This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 12 November 2014, At: 01:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language AwarenessPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Do adult ESL learners’ and theirteachers’ goals for improving grammarin writing correspond?Ally A. Zhoua, Michael Buschb & Alister Cummingc

a Department of TESOL, Oklahoma City University, Oklahoma City,Oklahoma, USAb English Language Program, Saginaw Valley State University,University Center, Michigan, USAc Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto,Toronto, Ontario, CanadaPublished online: 14 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Ally A. Zhou, Michael Busch & Alister Cumming (2014) Do adult ESL learners’and their teachers’ goals for improving grammar in writing correspond?, Language Awareness, 23:3,234-254, DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2012.758127

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.758127

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness, 2014Vol. 23, No. 3, 234–254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.758127

Do adult ESL learners’ and their teachers’ goals for improvinggrammar in writing correspond?

Ally A. Zhoua∗ , Michael Buschb and Alister Cummingc

aDepartment of TESOL, Oklahoma City University, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA; bEnglishLanguage Program, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, Michigan, USA; cOntarioInstitute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

(Received 19 November 2011; final version received 21 November 2012)

Recent research has identified certain goals of adult second language (L2) learners andtheir teachers for writing instruction in English as a second language (ESL), yet ques-tions remain as to whether students’ and teachers’ goals correspond in ways that achieveinstructional objectives and facilitate L2 development. The present study compared L2students’ goals for grammar improvement in academic writing with those of their teach-ers as students transitioned from an intensive ESL programme to university courses.Over a two-year period, we conducted 60 semi-structured interviews and stimulatedrecalls with 15 ESL university students along with 25 interview and stimulated recallsessions with 5 ESL and 9 university instructors. Results showed limited correspon-dence between learners’ and teachers’ intentions for grammar improvement. Learnersexpressed a strong preference for improving formal grammatical features, particularlyverb tenses and clause structure, whereas instructors either reported that they had nogoals for grammar improvement or sought to improve grammatical complexity and thestylistic appropriateness of text features. However, learners had little knowledge andawareness of these areas.

Keywords: grammar; grammar in writing; second language writing; ESL; teacher andstudent beliefs; goal orientations

Introduction

Whether grammar should be taught in writing classrooms has generated an ongoing debatein the fields of second language (L2) writing and first language (L1) composition studies(Locke, 2009, 2010; Santos, 2005). Even though grammar teaching is a concept that isnot well defined and there is a lack of evidence concerning the effectiveness of explicitgrammar teaching to develop better writers (van Gelderen, 2010), an important voice thatneeds to be heard in this debate is what learners desire for improving their grammar inwriting. Equally important is what teachers themselves desire in helping learners to improvetheir language proficiency so that learners are able to produce accurate, meaningful, andappropriate written texts.

Recent studies have reported learners’ needs for grammar instruction in English as asecond language (ESL) writing classes (Basturkmen & Lewis, 2002; Cumming, Busch, &Zhou, 2002; Zhou, 2009; Zhou, Busch, Gentil, Eouanzoui, & Cumming, 2006), and a fewhave reported on teachers’ goals, or the lack thereof, for helping learners improve theirgrammar in writing (Cummings, 2007; Cummings, Erdosy, & Cumming, 2006). However,little research has closely examined whether learners and their writing teachers share a

∗Corresponding author. Email: dr.allyzhou@gmail.com

C© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 235

similar vision for grammar improvement when both parties are concerned with the gram-matical quality of learners’ written texts (Barkhuizen, 1998). In a previous research projectinvolving adult ESL learners’ and their teachers’ goals for academic writing (Cumming,2006), we found that both groups discussed goals for improving grammar more frequentlythan other objects of goals (e.g. rhetoric, composing processes, ideas/knowledge, and af-fective states) (Cummings et al., 2006; Zhou et al., 2006), yet neither group was satisfiedwith the outcomes of learners’ use of English grammar. These two findings prompted us tolook further at goals for grammar teaching because they raise important pedagogical andL2 developmental issues and many questions remain about the nature of the intentions oflearners and their teachers who, one would expect, would share similar orientations (Block,1994) so as to be able to coordinate actions in the interests of meeting teaching objectivesand facilitating L2 acquisition.

Grammar, L2 writing instruction, and learners’ goals

Our review first examines recent grammar teaching practice in L2 writing classrooms andthe status quo of research in this area. We then discuss research on learners’ goals forgrammar improvement in writing.

Grammar and L2 writing instruction

The need to know more about teachers’ and L2 learners’ goals for grammar in writing arisesbecause learners simultaneously acquire the target language as they study composition(Santos, 2005). This stands in contrast to native speakers who can easily draw on theirexisting L1 knowledge to employ grammatical structures with attendant form, meaning,and rhetorical functions. L2 writers do not possess such resources (Silva, 1993) unless theyreceive instruction (Hyland, 2003, 2004).

However, in practice, grammar is sometimes left unattended or only focused on atthe later stages of the writing processes. Many L2 writing teachers see their role mainlyas teaching content, organisation, and writing processes and only address grammar atthe end of the writing processes and when it is perceived to interfere with meaning(Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1983). Similarly, Hyland (2003) observed that due to the influenceof the process approach, grammar instruction often takes the form of error correction atthe editing stage rather than being provided to learners prior to writing. Some even perceiveL2 error correction as unnecessary, ineffective in helping improve learners’ writing ability,or detrimental to learners’ ability to write accurately, and therefore they suggest that errorcorrection be abandoned (Truscott, 1996, 2007, 2009, 2010; Truscott & Hsu, 2008).

Recent research has suggested that grammar instruction in writing should not be con-fined to remediation of errors (Ferris, 2010; Frodesen & Holten, 2003), and for L2 learners,ignoring grammar in writing classes outright would result in less proficient use of English(Christie, 1998; Schleppegrell, 2004). There is also a large body of empirical research thatconfirms the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction, particularly if learners are to reachadvanced stages of proficiency. Numerous studies have suggested a link between attentionto grammatical forms and positive learning outcomes (e.g. Lightbown & Spada, 1990;Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997; Spada & Lightbown, 2008).

In terms of research on the relationship between grammar and writing instruction,Myhill’s (2005) observation about the status of L1 grammar for writing may apply equallyto L2 contexts: ‘The truth is that teaching grammar and knowledge about language inpositive, contextualised ways which make clear links with writing is not yet an established

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

236 A.A. Zhou et al.

way of teaching and it is, as yet, hugely under-researched’ (p. 81). In a similar vein,Leki, Cumming, and Silva (2008) observed that ‘the inquiry into grammatical issues in L2writers’ text has produced few sustained programs of research’ (p. 180).

Learner goals for grammar improvement in writing

Much less understood is the nature of L2 learners’ goals for improving grammar as wellas the role of intentionality in grammar instruction and how L2 learners’ and teachers’intentions – as manifested in their articulation of goals for grammar learning and teaching –influence writing development. A few recent studies have attempted to obtain such anunderstanding.

In one of the first studies of learners’ goals for L2 writing improvement, Hoffmann(1998) identified two types of goals and the actions they entailed. Learners in her studyreported that they wanted to improve composing processes or had product goals, with theformer referring to ‘aspects of the essay writing process’ and the latter defined as ‘discourselevel goals or local, sentence goals’ (p. 37).

Expanding significantly on Hoffmann, Cumming (2006) conducted a qualitative studyof university students and teachers in integrated-skills ESL courses and university courses.Several goals were identified (refer to Table 1). A follow-up study by Zhou (2009) identifiedin more detail students’ goals for grammar improvement in terms of parts of speech(verbs/tenses/verbal forms, articles, prepositions, noun forms, and adjectives), sentences(sentence construction, subject-verb agreement, and pronoun-antecedent agreement), andvocabulary. Zhou’s study also revealed students’ frustration at desiring to produce moreaccurate grammar, but being unable to improve on known grammar problems due to lack ofknowledge. The author further discussed students’ unrealistic goals to write grammaticallyerror-free texts.

Other researchers have reported findings relevant to goals for grammar improvementwhich centred on the value of traditional grammar rules and the role of grammar knowledgein increasing proficiency. Some studies reported differences in what students and teachersperceived as important or useful, including differences about the purpose of instruction(Basturkmen & Lewis, 2002; Block, 1994). Most notably, learners indicated a preferencefor traditional approaches to grammar instruction over use of grammar in communicativeactivities. In Barkhuizen’s (1998) study of learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teachingand learning activities in South Africa, for example, students overwhelmingly favoured whathe termed ‘mechanical language skills’ related to parts of speech and verb tenses and showedmuch less interest in communicative tasks requiring writing or speaking assignments.Similarly, Ismail (2010) described how English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learnersfavoured the traditional learning styles they were familiar with, which entailed an emphasison grammatical rules, even though teachers were using a communicative methodology. Thesecond perception that reflected learner goals was a belief about the utility of grammar.Ismail noted high expectations that learners had about achieving English proficiency withouterrors in their writing and the subsequent negative effects when students failed to achievehigher levels of proficiency. Learners’ expectations were based on a belief that knowledgeof grammatical rules was the key to higher proficiency and native-like proficiency, andsubsequently other language skills were seen as less important.

In sum, the classification of learners’ goals for grammar as well as other areas of writinghas been identified in detail. L2 learners often have a potentially detrimental goal of acquir-ing traditional grammatical rule knowledge despite their teachers’ attempts to introducecommunicative methods of instruction. These learners also tend to have unrealistic goals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 237

about how traditional knowledge of grammar will lead to high levels of proficiency in whichthey make no errors and obtain a native-like ability to use English. In order to understandthese disparities, it is important to examine the correspondence of learners’ and teachers’goals for grammar learning as they work together in the writing classroom.

Research questions

Based on a multi-year, large-scale research project that investigated adult ESL learners’and their teachers’ goals for writing improvement as learners transitioned from Englishfor academic purposes (EAP) writing courses to the courses of their chosen fields ofstudy (Cumming, 2006) – a critical stage of learning for many ESL learners in NorthAmerican university settings – the current study reports on learners’ and their teachers’goals for grammar improvement in writing. In particular, the purpose of the study was toinvestigate whether the goals of learners and their teachers (also referred to as instructors;both terms are used interchangeably in the rest of the article) for grammar improvementin academic writing corresponded as learners transitioned from pre-university preparatoryESL to university subject-matter classes. The study was guided by two research questions:

(1) How do ESL teachers’ goals for improving grammar in their students’ writing, orthe lack thereof, correspond with those of the students?

(2) How do university teachers’ goals for improving grammar in their students’ writing,or the lack thereof, correspond with those of the students?

Method

Our study reports detailed analysis and comparison of goals for grammar improvementidentified by 15 ESL learners and their teachers in a pre-university preparatory EAP pro-gramme housed at a large Canadian research university in southern Ontario and subse-quently in subject-matter courses at this university and at another local university. The EAPprogramme offered intensive, full-time (five days per week over a three-month session)learning to prepare ESL students to enter Canadian universities. Courses provided by theprogramme included those focusing on particular language skills, such as writing and gram-mar, and those focusing on topical themes and requiring students to produce academic-typetasks by using various language modalities, such as reading, listening, speaking, and writing(i.e. integrated-skills courses).

Participants

The study took place over a two-year period and consisted of two phases. In the first year,Phase I, five ESL teachers and 45 of their students volunteered to participate in the study. So-licitation letters were first sent to all the teachers in the EAP programme, and five teachers –Maria, Leeanne, Linda, Faith, Lulu (all names in this report are pseudonyms chosen by theparticipants) – agreed to participate. Subsequently, they helped to distribute notices seekingstudent volunteers. The five ESL teachers had Masters’ degrees in English, Education, orApplied Linguistics and had taught English for seven to 12 years at the time of our datacollection. Therefore, we consider them appropriately qualified and experienced.

In the second year, Phase II, we contacted all the students who had participated in PhaseI and checked whether they were willing to have two more parallel interviews and stimulatedrecalls to discuss their goals for writing improvement in university subject-matter courses.Only 15 elected to continue participation because most students from Phase I had entered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

238 A.A. Zhou et al.

universities in other parts of the world. Of these 15 students, as indicated in Table 1, 13were enrolled in undergraduate programmes, one (Hong) in a graduate programme, andone (Lee) in an Ontario Academic Credit (OAC) programme (i.e. Grade 13 or the finalyear of high school). Those taking university courses majored in Commerce or Economics(7), Engineering (2), Computer Science (2), Architecture or Landscape Design (2), andPolitical Science (1). These students had Chinese (10), Japanese (2), Korean (1), Farsi (1),and Russian (1) as their first language respectively. Given that all student participants had anaverage score of 550 on an institutional Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), weconsider them to be relatively proficient in English even though they could still experiencedifficulty in using the language.

Upon our request, the students in Phase II nominated their university instructors whosecourses, to the students’ beliefs, involved the most writing. As shown in Table 1, nineinstructors agreed to participate, whereas nine declined our invitations. Among them, fivetaught bridging or foundation courses that were offered to familiarise native and non-nativeEnglish-speaking students (NSs and NNSs) with the discourse and writing conventions of aspecific academic discipline. These courses included Professional Writing for Engineering(taught by Bruce to mostly NNSs), Arts of Discourse (Gloria to both NSs and NNSs),Canadian Society and Communication (Julianne to Mainly NNSs), Oriental Arts (Richardto both NNs and NNSs), and Writing for Engineering (Sally to NNSs). Three instructorstaught mainstream university courses that focused on discipline-specific content and weredesigned for both NSs and NNSs. These courses were Landscape Design (Aliz), Behavior inInstitutions and Businesses (Hatton), and Foundations of Economic Theory (Willy). Marytaught an OAC course titled International Business open exclusively to NNSs. All theuniversity instructors’ qualifications were in their particular academic disciplines, exceptfor Sally and Julianne, who taught bridging courses and their qualifications were primarilyin Applied Linguistics and/or Composition and Rhetoric.

Data collection

We conducted semi-structured interviews (Fontana & Frey, 2000; Kvale, 1996; Rubin &Rubin, 1995) and stimulated recalls (Ericsson & Simon, 1998; Gass & Mackey, 2000;Gatbonton, 1999; Smagorinsky, 1994) with all the student participants. The interviews,which were all audio taped and then later transcribed in full, lasted about 45 minutesand consisted of 20 questions about writing improvement on a number of topics, suchas composing processes, types of writing, genres, organisation, and vocabulary. Three ofthese questions, which are the focus of the present study, concerned grammar: (1) Are youtrying to improve your grammar in your writing? (2) What grammar would you like toimprove? (3) How are you doing this? Please give examples. Following the interview, eachstudent engaged in a 15–25-minute, seven-item stimulated recall of a writing assignmentthat he or she wrote for a course taught by one of the participating ESL and universityinstructors. This writing assignment represented one of the student’s best pieces of writing,according to his or her own judgement. The purpose of the recall was to understand howeach student operationalised his or her goals in an authentic writing task. During the recallsession, students were asked to discuss their goals for writing by paragraph or by sentence,depending on the length of the sample. We asked the following questions about each sample:(1) What was the purpose of this paragraph (or this sentence or this section)? (2) How welldid you achieve the purpose? (3) What did you find was a problem? (4) What were youtrying to improve?

In Phase I, students had two interviews followed immediately by two stimulated recallsessions. One took place at the beginning and one at the end of the semester while they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 239

Tabl

e1.

Pro

file

sof

15E

SL

stud

ents

,the

irun

iver

sity

maj

ors

and

cour

ses,

and

thei

rE

SL

and

univ

ersi

tyin

stru

ctor

s.

Stu

dent

pseu

dony

mL

1E

SL

inst

ruct

orps

eudo

nym

Uni

vers

ity

maj

orU

nive

rsit

ysu

bjec

t-m

atte

rco

urse

pseu

dony

m(s

)U

nive

rsit

yin

stru

ctor

pseu

dony

m

Dar

ina

Rus

sian

Lee

anne

Com

pute

rS

cien

cean

dS

tati

stic

sF

unda

men

tals

ofC

ompu

ter

Scie

nce

(3rd

inte

rvie

w)

Bas

ics

ofSt

atis

tica

lMod

elin

g(4

thin

terv

iew

)N

/AN

/AH

ong

Chi

nese

Mar

iaL

ansc

ape

Des

ign

Lan

dsca

peD

esig

nA

liz

Jina

Kor

ean

Lee

anne

Eco

nom

ics

Foun

dati

ons

ofE

cono

mic

The

ory

(3rd

)W

riti

ngfo

rE

SLSt

uden

ts(4

th)

N/A

-N/A

Jun

Chi

nese

Lul

uC

omm

erce

Ori

enta

lArt

sR

icha

rdK

azuk

oJa

pane

seL

ulu

Poli

tica

lSci

ence

Nat

iona

land

Inte

rnat

iona

lIss

ues

inD

emoc

rati

cSo

ciet

ies

N/A

Lee

Chi

nese

Mar

iaO

AC

(Gra

de13

)In

tern

atio

nalB

usin

ess

(for

ESL

Stud

ents

)M

ary

Lon

gC

hine

seM

aria

Ele

ctro

nic

Eng

inee

ring

Wri

ting

for

Eng

inee

ring

(3rd

)P

rofe

ssio

nalW

riti

ngfo

rE

ngin

eeri

ng(4

th)

Sal

lyN

/AM

ark

Chi

nese

Lin

daE

cono

mic

sFo

unda

tion

sof

Eco

nom

icT

heor

yW

illy

Qin

gC

hine

seM

aria

Min

eral

Eng

inee

ring

Pro

fess

iona

lWri

ting

for

Eng

inee

ring

Bru

ceR

ihok

oJa

pane

seL

eean

neA

rchi

tect

ure

Fun

dam

enta

lIss

ues

inA

rchi

tect

ure

(3rd

)C

urre

ntIs

sues

inA

rchi

tect

ure

(4th

)N

/AN

/AS

ara

Fars

iL

inda

Com

mer

ceC

anad

ian

Soci

ety

and

Com

mun

icat

ion

Juli

anne

Wen

zhen

Chi

nese

Lin

daC

omm

erce

Art

sof

Dis

cour

se:

Anc

ient

and

Mod

ern

Glo

ria

Xin

Chi

nese

Lul

uC

ompu

ter

Sci

ence

Ori

enta

lArt

sR

icha

rdY

iC

hine

seM

aria

Eco

nom

ics

Cul

tura

lHis

tory

ofA

sia

N/A

Yin

gxue

Chi

nese

Lul

uC

omm

erce

Beh

avio

rin

Inst

itut

ions

and

Bus

ines

ses

Hat

ton

Not

e:N

one

ofFa

ith’

s(a

nE

SL

inst

ruct

or)

stud

ents

was

able

topa

rtic

ipat

ein

Pha

seII

ofth

est

udy.

N/A

indi

cate

sth

atth

ein

stru

ctor

ofa

univ

ersi

tysu

bjec

t-m

atte

rco

urse

decl

ined

our

invi

tati

onto

part

icip

ate

inth

est

udy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

240 A.A. Zhou et al.

were taking courses in the EAP programme. Two more sessions were conducted one yearlater (Phase II) while students were taking courses in their major fields of study. Thus, atotal of four sessions were conducted with 15 students for a combined total of 60 interviewsand stimulated recalls.

Instructors’ interviews and stimulated recall questions paralleled those of the students,but the timing of data collection differed. Each of the five ESL instructors took part in twointerviews for the integrated-skills course she taught in the fall semester, with one nearthe beginning of the course and one after the course ended (5 × 2 = 10). Three of theseinstructors had additional two interviews each because they taught three more integrated-skills classes in the spring semester (3 × 2 = 6). The interview after the completion ofthe course was followed immediately by a five-item stimulated recall session regardingthe instructor’s goals for the piece of writing as well as her understanding of the student’sgoals for the text, the student’s fulfilment of relevant goals, and the aspects of writingthat the student could have done better. During the recall session, the instructor discussedwith an interviewer several writing samples produced by students who participated in ourproject. These samples had already been discussed with the students in their stimulatedrecall sessions. Each of the nine university instructors met with an interviewer only once,and the stimulated recall session focusing on a student participant’s writing sample in thatclass followed the interview immediately (1 × 9 = 9). In all, 25 sessions were conductedwith 14 instructors.

Data analyses

Analysis of the interviews and stimulated recalls involved transcription and identification ofall instances of articulated goals for writing improvement. Each student had four transcriptsthat corresponded with the four rounds of interviews and stimulated recall sessions theyhad. In the following text, these transcripts are identified as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th transcripts,with each containing both the interview and stimulated recall data.

To define the constructs of our study, we conducted a literature review of intentions andgoal-oriented action followed by a discourse analysis using Strauss and Corbin’s (1998)constant comparative method to distinguish instances of articulated goals related to writingimprovement (Busch, 2006). Goals were operationalised as an idealised end state, process,or ability, which is realised in (1) an explicit statement of desire or purpose in regardto the learning of L2 composition or related learning activities or abilities and (2) directacknowledgement of a desire, need, purpose, or problem in response to a question abouta goal. Based on this understanding of goals, we coded 85 transcripts and identified 1475passages that contained one of the seven areas of goals for writing improvement reported bystudents and their teachers: language, genres, composing processes, ideas and knowledge,affective states, learning and transfer, and identity and self-awareness (Cumming, 2006).Each passage was a self-contained and self-comprehensible chunk of text that indicatedthe participant’s desires, beliefs, or goals for writing improvement (e.g. I am trying toimprove my vocabulary by learning more advanced, more sophisticated language). Forthe present study, which is focused on one goal, grammar, we retrieved 405 passagesconcerning students’ goals and 136 passages concerning teachers’ goals from a total of1475 goals. Using these combined 541 passages, we identified four sub-categories oflanguage representing student and teacher goals related to grammar: (1) word class definedin terms of traditional notions of parts of speech, (2) clause structure defined as a writtenunit of analysis minimally composed of subject and predicate, (3) global ability, and (4)writing style (see Table 2).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 241

Table 2. Coding categories to describe goals for grammar learning and teaching reported by studentsand teachers.

Word class verbs/verb tense/verb forms, articles, prepositions, noun forms, and adjectivesClause

structuresentence length, variety, complexity and embedded clauses

Global ability error-free writing, improvement of all areas of writing, and achievement of nativespeaker competency in writing

Writing style conciseness, clarity, tone, precision, grammar complexity, register, sentence variety,cohesion, coherence, and language appropriate to specific genres

Results

How do the goals of students and their ESL instructors correspond?

Student goals

Specific aspects of grammar that were identified as goals by students described word class,in particular verbs (44% of statements), articles (34%), prepositions (10%), noun forms(10%), and adjectives (2%). The following exchange is an example of one student’s concernsabout her grammatical accuracy (1st transcript):

Excerpt 1

Interviewer: What grammar errors do you usually make when you write?Wenzhen: I always like listen to music. I will write as ‘listen music’.Interviewer: No preposition ‘to’.Wenzhen: I forget the preposition. When I use gerund, sometimes I will like ‘against

something’, ‘to be against something’.Interviewer: There are preposition, gerund problems.Wenzhen: Sometimes articles ‘the’, ‘a’. Sometimes I will lose ‘the’. I forget use it.

Sometimes subject-verb agreement. I will forget when I use it.Interviewer: You said when the teacher gives your writing back, you can find it?Wenzhen: Oh, yeah, that’s the problem. I can’t find it by myself.

In terms of clause structure, learners expressed a desire to mimic good sentencesobserved in other people’s writing. Preferences also varied for either long or short sentences.In her second transcript, Yi reported, ‘I try to write some long sentence, long and difficult.Because always my sentence so simple’. Even though a majority of the learners preferredlonger and more complex sentences over simple sentences, Kuzuko held a different view: ‘Ithink the most important thing to write is to make everything clear to the reader, so if I usethat kind of the long sentence, I think it’s worse than short sentence, because it is unclear’(1st transcript).

For improving grammar in general or what we classified as global ability, we identifieda large number of comments that did not contain any specific aspects of grammar thatlearners would like to improve. Instead, they expressed a strong desire to write like nativespeakers and to write error-free essays, hence to improve their overall ability. Similarly,when asked about what aspects of grammar they would like to improve, many commentedthat they wanted to improve all aspects of grammar without articulating a specific goal.This lack of specificity in their goals may partly be due to their lack of awareness of theirspecific needs or the overwhelming challenges they faced with language use. The followingextract (1st transcript) indicated such a tendency:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

242 A.A. Zhou et al.

Excerpt 2

Interviewer: What part? I mean, what aspect of grammar?. . .Yingxue: I think each part I have some tiny problems. I’m not sure which part is the

most, the biggest one. But I want to improve all of them.

What frustrated learners in the process of improving grammar for writing was that eventhough they set goals for improvement, they lacked the knowledge and skills to achievetheir goals. Some indicated that they had to rely on teachers or native-speaker friendsfor assistance in identifying grammar errors in writing and correcting errors when theylacked clear-cut rules for them to follow (e.g. rules governing the use of word choice andprepositions). A case in point was Wenzhen (1st transcript), who lamented, ‘So I’m not goodat checking. But I don’t know what is the good way to check my composition. Sometimeswhen I check, after I check it, there are still a lot of grammar errors’.

A number of learners reported using grammar exercises or reference books voluntarilyor upon the recommendation of their teachers to review grammar, hoping these reviewswould help them reduce the number of errors. Yet, given that most grammar exercisesand reference books they used provided extensive knowledge of formal features, learnerslacked information on use in context. The following two exchanges (from the 1st and 2ndtranscripts respectively) represent such a dilemma:

Excerpt 3

Wenzhen: I learned a lot of grammar before. But when I use it, I know I can correctit when I do exercises. But when I use it in writing, sometimes I will haveproblems.

Interviewer: How do you change that?Wenzhen: I should write more, and every time the teacher return this paper to me, I

correct the error mistake and remember it. And next time I will never dothis mistake. I should make sure this. I can’t make the same mistake.

Interviewer: You never do the same mistake?Wenzhen: Sometimes I will do, but I will try my best to avoid the same mistake.Interviewer: So you mean the teacher’s comments are quite helpful to you?Wenzhen: Yes. Sometimes I can’t find by myself. If I get my paper to my friend,

maybe they can find some mistakes. But I can’t find by myself.

Excerpt 4

Wenzhen: I just think how to solve the problem. But this kind of problem. . . If youask the teacher, they don’t know how to solve the problem. They just giveyou some advice [that] you see some grammar book or grammarreference. I think it’s not very useful.

As indicated by Excerpts 3 and 4, learners expressed bewilderment at using grammar forwriting within the larger context of an essay. Wenzhen could not name her errors norunderstand their sources. Along with the pressure to produce appropriate grammaticalforms, learners showed frustration.

In addition to receiving their teachers’ help and reviewing grammar books, a largenumber of learners reported using a variety of texts, such as novels and articles frommass media publications, to increase their knowledge of grammar. One student (Lee)reported using social media to gain grammar knowledge. However, given the nature of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 243

the aforementioned genres, these sources may provide learners with limited grammar useexemplary of academic writing.

ESL instructor goals

Using the same coding scheme as the one we used to analyse learners’ goals for grammarimprovement, we coded ESL instructors’ goals identified in Phase I data. Similar to theirstudents, the instructors were concerned with students’ lack of general grammar knowledgeand skills, their use of clause structures, and their difficulties in recognising word class:

Excerpt 5

Interviewer: Besides vocabulary, any other specific problems where you feel thestudent may have done better?

Maria: Well, uh, you know, grammatical points, uses of prepositions, theconnections between a main clause and noun clauses, usage of the gerundand infinitives, those small things like these which don’t really impede theunderstanding, but still need a lot of practice.

However, an additional theme, writing style, emerged from our qualitative analysis of thedata collected from the five ESL instructors and was used to code comments on conciseness,clarity, tone, precision, grammar complexity, register, sentence variety, cohesion, coherence,and language appropriate to specific genres. Writing style was barely discussed by learners;only one Chinese-speaking student, Wenzhen, mentioned her goal to improve sentencevariety and sentence structures that conformed to the conventions of different genres in herthird interview. Therefore, this theme did not emerge in our coding of learner data due toits scarcity.

In comparison to their students’ lack of goals to improve writing style, the ESL in-structors wanted students to improve their writing style or use the appropriate registerfor the assigned genre. They commented on learners’ weaknesses in using more com-plex grammar, varied sentence structure, appropriate register, and language demonstratingclarity, precision, maturity, and formality. For these instructors, it was the inappropri-ateness rather than inaccuracy of language use that was problematic. This goal, in fact,differed from that of most learners because many were struggling with getting basic formsin place and were striving more for accuracy than appropriateness in grammar use. Atthis stage of learning, using language or grammar appropriately seemed beyond learners’awareness.

Further analysis indicated that some strategies to teach grammar could be incompatiblewith the goals for grammar improvement. Using the data collected from the ESL instructors,we identified three pedagogical approaches that seemed to be problematic: (1) reluctanceto teach grammar and deliberate separation of form and meaning, (2) reliance on reactiveapproaches to teaching grammar, and (3) assumptions of learner autonomy for identifyingand correcting their own errors.

Firstly, many teachers reported that they were reluctant to address grammar in theintegrated-skills class because they considered the purpose of the course to be the improve-ment of rhetoric and ideas. Teachers expected grammar to be addressed in a separate classthat focused on particular language skills such as writing or grammar. For instance, Faithcommented in the interview:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

244 A.A. Zhou et al.

Excerpt 6

I don’t focus on grammar at all. That’s done in the writing focus class. What I do – I guessthis is grammar – is teaching them transitions and adjective clauses. But I actually don’tteach grammar in the class. It’s one glaring area that needs to be. . . each student has differentproblems that are usually tackled in the writing focus class.

Nevertheless, the teachers’ reluctance did not prevent them from emphasising grammar inevaluations. Responding to our question in the stimulated recall session as to what studentscould have done better in the writing samples, teachers lamented about students’ deficienciesin grammar. In addition, some teachers deliberately separated ideas from language forms,believing that the focus of the integrated-skills class was to help students get meanings orideas across without focusing on form. For example, when asked whether she was trying tohave students check their grammar more closely, Leeanne replied, ‘Not so much. I ask themto, but that’s really the function of the grammar course and I try really to focus on meaningand ideas’. This separation indicates that certain teachers overlooked the reciprocal effectsof writing on developing general language proficiency and the close relationship betweenmeaning and form.

Secondly, based on the ESL instructors’ verbal reports, when grammar was dealt within the integrated-skills class, it was usually handled more reactively (i.e. after errors aremade) than pre-emptively (i.e. before errors are made). Many teachers postponed discussinggrammar until the editing stage. Our data analysis also revealed that certain teachers mayhave lacked a clear understanding of what was considered to be grammar teaching. Theyused a proactive approach without realising that when they helped learners analyse a varietyof texts to identify genre and register, this could also be a viable strategy for grammarteaching. Lulu described her approach:

Excerpt 7

I don’t teach grammar in that class specifically, not in the high levels. I do when I teach a lowerlevel. . . I don’t set a specific period aside to do grammar. I tell them if they have questions toask. If I notice the same problem coming up again and again in their writing, we look at it as aclass. I tend to look at it more on an individual basis when I’m looking at their work.

However, in the same interview, she also reported how she used readings to help learnersanalyse the language of different genres:

Excerpt 8

I want them to see that as writers they can influence the reader by using more than just subject-verb-object combinations. There are different ways of doing different things. And so that theycan compare different registers, different styles of the register. So we do a wide variety of texts.We do academic texts, we do stories, we do humour, magazine articles, that kind of thing. AndI get them to analyze those aspects of texts.

A third approach was teachers’ assumptions of student knowledge and ability to identifyand correct various kinds of learner errors. Although all the ESL instructors in the studywere qualified and experienced, not all of them distinguished between errors that were morerule-based (e.g. verb tenses and subject-verb agreement) and those that were more complexand idiosyncratic (e.g. word choice, prepositions, and idiomatic expressions). They simplyapplied a correction code in their feedback, leaving students to explore what went wrongand how they should correct errors. For instance, Faith described her feedback like this:‘I don’t give them the corrections, but I mark what the mistakes are and they have to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 245

do the corrections themselves. We have a correction code so that they can identify themistakes and then they have to correct them’. Linda made a similar comment: ‘So, it’ll[student’s text] be full of markings, but they have to go and find why the word choice iswrong’.

This strategy, primarily an indirect error correction (i.e. indicating the existence of anerror that requires self-correction) approach (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2002), hasbeen reported to be preferred by learners ( cf., Chandler, 2003, 2009; Ferris & Roberts,2001) and is believed to encourage further self-directed learning and thus promotes languagedevelopment (Ferris, 2002). However, it did not seem to work well for some learners in thecurrent study when it was used alone by itself. As indicated previously, learners found itdifficult to identify all the errors by themselves, and knowing how to correct errors was evenmore challenging for them. Many had to rely on teachers or native-speaking friends forhelp in interpreting and understanding their teachers’ feedback. Those without additionalsupport from family and friends only had access to written reference information, whichwas often difficult for them to understand.

Recent research has indicated that direct correction (i.e. providing solutions to errors)is generally effective (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010a, 2010b) and preferredby learners (Chandler, 2003). Yet, this approach has also been found limited in terms offacilitating improvement in less ‘treatable’ features such as prepositions (Bitchener, Young,& Cameron, 2005). Given our understanding of learners’ frustration at correcting theirerrors in this study, we believe that when providing corrective feedback, teachers may haveto consider learners’ affective states, their language proficiency level, and their level oflanguage awareness in addition to the effectiveness of feedback in facilitating correction orlanguage learning.

How do the goals of students and their university instructors correspond?

Student goals

As indicated in Figures 1 and 2, student goals for grammar improvement changed littlein the second year (Phase II). They continued to set a goal of attaining global ability to

Figure 1. Changes in student goals for improving parts of speech between EAP and universitycourses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

246 A.A. Zhou et al.

Figure 2. Changes in student goals for improving clause structure between EAP and universitycourses.

write like native speakers or to have no grammar errors at all in their writing. In regardto students’ goals for producing accurate grammar at the word/phrase level (see Figure 1)and clause structure (see Figure 2) in Phase II, there were few changes from Phase I. Manyreported that they continued to struggle with problems in the same parts of speech they haddifficulties using in Phase I. For clause structure, in addition to improving accuracy, onestudent, Wenzhen, became more aware of the importance of sentence variety and wanted touse the clause structures that conformed to the conventions of different genres to enhancereadability. She commented (3rd transcript), ‘I have to learn how I can use different typesof sentence during different kinds of writing’.

University instructor goals

In Phase II of our data collection, the nine university instructors discussed their goals, orthe lack thereof (depending on how they viewed their role in teaching writing skills), forhelping learners improve grammar for writing. Some did not consider teaching studentshow to write in English to be their job, although they were aware of learners’ difficultieswith writing and with using written English. Willy, who taught Foundations of EconomicTheory, observed this dilemma in his practice:

Excerpt 9

I don’t really have any goals for students to improve their writing in the course. It should notbe something which is monitored or evaluated. A comment I regret because I do see in theirpapers some lack of capacity in written language.

Richard, who taught Oriental Arts, was more direct, ‘I do not consider that it’s my jobto teach them how to write English’. If learners exhibited writing difficulties, instructorsdirected students to writing centres or suggested asking friends and family for help. Somesuggested grammar books for students to review or websites for them to engage in self-learning. Sally reported that she ‘photocopied bits from a grammar textbook for some of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 247

them, when, in particular cases . . . suggested also Websites and places where they couldget external resources that they could use’. Using grammar books or websites was notalways a successful learning experience for learners (see Excerpt 4 and comment by Lee)and failed to yield satisfactory learning outcomes as expected by teachers and learners.Some instructors commented that reviewing grammar books may have added an additionalchallenge due to students’ lack of understanding of grammar terminology found in thereferences.

When university instructors were asked explicitly about goals for helping students im-prove their grammar for writing, some regretted not having time in class to cover grammar,but no instructors commented on their qualifications to cover it. Two instructors, Hatton andWilly, reported openly that they would rather focus on content or ideas than grammar, andone instructor, Bruce, assumed grammar should be able to take care of itself once learnersbecame proficient in the writing processes. Hatton, who taught Behavior in Institutions andBusiness, was representative of this content-over-grammar focus: ‘I don’t give them feed-back on their writing. I give them feedback on the content’. Willy also described his lack ofattention to grammar: ‘We don’t give any credence or any marks to how well the argumentis constructed in grammar terms, or language terms, but solely how they [students] strandtogether some intelligent points that relate to the economics of it’. A third instructor, Bruce,who taught Professional Writing for Engineering, provided more detail:

Excerpt 10

I draw attention to a particular grammar issue and I’ll give them some individual feedback onthat, but all my experience has led me to believe that the best approach to improving studentgrammar is to get them to improve their writing on the broad bases of rhetorical strategy andprocess, writing process. That’s what ultimately makes the difference. When they know whatthey are talking about and what they want to say, their grammar is generally better than whenthey are groping blindly for the next sentence. So that’s how I approach that.

However, even though Bruce made the above comment, he, along with the other six instruc-tors, did report their goals for students to improve grammar for writing, and we classifiedthese goals under the four major themes that we used to code the entire data set (seeTable 2).

Analyses revealed that a majority of the university instructors’ comments addressedgeneral grammar (35 comments) and a few were about writing style (5 comments) and wordclass (5 comments), such as verb forms and articles. As discussed previously, a substantialnumber of comments were on writing style and global ability. For goals concerning writingstyle, four university instructors (Aliz, Gloria, Richard, and Sally), similar to the five ESLinstructors, were particularly concerned with register, tone, clarity, and conciseness inlearners’ texts:

Excerpt 11

Interviewer: In general, what are the students in this course learning to improve intheir writing in English?

Sally: The language around report writing. What’s the level of formality you’relooking for? What’s the tone? Many of them, for example, write veryinformally, initially.

Regarding goals for global ability, except for Hatton and Willy, the other seven instructorsacknowledged the importance of good grammar knowledge and skills for proficient writingand discussed their criteria for assessing grammar in writing:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

248 A.A. Zhou et al.

Excerpt 12

Interviewer: Could you describe how you assess writing in your course?Aliz: Well, first of all, at a minimum I expect that the students are good at their

grammar, that their spelling be appropriate, that they are organizing theirmaterial and their paragraphs in a logical and coherent fashion, that itshows comprehension of the material and mastery of the material, andbasically those were my expectations.

Excerpt 13

Gloria: Then they should attend to the style, the expression, to make sure thegrammar is correct, so they should check for agreement of subject andverb, pronouns and referents, that kind of thing, that is clear, there’s noambiguity or . . . lack of, of sequence in what they are writing.

Approaches adopted by all the university instructors to address grammar resembledthose utilised by the five ESL instructors. To reiterate, the approaches that both groups ofinstructors described that could have influenced learners’ grammar improvement includedthe instructors’ (1) reluctance to teach grammar and deliberate separation of form andmeaning, (2) reliance on reactive approaches to teaching grammar, and (3) assumptions oflearner autonomy for identifying and correcting their own errors.

Bruce was representative of both reluctance and reactivity to grammar teaching. In thefollowing excerpt, he described how he addressed grammar:

Excerpt 14

Interviewer: How would you pick on the particular grammar issue?Bruce: Its frequency. If the entire class has dangling modifiers, I’ll take ten

minutes and say, ‘Let’s clear up the dangling modifier, shall we?’ And justtake a little detour from a class and that has a small, but I thinkmeasurable effect. I think it’s better to tackle things like that. I wouldbring that up in the context of feedback on a paper as part of a discussionof revision, which, so it’s a small part of the picture of that class, but Iwould do that occasionally.

Mary, who taught International Business, exemplified the theme of learner autonomy. Shebelieved that students could handle any difficulties in using grammar on their own:

Excerpt 15

I don’t have time to go and articulate the difference between the perfect xxx. This is not goingto happen. So I ask them to go check it out. Figure out what’s going on here. Like, I’ll circlethings. The usual teacher thing. Run-on. Whatever it is.

In addition to the above teaching approaches, we found that university instructors’ reluctanceto address grammar was reflected in their comments on the need for learners to use writingcentre services, whereas ESL instructors did not mention them.

We also observed in numerous excerpts the lack of correspondence of learners’ goalsfor improving formal accuracy with teachers’ goals for learners to improve writing style.Some teachers (see Bruce’s comment in Except 10) believed that using grammar accuratelycould come naturally if learners clearly knew what they wanted to express. Bruce describedhis beliefs:

Excerpt 16

They [students] want more control over their grammar and sentence structure because that’susually the area of greatest anxiety for them. I try to defuse that actually, get away from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 249

thinking too much about grammar. I think if they get control over the writing process, a lot ofthe grammar issues take care of themselves.

Unfortunately, this was not the case for students. Even if they knew what they wanted toexpress, they frequently reported not being able to articulate what they knew. Concerninggrammar issues taking care of themselves, Santos (2005) argued against making this as-sumption because ‘writing, the most conservative component of language, makes structuraland rhetorical demands that are the least amenable to absorption and assimilation by expo-sure alone’ (p. 158). Grammar appropriateness and writing style were still beyond learners’scope of goals because they continued to struggle with using basic forms accurately. Brucepointed out students’ struggle for more accurate expressions, describing it as ‘rhetoricalpurpose’:

Excerpt 17

Revision – where they do it at all and many of them don’t – I think is a general thing, is justa matter of general looking over the material to see whether they can spot any grammaticalproblems. Structural revision or revision with rhetorical purpose in mind is something thatthey don’t generally have to start with.

In summary, the university instructors either did not consider teaching writing to be theirjob or approached grammar teaching more reactively than pre-emptively, leaving the learn-ers to remain in need of appropriate language tools to complete writing tasks satisfactorily.Whereas the learners’ biggest concern was over language accuracy, the university instruc-tors focused more on content and style. No university instructors reported any concernsover their qualifications to teach writing or to address learners’ linguistic concerns.

Discussion

Findings suggest that in the current study, students’ goals for grammar improvement didnot correspond well with those of their ESL and university instructors, even though mostof the students appeared generally to be proficient in the language based on their averageinstitutional TOEFL scores and the instructors were experienced and professionally quali-fied. Many students struggled with formal accuracy, and many wanted to write error-freeessays (as those students in Ismail, 2010), which was an unrealistic goal for them to achievewithin a short period of time. This reality caused frustration among students and made themfeel a low sense of accomplishment. As for the goals held by the instructors, many in bothgroups looked for grammatical complexity and stylistic appropriateness in student writing;nevertheless, students had little knowledge and awareness of these areas. Some ESL anduniversity instructors’ reluctance to teach grammar, separation of form and meaning in theirinstruction, reliance on reactive approach to teach grammar, and assumptions of students’abilities to correct their own errors made grammar learning even more challenging forstudents.

These findings have generated a number of pedagogical implications for both ESLand university teachers. The first implication is that addressing language may need tobe a shared responsibility of any teachers whose classes involve writing tasks in orderto promote meaningful and successful communication. Language improvement can be adifficult task to achieve if both ESL and university instructors acknowledge the importanceof grammar knowledge and skills to successful writing, but demonstrate unwillingness toaddress them. In the present study, some ESL instructors were unwilling to teach grammarin the integrated-skills classes because they believed that grammar should be covered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

250 A.A. Zhou et al.

in a writing or grammar focus course. Some instructors also suggested students reviewgrammar books and complete grammar exercises in the books by themselves; however, manystudents found decontextualised, mechanical grammar drills uninteresting and impractical.Moreover, students reported that they had difficulty applying the rules they had learnedthrough grammar exercises to actual writing tasks. Similarly, some university instructorswere unwilling to address grammar in their classes even though they observed obviousdeficiencies. These instructors believed that it was not their responsibility to teach writingor to help learners with language needs; rather, this was regarded as the responsibility ofthose working in language programmes or writing centres. Unfortunately, it is a policy ofmany writing centres that tutors not work extensively with learners on grammar. Indeed,the main objective of a writing centre is usually ‘to make better writers, not necessarily –or immediately – better texts’ (North, 1984, p. 441). It is not uncommon to hear commentssuch as, ‘It’s called the writing center, not the grammar center’ (Santos, 2005, p. 155).

Secondly, we propose that grammar be addressed both pre-emptively and reactively(Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001). In our study, the participants reported that languageissues were usually dealt with, if they were ever addressed, at the later stages of the writingprocesses when both groups of instructors observed grammar errors in student writing. Thispractice can be attributed to the influence of the process approach (Ferris, 2010; Frodesen,2001; Frodesen & Holten, 2003). Addressing errors reactively is an important componentof learning, but when it is the only primary form of language learning, it can be detrimentalto learners’ development of language skills required for successful writing. Frodesen andHolten (2003) argued forcefully that error correction should not be the only focus ofgrammar instruction in L2 writing. Also, Frodesen (2001) emphasised that in addition toerror correction, grammar needs to be considered ‘a resource to be accessed for effectivecommunication’ (p. 234) and should be taught overtly and systematically irrespective ofwhether an error is made or not. Whether this resource, or writing instruction at large, shouldbe provided by ESL writing instructors only or by both ESL and university instructorsacross the curriculum remains to be a central policy issue in curriculum development forESL students in university settings.

Hyland (2003) has further pointed out the drawbacks of sole reliance on the reactiveapproach. He stated that postponing explicit language teaching ‘denies them [learners] asystematic understanding of the ways language is patterned in particular domains. It treatslanguage instruction as a reactive and extemporised solution to learners’ writing difficultiesrather than the central resource for constructing meanings’ (p. 122). In addition to helpinglearners with their language needs at the later stages of the writing processes, teachers needto carefully plan the teaching of grammar relevant to the writing task at the modelling or textanalysis stage of the teaching-learning cycle as discussed in Hyland (2003). For instance,when teaching novice ESL writers how to write a summary or critique, the teacher couldfocus on one language feature of such genre: reporting verbs – a challenging linguisticfeature for many non-native English speaker writers (Bloch, 2010). Some L2 learners mayhave difficulty in selecting appropriate verbs indicating intended objectivity and usingappropriate verb tenses. By teaching this grammatical feature before students start to writea summary or critique, the teacher helps equip them with language resources they will needto successfully complete the writing task, thereby empowering students and helping reducethe sense of frustration when errors are made. Indeed, the teacher can focus on a numberof linguistic features common to the text type he or she intends to teach and allow studentsto explore such features at the stages of text analysis and the actual writing.

Thirdly, a deliberate separation of grammatical form and pragmatic meaning is unreal-istic and impractical. In this study, four teachers reported that they focused only on meaning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 251

or content in their teaching of writing. However, form is a resource for creating meaning;when form is unclear, meaning likely will suffer. Eventually, the meaning that teachers weretrying to focus on could become unclear due to inaccurate use.

Fourthly, when providing error correction, in addition to considering the effectivenessof direct and indirect types of written feedback, teachers may also need to consider thepsychological effects on learners brought about by feedback practices. In this study, someteachers provided mainly indirect correction by marking error types or simply underliningor circling grammar errors regardless of their nature, assuming that learners would be ableto self-correct their own texts. Learners reported that they were often unable to do whatthe teachers expected and, therefore, felt inadequate and frustrated when failing to do so.This affective state may have resulted from learners’ unrealistic goals to write error-freetexts and from their East Asian educational backgrounds (13 students), which involve adifferent approach to learning. Teachers in some East Asian countries are often deemed tobe the only authority to impart knowledge, and students are expected to recite knowledgegained through rote learning. However, to fully understand learners’ reactions to errorcorrection, as suggested by Bitchener and Ferris (2012), we need more research to explorehow background factors influence the effectiveness of corrective feedback.

Fifthly, the above implications have raised an ongoing concern over adequate teachertraining in the field. Some scholars (Ferris, 1999, 2007; Truscott, 1996) have questionedteachers’ qualifications to provide grammar instruction, including error correction, sug-gesting a need for better teacher education and continuous professional development. Toenhance teaching effectiveness and teacher awareness of language learning, more com-prehensive training needs to be provided to teacher candidates in applied linguistics orcomposition and rhetoric programmes. Training could also be provided to university in-structors by writing across the curriculum specialists through professional developmentworkshops and seminars.

Meanwhile, these implications have raised our concerns over learner awareness trainingas well. As discussed previously, many learners in the study set their goals to write likenative speakers or to produce texts without any grammar errors. Teachers could help learnersset realistic, attainable goals by sharing with them how long it may take for a learner toacquire an L2. Teachers could also help raise learners’ awareness of the importance of bothformal accuracy and stylistic appropriateness so that when learners set goals for languageimprovement, they do not limit themselves to formal accuracy.

However, these implications must be interpreted with caution given that this is a small-scale study with a limited number of participants. In addition, the study focuses on par-ticipants’ goals and expectations for language development based on their verbal reportsrather than learners’ actual writing or grammar development. Furthermore, because thevast majority of our student participants came from East Asian countries, their goals forlanguage improvement (e.g. article usage and clause structure) and how they acted on theirgoals could have been influenced by their linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds.Therefore, the implications of the study may be more applicable to this group of ESLlearners than to those from other linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

In conclusion, the current study reveals the potential and significance of comparinglearners’ and instructors’ goals along with their means to achieving goals in order todetermine the compatibility between both parties’ goals for improving grammar in writing.We have found that whereas many learners set their goals to write error-free texts andmainly focused on improving the formal features of grammar, their ESL and universityinstructors chose to either emphasise the stylistic appropriateness of learners’ texts or notto focus on grammar. We have identified teaching approaches that could have resulted in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

252 A.A. Zhou et al.

frustration at grammar improvement. To enhance learner and instructor satisfaction withlearning and teaching, grammar needs to be an integral component of the curriculum of anyclass with writing tasks, not just of grammar or writing classes. Furthermore, in addition toerror correction, grammatical features that are closely related to the successful productionof a particular genre, as suggested by our previous discussion of teaching reporting verbsin summaries and critiques, need to be taught before errors are made in order to equiplearners with resources to make clear meanings. Error correction could be both direct andindirect, depending on the nature of grammar errors and learners’ backgrounds. Lastly,to help students successfully complete writing tasks, both ESL and university instructorsneed adequate pre-service training and continuous professional development to familiarisethemselves with the recent developments in writing instruction. Students’ awareness oflanguage learning and of their own proficiency level is also in need of training and is animportant component of successful learning.

AcknowledgementsFunding for this research was provided to Alister Cumming by the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada, standard grant 410-2001-0791. We are grateful for the insightfulcomments of the journal editors and their anonymous reviewers.

Notes on contributorsAlly A. Zhou is associate professor of TESOL at Oklahoma City University. Her research interestsinclude L2 writing, grammar in writing, EAP, and goal-oriented grammar learning. She has servedon the U.S. Student Fulbright National Screening Committee and is an associate editor for the journalAmerican Review of China Studies.

Michael Busch teaches in the English Language Program at Saginaw Valley State University. Hisresearch interests address the design and measurement of language teaching tasks, methods of textanalysis, and grammar instruction for writing improvement.

Alister Cumming is professor and head of the Centre for Educational Research on Languages andLiteracies (CERLL, formerly the Modern Language Centre) at the Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, University of Toronto. His research and teaching focus on writing in second languages,literacy and assessment in classroom and formal testing contexts, and curriculum evaluation, particu-larly of programmes for English as a second or foreign language. Alister currently serves as executivedirector for the journal Language Learning.

ReferencesBarkhuizen, G. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activ-

ities in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 85–108.Basturkmen, H., & Lewis, M. (2002). Learner perspectives of success in an EAP writing course.

Assessing Writing, 8, 31–46.Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 17(2), 102–118.Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D.R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and

writing. New York: Routledge.Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with

written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217.Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language

development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback

on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Awareness 253

Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices inacademic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 219–244.

Block, D. (1994). A day in the life of a class: Teacher/learner perceptions of task purpose in conflict.System, 22, 473–486.

Busch, M.W. (2006). The language of intentions for writing improvement: A systemic functionalanalysis. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors(pp. 108–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracyand fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.

Chandler, J. (2009). Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 57–58.Christie, F. (1998). Learning the literacies of primary and secondary schooling. In F. Christie &

R. Mission (Eds.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 47–73). London: Routledge.Cumming, A. (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.Cumming, A., Busch, M., & Zhou, A. (2002). Investigating learners’ goals in the context of adult

second-language writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam & S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds.), Studies in writing:Vol. 11. New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 189–208). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Cummings, J. (2007). An activity theory analysis of three instructors knowledge about teachingwriting in a pre-university English-for-Academic-Purposes course: Teacher mind as mediatedaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada.

Cummings, J., Erdosy, U., & Cumming, A. (2006). A study of contrasts: ESL and university instruc-tors’ goals for writing improvement. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Goals for academic writing: ESLstudents and their instructors (pp. 50–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R., Basturkmenm, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407–432.

Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3),178–186.

Ferris, D.R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott(1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–10.

Ferris, D.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: Universityof Michigan Press.

Ferris, D.R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 16(3), 165–193.

Ferris, D.R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–202.

Ferris, D.R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need tobe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N.K.Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 645–672). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Frodesen, J. (2001). Grammar in writing. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second orforeign language (3rd ed., pp. 233–248). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploringthe dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141–161). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. ModernLanguage Journal, 83, 35–50.

Hoffmann, A. (1998). An exploratory study of goal setting and the nature of articulated goals insecond language writing development. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 4, 33–48.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan

Press.Ismail, S.A.A. (2010). ESP students’ views of ESL grammar learning. GEMA Online Journal of

Language Studies, 10(3), 143–156.Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

254 A.A. Zhou et al.

Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing inEnglish. New York: Routledge.

Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicativelanguage teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,12, 429–448.

Locke, T. (2009). Grammar and writing – The international debate. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley& M. Nystrand (Eds.), Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 182–193). Los Angeles, CA:Sage.

Locke, T. (Ed.). (2010). Beyond the grammar wars: A resource for teachers and students on developinglanguage knowledge in the English/literacy classroom. New York: Routledge.

Myhill, D. (2005). Ways of knowing: Writing with grammar in mind. English Teaching: Practice andCritique, 4(3), 77–96.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback: The effect ofrandom versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitativemeta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.

North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46, 433–446.Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do when they write: A classroom study of composing.

TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229–255.Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.Santos, T. (2005). The role of grammar in TESL and composition. In J. Frodesen & C. Holten (Eds.),

The power of context in language teaching and learning (pp. 153–162). Boston: Heinle.Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective. Mahwah,

NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and

its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–677.Smagorinsky, P. (1994). Think-aloud protocol analysis beyond the black box. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.),

Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroomand laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P.M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOLQuarterly, 42, 181–207.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning,46, 327–369.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272.

Truscott, J. (2009). Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 18(1), 59–60.

Truscott, J. (2010). Further thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System,38(4), 626–633.

Truscott, J., & Hsu, Y.P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 17(4), 292–305.

van Gelderen, A. (2010). Does explicit teaching of grammar help students to become better writers?Insights from empirical research. In T. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the grammar wars: A resourcefor teachers and students on developing language knowledge in the English/literacy classroom(pp. 109–128). New York: Routledge.

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOLQuarterly, 17, 165–187.

Zhou, A. (2009). What adult ESL learners say about improving grammar and vocabulary in theirwriting for academic purposes. Language Awareness, 18(1), 31–46.

Zhou, A., Busch M., Gentil G., Eouanzoui K., & Cumming, A. (2006). Students’ goals for ESL anduniversity courses. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Goals for academic writing: ESL students and theirinstructors (pp. 29–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 01:

27 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014