students understanding, and together, Patrick, 1998 and Marton and Booth (1997) suggested that some teachers moulded the students construction of a concept to align with their concept interpretation. Ellisowths review concludes that the form of understanding impressed onto students is largely dependent on the teachers personal interpretation of the subject content. Therefore, although the constructivist theory assumes that the construction of understanding is the product of the learners interpretation exclusively, the constructivist theory does not account for the interplay between teachers and learners comprehension. Importantly, to help progressive learning and avoid developing misconceptions, teachers need to provide a clear focus and goals, with explicit learning objectives, which are rooted within pupils existing knowledge. The clear objectives allow students to construct their ideas using current knowledge and understand the overarching direction and progression oftheir learning. Activating prior knowledge is important to elicit pre-knowledge, allowing teachers to decipher the conceptual frameworks they are operating within. Teachers need to highlight the links between students existing knowledge and the new subject knowledge, to help the learner form bridges and facilitate their mental construction and cognitive processes (REF). By forming these links, students can activate and recall their pre-existing knowledge, and use this foundation to build and integrate new concepts. Teachers should encourage students to relate new knowledge to current knowledge and external experiences, allowing the new subject content to become embedded within the existing knowledge structures, contributing to or amending to the students schema. Since learning constructively is based on the addition of new content to current knowledge, the learner must have sufficient levels of understanding before new content can be used to construct more complex meaning and progress. Teachers and educators need to consider that new content cannot be built up until the foundations, such as current knowledge, is secured. To accommodate these pre-requisites of learning, the individuals knowledge needs to be continually assessed. As a regular classroom practice, formative assessment could be used as a regular approach to assess existing and new understanding, before moving to the next lesson. Formative assessment is a regular, informal mode of assessment, allowing teachers to monitor students progress, gain an appreciation of what has been learnt and adapt their teaching practices to optimise further learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Accordingly, given that learning is an active and evolving processes, formative assessment can be used by teachers to assess, monitor, challenge unclear perspectives and adapt classroom practices to accommodate the constructivist principles of learning. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that constructivist approaches to learning favour the use of formative assessment and may prompt its use in the classrooms, which Lamon, 2001 reports as being more valuable. Since formative assessment alone is associated with learning gains, (Black and Wiliam 1998), learning is positively influenced indirectly via adopting teaching strategies which are aligned to learning constructively. Formative assessment may be undertaken through questioning, teacher and pupil discussion, peer assessment and interaction with peers. Formative assessment will also identify pupils individual learning needs, supporting teachers conduct in differentiation to assure pupils are moving forward, across their ZPD and optimise learning gains. Formative assessment can be achieved in the classroom, through discussion, questioning, peer assessment, self-assessment and feedback. However, with behaviourism, the opportunities for feedback are confined to only whether the response desired is correct or not. There is little scope for learning, or how to improve in order to meet the desired response. Therefore, under behaviourist approaches, feedback cannot be used for learning purposes, therefore opportunities for assessment for learning, which have shown to enhance learning, may not be fruitful. Consequently, limited feedback combined with the objective outcomes of behaviourist approaches mean that individual student needs are not necessarily part of the formulae when considering teaching strategies and subject content. The need to consider individual needs is undeniable, therefore such constraints of feedback extent presents a multitude of problems to the teaching and learning of students. When constructing new concepts and developing understanding, reviewing and reflecting on what has already been learnt also helps to establish and secure students previous knowledge. In addition, by asking what students understand before embarking on a new concept would help students form links between new and previous knowledge (Fulton). This reviewing could be done as a starter, but also plays a role at the end of the lesson, forming a plenary. Teachers should consider, incorporate and plan for well managed plenary to consolidate knowledge. Time to reflect upon what has been undertaken, the processes and the content gives the opportunity for internalisation and for a deeper level of understanding to be developed. Similarly, learning is most effective when learners become engaged, which means that teachers need to adopt an active approach to learning and involve engaging tasks to promote learning in the classroom. Learning using authentic tasks, which allow pupils to relate to their own experience inside and outside the classroom (Selinger, 2001) increases the probability of engagement with the task and supports findings that learning in a familiar context is most effective. Authentic tasks are likely to hold the attention and interest of children, and lead to a deeper level of engagement than with non-authentic or less authentic tasks (Fulton). Favourably, the constructivist principles match those fundamentals associated with effective learning. This active perspective of constructive learning (Phillips, 1995) is often contrasted with behaviourist stimulus-response relationship, which has been defined as a passive view in learning. However, reading and listening are included within this constructive approach to teaching, which could be argued to be more passive approaches. Whilst this suggests that all cognition is active, to talking and writing, listening and reading are relatively passive. Traditionalists do not deny the importance of dialogue, and this may be utilised in questioning and answering, it is more that behaviourists place greater emphasis on knowledge and on the teacher as being knowledgeable, rather than learners and their existing knowledge (Fox). A balance is needed between emphasis on the teachers and learners, since too much emphasis on either part can lead to prescriptions for teaching which may ignore the students needs or dismiss the teachers as a significant resource of knowledge. An active learning approach can be achieved by encouraging students to explore concepts and ideas, and to follow their instincts (Wray and Lewis, 1997). Given that exploration can promote sequential development of ideas, it is likely to assist in the construction of new knowledge; the roots to constructivism. Classroom practice could be based on a discovery-based approach Huitt, 2004;, where students can find answers out for themselves, answer their own questions through experimenting with new ideas and discuss their beliefs and thinking patterns with their peers. Importantly, engaging with each other reflects social interactions, which can be a vehicle to develop understanding using social interaction. Unlike behaviourist approaches where the teacher is the primary resources of knowledge and is influenced by their interests and perspective; knowledge construction offers the opportunity of learning to become dynamic and varied, opposed to being static and prescribed (Sudizna). The use of resources promotes more interactive learning and interest, which are both shown to positively influence learning. Behaviourist approaches have been criticised for not addressing this dynamic nature of learning as its theory assumes a static and standardised view of knowledge learning. Supported by Winn 1990, student knowledge is dynamic and changes, that is knowledge and skills are different before learning to after instruction, and behaviourism does not take this into account. In addition, behaviourism theory does not appreciate that students come into classrooms with prior knowledge. Conversely, the constructivist theory acknowledges that pre-existing knowledge is requisite of learning and that students enter classrooms with pre-conceptions, knowledge and beliefs which they deploy in constructing new understanding. (Jones, Carter, Rua, 1999) As already discussed, scaffolding is crucial for the learner to pass through their zone of proximal development, and can be undertaken by the teacher. Scaffolding can be practiced in the classroom in many ways, and teachers need to appreciate that this is fundamental to the educational progression of students and how this may be achieved. Support materials need to be widely available, such as a writing frame to support a particular style of prose, or a list of words to help in the process of completing an exercise, designed to assist understanding The provision of practical apparatus, especially in science, may help to explain the solution to a problem and is an engaging approach. Students can evidence reality and attach a sense of perspective and reality to their learning. Given the exploratory nature of constructivism, classroom practice needs to be supportive and generate an environment where the student feels safe to ask for help and comfortable in approaching the teacher. The teacher must be aware of the different supportive needs of the class, and meet these through differentiation and allowing time for class discussion, misconceptions and any lack of understanding. To help the teacher identify those who need more support than others, formative assessment can be incorporated to highlight the students individual needs that need to be addressed. Ultimately, this will allow tasks to be designed and geared towards the individuals learning ability. Unlike, behaviourism theories, constructivist theory accounts for the role of social learning and potential of interaction and recognises the importance of social interaction (Phillips, 1995). Incorporating social interaction opportunities, using language as a medium to construct ideas in groups of varying sizes, both with and without the teacher are encouraged and popular in classroom practice today (Jones and Brader-anjerie, 2002). Dialouge is proposed to constitue a crucial component of the constructivism paradigm ((Greeno et al. 1996; (Steffe and Gale 1995).Loyens, 2008. Discussion is fundamental and can be used through augmenting, debating, discussing concepts, teacher questioning and pupils presenting. Teachers should encourage students to work collaboratively, in pairs or small groups, and allow them to help each other and construct their own meaning in their own words of a concept. Dialogue with others allows additional and alternative perspectives to be taken into account when developing personal conclusions. Different knowledge, points of view and understanding can be given and considered before moving on. Teachers should listen to pupils, and use their words for explaining concepts and draw on other opinions of class members. Constructivist theory also takes into account that learning is contextual. Evidence suggests that learning occurs in real-life contexts and learning is actually linked to a context, as deduced by Macleod and Goldby 2003. Children working with new ideas in a familiar content are more likely to engage with the ideas, than if the same ideas were present in an alien context. Therefore teachers should strive to include more authentic tasks and set learning concepts which are aligned with students familiar contexts. If a learning activity falls beyond the cultural understanding of the learning, then learning is likely to be less successful than if it had been situated in a more familiar setting. .Meaningful contexts for learning are very important; however, what is meaningful for a teacher is not necessarily meaningful for the student. The association between the concept of learning being situated and the need for authentic learning tasks is evidence (McFarlane, 1997). However, the recommended approach to situation learning in meaningful contexts (e.g. Lave Wenger, 1991) has been argued against. Walkerdine, 1988, for example argued that if school learning became situated solely within the lived world of daily experiences, the opportunities for abstract reasoning and reflective activity, which are all constituents of constructivism, would become limited and sacrificed, whilst confining students to their local xxxxxxx? The exactness of the Piaget stage of development has been criticised, that is to say children may pass through the stage, but it is not clear that they will pass through the stages at specific ages, however, as a developmental trail, this theory is useful in teaching practices. Piagets stage developmental theory offers guidance covering the level of complexity that may be expected in a childs thought processes at approximate stages in their development. Whilst Piagets developmental stage theory influences principally primary school teaching practices, given the ages this theory is related to, the appreciation and awareness that c

understanding digital biology :: essays research papers

UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL BIOLOGY Explaining digital biology is impossible without explaining its principle. The purpose of this text is not to report experimental results. Rather, it tries to explain to laymen, in the simplest terms, this radically new approach to biology. We hope it will be useful to all, scientists or not, who find it hard to "make the leap". Indeed, is it possible to believe that the specific activity of biologically-active molecules (e.g. histamine, caffeine, nicotine, adrenalin), not to mention the immunological signature of a virus or bacterium can be recorded and digitized using a computer sound card, just like an ordinary sound? Imagine the perplexity of Archimedes confronted with a telephone, and being told that by using it he could be heard on the other side of the world, were we not to explain the nature of sound waves or their translation into electromagnetism. Life depends on signals exchanged among molecules. For example, when you get angry, adrenalin "tells" its receptor, and it alone (as a faithful molecule, it talks to no other) to make your heart beat faster, to contract superficial blood vessels, etc.. In biology, the words "molecular signal" are used very often. Yet, if you ask even the most eminent biologists what the physical nature of this signal is, they seem not even to understand the question, and stare at you wide-eyed. In fact, they've cooked up a rigorously Cartesian physics all their own, as far removed as possible from the realities of contemporary physics, according to which simple contact (Descarte's laws of impact, quickly disproved by Huygens) between two coalescent structures creates energy, thus constituting an exchange of information. For many years, I believed and recited this catechism without realizing its absurdity, just as mankind did not realize the absurdity of the belief that the sun cir cles the earth. The truth, based on facts, is very simple. It does not require any "collapse of the physical or chemical worlds." That molecules vibrate, we have known for decades. Every atom of every molecule and every intermolecular bond-the bridge that links the atoms-emits a group of specific frequencies. Specific frequencies of simple or complex molecules are detected at distances of billions of light-years, thanks to radio-telescopes. Biophysicists describe these frequencies as an essential physical characteristic of matter, but biologists do not consider that electromagnetic waves can play a role in molecular functions themselves. We cannot find the words "frequency"

History of the Berlin Wall :: Germany War Wall History Essays

The Berlin Wall separated the people of East Berlin from the people in West Berlin. It separated families, kept people from their jobs, and caused people to die. It was erected in an effort to save East Berlin’s economy, but in the end it did so much more. The fleeing of residents of East Berlin to West Berlin affected the Soviet Union and East Berlin in two ways. The first of which was economic. By 1958, 15% of the population of East Berlin had fled to West Berlin. East Berlin’s economy provided much for the Soviets and among these 15% were doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and other essential figures for the East Berlin economy. The birth rate in East Berlin was higher than the death rate, but still 250,000 people were leaving every year. In 1961 alone, 5,000 doctors, 20,000 engineers and technicians, and 17,000 teachers left East Berlin. All together in the years from 1954 through 1960, 4,600 doctors, 15,885 teachers, 738 university teachers, 15,536 engineers and technicians moved from East Berlin to West Berlin. Besides these professionals, 11,705 students with initial intentions of working in East Berlin left to work in West Berlin after getting their free education from East Berlin. This hit East Berlin very hard, for it needed these potential workers to rebuild the country after the destruction caused by World War II.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Walter Ulbricht, the leader of the East German communist party and president of the Privy Council, was greatly distressed by the fleeing of East Berlin’s citizens, for it hurt his 7 year plan to bring East Berlins economy to the same level as West Berlin’s. Walter Ulbricht ordered regular police spot checks of anyone carrying a suitcase, but this barely had any impact on the number of East Berlin citizens fleeing. Citizens making many trips with very little baggage at once easily avoided them. Ulbricht tried very hard to convince Soviet Union to take over West Berlin, but the Soviet Union wanted to keep peace with westerners. Finally, the Soviet leader, Stalin, backed Ulbricht and declared that West Berlin must be turned into a â€Å"free city† in six months. The Western powers did not comply with these demands and Stalin, after six months, did nothing in retaliation for being ignored.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  During the six months that Stalin spoke of, the citizens of East Berlin feared their time was running short to flee to West Berlin, so in those six months, more people fled than had previously been fleeing.

The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge Essay -- Fifth Discipline Peter Se

The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In his book The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge emphasizes his model of a "learning organization," which he defines as "an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future." A learning organization excels at both adaptive learning and generative learning.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Senge describes five disciplines that are necessary for a learning organization. "Learning organization" is a catchphrase covering the ideal of an organization built on vision, teamwork, openness, flexibility, ability to act under changing conditions, and so forth and so on. It is an organization where people don't just promote their limited region and privileges, but where they take risks and responsibilities for their shared future, working on creating maximum synergy and maximum ability to deal with the whole state of affairs. The five disciplines are: team learning, building shared vision, mental models, personal mastery, and systems thinking. Team learning is the proficiency of a group of people to halt their theories and assumptions and freely think together. That involves dialogue in the true meaning of the word, as a flow of meaning. It means going beyond personal defensiveness and presenting ideas openly, even when one is going out on a limb. Building shared vision means members of a group truly share their pictures of the future, if they are excited about what they are creating together, then they will act out of inner motivation an...

Difficulties in Learning English Grammar

International Journal of Instruction e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ? www. e-iji. net July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 p-ISSN: 1694-609X DIFFICULTIES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING GRAMMAR IN AN EFL CONTEXT1 Abdu Mohammed Al-Mekhlafi PhD. , College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman [email  protected] com Ramani Perur Nagaratnam PhD. , Ministry of Manpower, Oman The role of grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context has been for decades a major issue for students and teachers alike.Researchers have debated whether grammar should be taught in the classroom and students, for their part, have generally looked upon grammar instruction as a necessary evil at best, and an avoidable burden at worst. The paper reports a study undertaken to investigate the difficulties teachers face in teaching grammar to EFL students as well as those faced by students in learning it, in the teachers' perception.The study aimed to find out whether there are significant differences in teachers' perceptions of difficulties in relation to their gender, qualification, teaching experience, and the level they teach in school, thus providing insights into their own and their students' difficulties. Mean scores and t-test were used to interpret the data. The main findings are reported with implications. Key Words: English language teaching, instruction, EFL grammar instruction, teaching, difficulties in grammar instructionINTRODUCTION The English teacher is often portrayed as an â€Å"unattractive grammar monger whose only pleasure in life is to point out the faults of others† (Baron, 1982, p. 226). For the most part, within the classroom, any mention of grammar causes the student moments of discomfort and sometimes even terror. Many teachers have tried to make grammar teaching a non-threatening, imaginative and useful activity within the English curriculum. A summary of this paper was presented at the 54th World Assembly of the International Council on Education for Teaching (ICET) on ‘Maintaini ng Strategic Agility: Managing change and assuring quality in education for teaching’, 14-17 December 2009, Muscat, Oman. 70 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Previous studies on students' and teachers' attitudes and perceptions of grammar instruction in the context of language teaching and learning suggest a disparity between students and teachers.While students favour formal and explicit grammar instruction and error correction, teachers favour communicative activities with less conscious focus on grammar (e. g. , Brindley 1984; Kumaravadivelu 1991; Leki 1995; Schultz 1996, 2001; Spratt 1999). Rationale for the present study The foregoing review of literature shows that practicing teachers are faced with a range of options for grammar instruction in their classrooms. There are, however, many types of difficulties faced by students and teachers with regard to grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context.Identifying such difficulties and being consciously awar e of them would help teachers find ways of overcoming them and provide effective grammar instruction. There has, however, been little investigation of the difficulties faced by EFL teachers and Aran learners in the Gulf region with regard to grammar instruction. The teachers employ theoretically recommended methods without necessarily taking into account their own and their learners’ potential difficulties.They may not be conscious of difficulties which are serious and may thus hinder students’ learning of English grammar, and do not choose the method of instruction that would pose fewer difficulties and problems to their learners. It is in this context that the present study was undertaken to capture valuable insights into how EFL school teachers in Oman perceive students’ as well as their own difficulties with grammar instruction. The study reported here aims to address this need by presenting the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students' difficulties in this regard.It also aims to add to the knowledge base in this area. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attitudes towards grammar instruction In teaching grammar, three areas have to be considered: grammar as rules, grammar as form, and grammar as resource. For many L2 learners, learning grammar often means learning the rules of grammar and having an intellectual knowledge of grammar. Teachers often believe that this will provide the generative basis on which learners can build their knowledge and will be able to use the language eventually. For them, prescribed rules give a kind of security.International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 71 A better approach is perhaps to see grammar as one of many resources that we have in language which helps us to communicate. We should see how grammar relates to what we want to say or write, and how we expect others to interpret what our language use and i ts focus. According to Widdowson (1990: 86), † . . . grammar is not a constraining imposition but a liberating force: it frees us from a dependency on context and a purely lexical categorization of reality. Given that many learners – and teachers – tend to view grammar as a set of restrictions on what is allowed and disallowed in language use – ‘a linguistic straitjacket’ in Larsen-Freeman’s words (2002: 103) – the conception of grammar as something that liberates rather than represses is one that is worth investigating. According to Morelli (2003), students perceived themselves as having a better attitude towards grammar instruction in context, while performing slightly better after having experienced the traditional grammar instruction.Elkilic and Akca (2008) reported generally positive attitudes of students studying English grammar at a private primary EFL classroom towards studying grammar. In particular, however, a little ov er 50% of their subjects claimed to enjoy grammar very much and only about 10% reported finding some difficulty in learning and remembering grammar. Student expectations Student expectations of traditional, explicit grammar teaching have been confirmed by many teachers (cf. Borg, 1999a, b).Burgess and Etherington (2002:440-441) also conclude that teachers believe that explicit teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because of expectations and feelings of insecurity. Since the 1970s, attention has shifted from ways of teaching grammar to ways of getting learners to communicate, but grammar has been seen to be a powerful undermining and demotivating force among L2 learners. In terms of motivation and learner success with languages, grammar has been seen to be a problem and to stand in the way of helping learners to communicate fluently.The hard fact that most teachers face is that learners often find it difficult to make flexible use of the rules of grammar taught in the cl assroom. They may know the rules perfectly, but are incapable of applying them in their own use of the language. Teachers' recognition of this process (i. e. , of transferring declarative knowledge about grammar into procedural knowledge) as a problem for many of their students has been reported by Burgess and Etherington (2002:442). Haudeck International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 72 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ as reported that many learners have difficulty in internalising grammar rules, although these have been taught intensively (1996, cited in European Commission, 2006). The use of grammatical terminology Metalinguistic discussion (i. e. , the use of grammatical terminology to talk about language) is seen by Stern (1992:327) as one of the characteristics of explicit grammar teaching. According to Burgess and Etherington (2002: 444), teachers believe that their students see grammatical terminology as useful and that its use does no t present a particular difficulty for students.Descriptive grammars acknowledge the fact that language is dynamic and its use is constantly changing, although not in major ways. The problem for ESL/EFL learners, however, is that there is a time-lag between the awareness of such changes and their acceptance as the proper use of the language. As Morelli (2003:33-34) has observed, â€Å"Grammar can be taught traditionally or contextually, but student perception should be considered by teachers in the decision-making process. Students need to feel confident that educators have met their needs . . . nd educators should be willing to consider the attitudes and perceptions of students when making decisions about how to teach grammar. † METHOD Purpose The study reported here aims to investigate the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students' difficulties with regard to grammar instruction. Research questions The study aimed to answer the following questions: 1. What are EFL teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties of students and teachers with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context? 2.Are there any differences in teachers' perceptions between the difficulties faced by teachers and those faced by students? 3. Do these perceptions of difficulties vary according to the teachers’: †¢ Gender, †¢ Level taught, †¢ Qualifications, and †¢ Experience? International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 73 4. Are there any significant differences in teachers' perceptions due to the type of difficulty? Limitation of the study The present study is limited to: †¢ EFL teachers teaching English in Omani Basic Education schools, and †¢ The use of questionnaire as the research instrument.Nevertheless, the responses are valuable in themselves, indicating the general difficulties that students and teachers face with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Research design The study was mainly quantitative in design, using a questionnaire and the subjects responded to each statement on a five-point Likert-type attitude scale (from 5 for ‘strongly agree' to 1 for ‘strongly disagree'). The respondents also provided background information on gender, qualification, teaching experience and the level they teach, for creating their profile in terms of variables. The data was analyzed (t-test and ANOVA) using the SPSS.The research instrument The questionnaire used in the present study, which comprises 20 statements, was the one employed by Burgess and Etherington in their study (2002: 451452) (See ANNEXURE – I for the questionnaire used in the present study). Subjects Only one broad geographical context was chosen for the study, namely Oman, in order to be context-specific and be able to make a close connection between teachers, their assumptions and their practical experience. It is b elieved that the subjects fairly represented the context of EFL teaching at different levels in Omani schools.Besides, the sample size was 90, more than the minimum number required for making useful statistical analyses according to Cohen and Manion (1994:77). The profile of the subjects in terms of the four variables is given below in Table 1: International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 74 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Table 1. Profile of Respondents to the Study Instrument Variable Gender Level they teach Categories within the variable Male Female Grades 1-4 Grades 5-10 Grades 11-12 Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Diploma ? years > 5 ? 10 years > 10 years No. of respondents in each category 39 51 17 31 42 8 76 6 27 41 22 Total (N) 90 90 Qualification 90 Experience 90 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION With regard to the first research question whether there are difficulties faced by students and teachers with grammar instruction, Tabl e 2 (ANNEXURE – II) shows an overall mean of 3. 51 on a five-point scale, the means for individual statements ranging from 2. 97 to 4. 10, thus indicating teachers' general agreement with most of the statements in the survey questionnaire (See Fig. below). This suggests that, in the perceptions of teachers, there are difficulties faced by teachers as well as students with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Fig. 1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 75 With regard to the second research question about the differences between students and teachers in the difficulties faced, Table 3 shows that there is a statistically significant difference at the level of p ; 0. 01 in the perceptions of teachers and students, with students experiencing difficulties to a greater extent than teachers, which is understandable. The overall mean for students' difficulties as perceived by the teachers was 3. 58, while the overall mean for teachers' difficulties was 3. 23 (Table 3 below). Table 3. Teachers’ Perceptions of Teachers’ and Students’ Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement Teachers’ Difficulties Students’ Difficulties as perceived by the Teachers Mean 3. 331 3. 5779 SD . 58484 . 42214 t Sig. (2-tailed) 5. 225 . 000 The third research question is about the differences in perception of difficulties in terms of the four teacher variables: gender, level taught, qualification, and teaching experience. With regard to gender, a comparison of the overall mean response for male (3. 508) and female teachers (3. 510) (See Fig. 2 below) shows that they are quite nearly the same and that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 5 in their perceptions about the difficulties (Sig. : . 978) (Table 4 in ANNEXURE – II)). This suggests that gender does not play a significant role i n the teachers' perceptions when it comes to articulating their own difficulties as well as those of their students with English grammar instruction. Fig. 2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Gender With regard to the level taught, Table 5 (ANNEXURE – II) shows that teachers teaching at different levels have similar perceptions about their wn and their International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 76 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ students' difficulties with English grammar instruction, with a slightly higher mean for teachers of Grades 1-4 (3. 58) than the means for teachers of the other two levels, which are nearly the same (3. 49 and 3. 5) (See Fig. 3 below). Table 5 also shows that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 686). Fig. 3.Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Level Taught With r egard to teachers’ qualifications, Table 6 (ANNEXURE – II) shows a slightly higher overall mean for teachers with a diploma qualification (3. 78) than the overall means for teachers with higher qualifications, viz. bachelor's (3. 46) or master's degree (3. 49) (See Fig. 4 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 211 – Table 6). Fig. 4.Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Qualifications With regard to teachers' experience, it does not seem to be a significant variable with regard to their perceptions of their own and their students' difficulties with English grammar instruction, as Table 7 (ANNEXURE – II) shows (See Fig. 5 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 869 – Table 7). International Journal of Instructio n, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 7 Fig. 5. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Experience The foregoing discussion is based on the overall mean score obtained for the difficulties in general and for each of the four teacher variables considered in the present study. With regard to the fourth research question, a detailed analysis of the results provides interesting and valuable insights into teachers’ perceptions of different types of difficulties for students and teachers themselves and their concerns about classroom application of grammar teaching principles.The results are discussed with respect to difficulties categorized in terms of the themes listed in Table 8 below: Table 8. Statements in the Questionnaire Categorised according to Themes Theme Explicit grammar teaching The transfer of declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge The use of grammatical terminology Error correction Problem-solving activities The use of authentic texts for grammar instruction The use of spoken and written communicative activities Statement(s) 3, 4, 5, 13 1, 17, 18 14, 19 15, 16 2, 20 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 17, 18Explicit grammar teaching The dichotomies of unconscious/conscious learning and inductive/deductive teaching methods are both sometimes equated with the dichotomy between implicit and explicit instruction. Attitudes to inductive and deductive methods were investigated through statements concerning explicit presentation of grammar by teachers, students finding form-function matches for themselves, and the constraints in using either of the two methods. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 78 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦Statement 3 (My students expect teachers to present grammar explicitly) and Statement 13 (A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure) produced a mean score of 3. 61 and 3. 38 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXU RE – II), supporting the view that students, in teachers’ perception, prefer explicit grammar teaching. This is not surprising, as students are known to expect traditional, explicit grammar instruction (e. g. , Borg, 1999a, b). The responses in the present study indicate that this expectation of students still remains, especially at the school level.Responses to Statement 5 (My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves), however, produced a mean score of 3. 59 (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II), which is very close to the mean score for students’ expectation about explicit teaching of grammar. This perception of students’ preference for an inductive method of learning grammar on the part of the same responding teachers is surprising. With regard to the same statement, the difference in mean between males and females seems to be higher than for the other statements (Table 4 – ANNEXURE – II).A follow-up interview with teachers might have provided more specific information and thrown light on their understanding of explicit and implicit methods of teaching grammar. With regard to Statement 4 (My students prefer to learn grammar from onesentence examples), which links to explicit grammar teaching, responding teachers produced the lowest mean score (2. 97) of all statements in the questionnaire (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of experience, however, there seems to be some significant difference at the level of 0. 5 in favour of teachers with more than 10 years of experience (Table 7 – ANNEXURE – II). Declarative vs procedural knowledge Statement 1 (My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use), designed to identify teachers’ beliefs about the possible transfer of declarative knowledge (i. e. , knowledge about grammar) into procedural knowledge (i. e. , ability to use that knowledge in actua l communication), produced a mean score of 3. 81 (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II).This indicates that responding teachers recognise this process of transfer of one kind of knowledge into another as a problem for a large number of their students. This gap between students’ grammatical knowledge and communicative ability is not surprising to teachers, who often find that most of their students can recall grammatical rules accurately and perform very well on discrete-point grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 79 exercises, but fail to achieve such grammatical accuracy in actual communication.This fact is corroborated by the responses to Statements 17 and 18 (My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical knowledge within a totally communicative writing/speaking activity), which produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of teacher qua lifications, teachers with a diploma agree strongly (mean of 4. 33) that their students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II).The use of grammatical terminology The use of grammatical terminology in the EFL classroom is seen as a necessary part of the explicit method of teaching grammar. When students and teachers talk about grammar (i. e. , in meta-linguistic discussion), which is one of the characteristics of explicit language teaching (Stern 1992: 327), they need to use grammatical terms. Two statements (14 & 19) sought to explore teachers’ perceptions of how their students feel about the use of grammatical terminology.Statement 14 (My students find grammatical terminology useful) and Statement 19 (My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology) produced a mean score of 3. 82 and 4. 07 respec tively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). This indicates that, in the responding teachers’ perception, their students see grammatical terminology as useful, but find difficulty in using the terms to be of a greater magnitude. Interestingly, the usefulness of grammatical terminology seems to be linked to the students’ preference for explicit grammar instruction. The difference in mean between teachers of Grades 1-4 and 11-12 on the one hand (mean of ? ) and those of Grades 5-10 (mean of 3. 4), however, seems to be higher with regard to their perceptions of the usefulness of grammatical terminology to their students. That is, teachers of the lowest and highest levels think that their students find grammatical terminology more useful than those of the middle grades. There is a significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of the level taught with regard to the usefulness of grammatical terminology (statement 14) (Table 5 – ANNEXURE – II). In te rms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 0) that their students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelor's International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 80 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 04). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II). Error Correction Teachers generally tend to believe that errors of form committed by EFL learners should be corrected even when communicative goals are intended.This need for correction of form even within a communicative context, either spoken or written, may arise from a concern for grammatical accuracy in students’ communicative output or for avoiding fossilization of errors in their interlanguage. Statements 15 and 16 aim to capture teachers’ perceptions in this regard. Statement 15 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context) and Statement 16 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context) produced a mean score of 3. 26 and 3. 7 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II). It may be inferred from the results that the responding teachers experience more difficulty in correcting their learners’ spoken communication than written. Problem-solving techniques Problem-solving techniques in relation to grammar teaching are inductive techniques that require learners to find form-function matches by themselves. (e. g. , Hall and Shepheard, 1991). Responses of teachers surveyed in the present study produced a mean score of 3. 58 for Statement 2 (My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar), showing a link to responses to Statement 5 bout studentsâ⠂¬â„¢ preference for finding matches between meaning and structure for themselves. Surprisingly, however, the same responding teachers produced a mean score of 3. 60 for Statement 20 (My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). A possible interpretation could be that teachers, while recognising the motivational potential of problem-solving techniques, also observe their students’ frustrating experience with such techniques, possibly because they are too ‘challenging’ for the learners to cope with.Another interpretation could be that teachers’ responses to Statement 2 are based on their theoretical assumption about what these techniques could do to the learners, while those to Statement 20 could be based on teachers’ assessment of the ground reality. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 81 With regard to the statement about students being motivated by problemsolving techniques for learning grammar (Statement 2), there is also a significant difference at the level of 0. 5 between males and females in their perceptions (Table 4 – ANNEXURE – II). The use of authentic texts for grammar instruction Authentic texts are texts that are not produced artificially for the purpose of language teaching, but are used for genuine purposes in the real world, like newspaper articles and recipes. By implication, these texts are contextualised and communicatively complete in themselves. They focus is on conveying real meaning rather than on form.Decontextualised examples of language, on the other hand, are one-sentence examples usually found in EFL textbooks and grammar practice books. They illustrate grammatical forms and structures in context-free sentences and are generally associated with the explicit method of teaching grammar. The use of texts illustrating authentic communication for presenting gramma r is generally seen as posing problems to teachers and students alike. Students’ problems with their use arise from difficulties of variety of structures Statement 7), culture (Statement 8), vocabulary (Statement 9), and implicit form-function matches (Statement 10), besides an overall difficulty in handling grammar presented within authentic texts (Statement 6). Teachers’ difficulties with authentic texts include those arising from the amount of time needed for using them (Statement 11) and producing suitable tasks from such texts (Statement 12). According to the responding teachers’ perceptions, students experience greater difficulties from vocabulary (Mean=3. 52), variety of structures (Mean=3. 49) and finding form-function matches (Mean=3. 3) than from handling from presented within authentic texts (Mean=3. 33) and culture (Mean=3. 26). Statements 11 and 12 relating to teachers’ difficulties in using authentic texts produced a mean score of 3. 03 and 3. 09 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II), which indicates a lower perception of teachers of their own difficulties than those of students. The use of spoken and written communicative activities Statements 17 and 18 refer to the possible difficulties students might have in improving the accuracy of their grammatical language within totally communicative activities.Responding teachers produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 for the two statements respectively. In fact, the highest mean score of International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 82 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ all scores for the survey questionnaire (4. 10) was obtained for Statement 17 (My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical knowledge within a totally communicative writing activity) (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II).The results indicate that, in teachers' perceptions, totally communicative activities, whether written or spoken, po se great difficulties to students for learning grammar and improving grammatical accuracy, writing activities proving more challenging than spoken ones. It might be inferred that the teachers surveyed might have a serious concern about the lack of sufficient focus on form in purely communicative activities or tasks for developing students' grammatical knowledge. Practising language as communication in real-life tasks might not give sufficient opportunities for students to improve their grammatical knowledge.In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 67) that their students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelor's degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement 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 Generally speaking, in teachers’ perceptions, both teachers and students invariably face serious difficulties with regard to EFL grammar instruction, students facing them to a greater extent than teachers. It is obvious that EFL teachers consider these difficulties quite serious, which suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to them. There may be generally recommended ways of teaching EFL grammar (for example, the implicit method), but it would not be proper to adopt them universally without looking at the possible difficulties that might go with those methods suggested.While a less favoured method might pose fewer problems and hence be more effective, a more favoured method might be less effective owing 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 detailed study of such difficulties faced by teachers and students in specific contexts, take appropriate steps to overcome them, and adapt the method to suit the actual teaching and learning International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 83 environment. This is not to suggest ‘diluting’ a sound approach or method, but only to plan mediating or supplementary tasks to help learners tide over the difficulties. IMPLICATIONS The findings of the present study point to the following implications: 1. EFL Curriculum and material developers should show an understanding of learners’ and teachers’ difficulties, and provide sufficient guidance and help in the curriculum document and the teachers’ book showing how the potential difficulties could be addressed in planning 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 various methodologies and approaches to cater to their individual styles of learning, 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 address their learners’ concerns in planning their lessons and classroom activities, and use supplementary materials, if necessary, to help learners cope with the difficulties. 4.Both in-service and pre-service training programmes should be planned in such a way that student-teachers and practising teachers articulate the potential and actual difficulties and discuss ways of overcoming or at least coping with them. The database relating to teaching English as a foreign language, including the difficulties of learners and teachers with regard to grammar instruction, should be enriched by more detailed research and analysis, which would enable generalizations across the gulf countries. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 84 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦REFERENCES Baron, D. (1982). Grammar and good taste: Reforming the American language. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press. Borg, S. (1999a). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: a qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics, 20 (1): 95-126. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002) Borg, S. (1999b). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53 (3): 157-167. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002). Brindley, G. (1984). Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. NSW Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney.Burgess, J. and Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit? System, 30: 433-458. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. C. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Elkilic, G. and Akca, C. (2008). Attitudes of the Students Studying at K afkas University Private Primary EFL Classroom towards Storytelling and Motivation. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 4(1): 1-22. European Commission (2006). The Main Pedagogical Principles Underlying the Teaching of Languages to Very Young Learners. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 Study: Edelenbos, P. , Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. Hall, N. nd Shepheard, J. (1991). The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. London: Longman. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (2): 98-107. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The Grammar of Choice. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds. ). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leki, I. (1995). Good writing: I know it when I see it. In In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds. ) Academic Writing in a Second Language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. , No. 2 Al-Mekh lafi & Nagaratnam 85 Morelli, J. A. (2003). Ninth Graders’ Attitudes toward Different Approaches to Grammar Instruction. Unpublished Dissertation. The Graduate School of Education, Fordham University, New York. Schultz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3): 343-364. Schultz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. USAColombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(ii): 244-258. Spratt, M. 1999). How good are we at knowing what learners like? System, 27:141-155. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Grammar and nonsense and learning. In H. G. Widdowson, Aspects of language teaching, pp. 79-98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. International Journal of Instructio n, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 86 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ ANNEXURE – I RESEARCH INSTRUMENT – QUESTIONNAIRE STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITH GRAMMAR These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in the classroom.Please indicate how far you agree or disagree with these statements. If you agree strongly, mark a 5 on the scale; if you strongly disagree, mark a 1 on the scale. No. Statement SA 1 My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2 My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3 My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4 My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5 My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7 My students find authentic texts difficult becaus e of the wide variety of structures which appear. 8 My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9 My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10 My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers. 11 Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12 Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts. 3 A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14 My students find 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 improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 18 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 9 My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20 My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. A N D SD International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 87 ANNEXURE – II Table 2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement 1. My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2. My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3. My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4.My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5. My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. 6. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7. My students find authentic texts difficult because of t he wide variety of structures which appear. 8. My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9. My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10. My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers. 11.Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12. Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts. 13. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14. My students find 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 improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 8. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 19. My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20. My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. Overall Mean 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. 1000 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 according to their Gender (Males: N=39; Females: N=51) Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 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. 105 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 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 88 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 OverallGender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 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 . 105 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 according to the Level taught Statement 1 Level 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 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 Mean 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 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 9 Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Level 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 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 Mean 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. 1000 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 . 94322 . 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. Teach ers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Qualifications Statement 1 Qualification MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total 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 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 90 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Qualification MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total 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. 00 00 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. 18773 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 .3 66 .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 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 91 Statement 18 19 20 Overall Qualification Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total N 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 4. 1000 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 according to their Experience Statement 1 Exp. (yrs) ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 0 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 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. 40158 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 Interna tional Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 92 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Exp. (yrs) ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total 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. 1000 4. 1304 4. 1000 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 . 9 1970 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