Running head: GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS

Grammatical Competence of First Year English Major Students of Teacher Education

Department in Holy Angel University A.Y. 2014-2015: An Assessment

Charles Brent Magpayo, Rea Dolor J. Paras and Nicole, Paula E. Sarmiento

Holy Angel University

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 2

Abstract

This study assessed the grammatical competence of 70 future teachers of English in Holy Angel

University through an adapted grammar test questionnaire from Belk and Thompson (1999). The

test measured the participants’ knowledge in different grammar areas, particularly in classes of

words, sentence elements, types of sentences, correct use of verbs, modifiers, subject-verb

agreement and pronoun usage. Generally, the results suggested that the participants have average

grammatical competence. The results showed that the participants generally have an average

level of grammatical competence. However, the majority of the participants (42.86%) has a low

level of grammatical competence. The participants have high levels of grammatical competence

on modifiers, classes of words, correct use of verbs and subject-verb agreement. On the other

hand, the findings also showed that the participants have low grammatical competence in

sentence elements, sentence types and pronoun usage. This research analyzed the grammar areas

and specific grammar points wherein the participants are having difficulty, as well as the items

wherein they are most competent. This research analyzed the potential underlying causes of their

difficulty, as well as the possible interventions. Additionally, the researchers created an

instructional material that is fitted to communicative grammar teaching method, providing

contextualized discussion with authentic materials and assessment to address the difficulties in

the aforementioned grammar areas. The study gave recommendations regarding the results of the

assessment, considering the existing language learning theories and related studies presented in

the paper, and their implications.

Keywords: English grammar, grammatical competence, future English teachers, assessment

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 3

Grammatical Competence of First Year English Major Students of Teacher Education

Department in Holy Angel University A.Y. 2014-2015: An Assessment

With the present implementation of the K to 12 curriculum in the country, teaching has

become an in-demand profession which some incoming college students look forward to pursue.

It is important to note, however, particularly in Holy Angel University, that the students are not

evenly distributed to the different fields of specialization. For consecutive years, English majors

have shared the biggest population in the Teacher Education department in the university.

Consequently, some fields of specialization tend to have a lower number of population, as

population of English majors tends to grow even more. However, it is reported that there are

some cases of English majors encountering retention problems, as they cope with the demands of

the field of specialization. The growing number of English teachers also has implications in the

workplace. The competition among English teacher-applicants become even tighter, as the

competence in the language, along with good credentials and grades, is a major factor to get an

English teaching job. Unfortunately, a number of English major graduates failed to pursue

teaching professions and acquired other occupations, particularly, call center jobs. In order to

address this issue, the assessment of grammatical competence of first year English major

students is conducted in order to identify the areas in which they are good and the areas in which

they still need improvement. This can lead to interventions to improve their grammatical

competence towards better language proficiency, thus, better opportunity for employment. On

one hand, it can also serve as an assessment for the students to consider other fields of

specialization, whichever has greater demands or whichever is most suitable to their competence

as early as first year in college.

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 4

Testing grammatical competence is not a novel thing in education, and in other fields.

Achievement tests administered to the pupils and students in elementary and high school contain

some parts of grammar, in English language portions. Several standardized tests have been made

available throughout the globe such as TOEIC (The Test of English for International

Communication), and TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) which both measure the

knowledge of an individual about the English language, with grammar as one of their

components.

Just like various sectors and fields, this study aims to assess the grammatical competence

of teacher education students who aspire to be teaching English language in the academe in the

coming years. Specifically, this study sought answers to the following research questions:

1. What are the levels of grammatical competence of the students in the different areas of

grammar?

2. In what area of grammar are first year English major education students most competent?

Least competent?

3. What instructional material can be produced to address the needs of the students based on the

results of this study?

To understand this research study further, it is essential to explore on the following areas:

background of grammar and grammatical competence; importance of grammatical competence,

reconsidering grammar instruction, grammar teaching methods, and related studies about

grammatical competence assessment.

Grammar is defined as the set of rules that show how words or group of words are

arranged to form sentences in the language. Thus, English grammar includes the set of rules that

govern sentence formation in English or to put words together to form larger units of language
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 5

Grammar, therefore, is commonly composed of two sub-fields: morphology (word formation)

and syntax (sentence formation), (Collins and Hollo, 2000; Clarke, Dickinson & Westbrook,

2010, Cowan, 2008; Greenbaum & Nelson, 2002; Crystal, 2005; Klammer, Schulz & Volpe,

2000). The aforementioned subfields are the focus of this study in terms of grammar.

This research study is based on the theory of grammatical competence, one of the

components of Michael Canale and Merrill Swain’s communicative competence (Gao, 2001).

Grammatical competence reflects understanding of the linguistic code (Scarcella and Oxford,

1992). It focuses on the command of the language and aims to acquire knowledge of forms of

expression. It also aims to have the ability to use the language grammatically, or with correctness

and accuracy (Díaz-Rico & Weed, 2010; Gao, 2001), thus, avoiding language errors. If the

speakers effectively internalized the language rules and their limits, they are said to possess

grammatical competence (Cowan, 2008). Grammar helps to improve one’s language abilities and

has a fundamental role to play in the four macro skills, namely: listening, speaking, reading, and

writing (Crystal, 2005).

There are contrasting views in terms of understanding grammar. Linguistically, there is a

distinction between grammatical competence and grammatical performance. Cattel (2006)

asserts that Chomsky distinguished between the two, and defines competence as the knowledge

of language in the mind of the speaker or hearer, involving lexical knowledge and all rules of

grammar, whereas performance as what transpires in actual listening or speaking activities.

There is another dichotomy in view of grammar: prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar.

Prescriptive grammar outlines a set of appropriate rules for grammar and identifies which usages

should be used or avoided; on the other hand, descriptive grammar describes how people use

their language and claims that the rules of the language are bound to change and can evolve.
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 6

(Greenbaum & Nelson, 2002; Klammer, Schulz & Volpe, 2000; Yule, 2006). Throughout

history, grammarians have tended to either describe or prescribe the grammatical rules of

languages. There was a transition from embracing prescriptive grammar which includes

memorization and practice of rules to adopting descriptive or transformational grammar,

believing that grammar instruction should be parallel to the purpose of the user, with descriptive

grammar theories that are more flexible and reflective of the actual usage and self-expression

(Sert, 2006; Christy, 2005).

Grammatical competence is found to be significant in a number of ways. Canale and

Swain (1980) assert that without grammar, the learners can only communicate effectively in a

limited number of instances or situations. Reinforcing this view, Larsen-Freeman (2003) cited

the remarks of an ESL teacher in Bulgaria and Ukraine who argues that the concept that English

grammar is acquired naturally and needs not to be taught is true only to the native speakers but

not to the second language learners in other countries whose language is very different from

English. The significance of grammatical competence is also amplified as Díaz-Rico & Weed

(2010) state that it is necessary as it provides skills and knowledge for the students to be

understood in speaking and writing; hence, the grammatical competence of the learners becomes

more essential as their language proficiency increases. Sert (2006) also points out that grammar

is an indispensable part of any particular language, considering that the systematic language rules

play the most essential role for mutual intelligibility, as well as for building social relationships

through verbal communication. With these perceived importance, the assessment of grammatical

competence becomes relevant towards the improvement of student’s knowledge towards better

proficiency in the English language.

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 7

Despite the perceived applicability and importance of grammar, it received a number of

criticisms. Stephen Krashen (1981; 1982) proposed a model that de-emphasizes the role of

formal instruction in developing the grammatical competence, thus supporting the idea that

through natural exposure to input, the students can acquire grammar. Krashen (2000 as cited by

Ivady, 2007), highlights in his Monitor Model that it creates a monitor which will notice and

correct errors in one’s output; thus, explicit knowledge of rules add nothing to the acquired

knowledge of a language. He also encouraged others to give a lower profile to grammar in

language classrooms. Yet, there are still practical arguments for the teaching of grammar as it is

reconsidered as an essential element in the language learning process (Larsen-Freeman, 2003).

To reinforce this, Gao (2001) points out that grammatical competence acts to promote accuracy

and fluency in second language production. Grammatical competence also increases in

importance as the learner advances in proficiency (Díaz-Rico & Weed, 2010). It is strongly

relevant, because one of the objectives in language learning is accuracy or the use or production

of language without error in order to be understood by others in conversation or in the act of

communication (Lindsay & Knight, 2006).

The teacher’s grammatical competence can be recognized as a fundamental tool in

bringing an understanding of the language to the learners through input. The input is defined as

all the target language (L2) that a learner is exposed to, which can be both spoken and written.

The initial step of language learning process includes the learner’s exposure to input. However,

not all inputs are helpful in language learning, because not all kinds of inputs are understood and

used by the learners (Lindsay & Knight, 2006; Bilash, 2009). Thus, to be a positive agent of

language learning, the input should be understandable and clear to the students. The significance

of this study can be traced back to Krashen’s input hypothesis, which states that a learner
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 8

acquires a language in only one way- by exposure to comprehensible input. Comprehensible

input, in its simplest sense, is defined as the language that a learner can understand or

comprehend (Lightbrown & Spada, 2000). According to Krashen, if learners are exposed to

ideal and sufficient amount of comprehensible input, acquisition of the language could just

happen even naturally (Wong, 2005). Lindsay and Knight (2006) stated that one source of input

is the teacher. Hence, in order to be an effective teacher of the language, the teacher should be a

source of rich and comprehensible inputs, which in one view, can be reinforced by having high

grammatical competence. If English teachers, for example, provide grammatical sentences, both

in spoken or written form, the teachers potentially give comprehensible input to the students,

provided that they will apply simplicity and will refrain from using highfalutin words. The

teacher, therefore, must be the model of using the language correctly or accurately, in order for

the students to acquire good levels of language competence. In this sense, Belk and Thompson

(1999) support that the teacher’s becomes the ideal role ‘model’ of the language. ‘Modelling’, in

language learning, refers to the teacher demonstrating how words are spoken, and is successfully

developing through the learners’ frequent exposure to it (Bilash, 2009). Cowan (2008) claimed

that the ability to form grammatical sentences is essential in effective communication. The

teacher’s talk in the target language (L2) should be understandable by the students and frequent

exposure to meaningful and comprehensible target language (L2) input is very useful to L2

learners (Randolph, 2013).

Grammar instruction, despite criticisms, is being reconsidered today. Recently, many

language teachers had the mistaken notion that grammar instruction had no or little place in a

communicative classroom, such that learners could just absorb all the grammar they need

through communicative activities, through independent homework and through reading reference
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 9

books (Scarcella and Oxford 1992). The limitations of using the communicative approach solely

and disregarding grammar have been recognized. A study about learning outcomes in French

immersion programs by Swain and her colleagues showed that despite considerable long-term

exposure to meaningful input, the learners did not attain accuracy in certain grammatical forms

(Harley &Swain, 1984; Lapkin, Hart, &Swain, 1991; Swain, 1985; Swain & Lapkin, 1989 as

cited by Nassaji and Fotos, 2004) and suggested that some type of focus on grammatical forms

was needed if learners have to develop high levels of accuracy in the target language. Thus,

communicative language teaching by itself was found to be insufficient (Nassaji and Fotos,

2004). Looking at it constructively, learners’ awareness of the meaning-form relationships will

be enhanced through the teachers’ appropriate grammar teaching plans in the communicative

classroom because accurate grammar forms and meaning might not be attained unconsciously at

once (Hu, 2012). Nassaji and Fotos (2004) suggest to reconsider grammar instruction because

the hypothesis that language can be learned unconsciously is found to be theoretically

challenging. In response to this issue, Schmidt (1990, 1993, 2001 cited by Nassaji and Fotos,

2004) suggests that noticing or conscious attention to language forms is needed to learn the

language effectively, as supported by Leow, (1998, 2001, 2002), Rutherford, (1987, 1988) and

Tomlin &Villa (1994) (cited by Nassaji and Fotos, 2004). Therefore, as above arguments

suggest, grammar and communicative competence should not be in opposition, but should be

complementary. Communicative grammar teaching is now given emphasis, with empirical

evidences that it ses to the improvement of student’s grammatical competence and the ability to

use it in communication (Ho & Bin, 2014). Similarly, Proshyants’ (2011) study concluded that it

is absolutely necessary to teach grammar in the discourse of the professional activity with focus

on form within interaction and negotiation of meaning. This reflects the importance of grammar
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 10

in the communicative competence of future specialists. Azar (2007) noted down that the benefits

of Grammar Based Teaching include helping students gain an understanding of grammar

concepts with simplified terminology, with a minimal meta-language and grammatical analysis

and further concluded that students with a good foundation in grammar needed only to be

reminded minimally about language whereas those without that grounding or preparation in

grammar needed a lot more teaching time in order to understand better. Similarly, Mart (2013)

concludes that grammar helps learners’ in understanding the nature of language as grammar

knowledge will not only boost the learners’ comprehension of the language but will greatly help

them improve in using the language. In addition, Nassaji and Fotos (2004) concluded that it is

significant for learners to notice target forms in the input; otherwise they process input for

meaning alone, do not consider the specific forms, and fail to do processing and acquisition.

Ruyun Hu (2012) affirms the effectiveness of the communicative approach to grammar teaching

in developing the learner’s competence in the mastery of the language and in enhancing their

communicative competence. Therefore, with the perceived relevance of grammar integration in

the communicative classroom, there is a necessity for the future English teachers to enhance their

grammatical competence to equip themselves with the expected knowledge in teaching language

forms.

Different but appropriate grammar teaching methods are considered in constructing the

output of this research study. Teachers of English language should start exploring the different

methods of teaching grammar so that they can fully promote the students’ English proficiency

level (Wang, 2010). In terms of grammar instruction, Hagemann (2003) argues that grammar

has a place in language arts classroom; however, the argument should never be whether or not

grammar is taught, but it must be about how it is taught. Issues on methods of grammar teaching
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 11

have been catching the interest and attention of researchers through the years. Yao Ju (2010)

discovered in his study that the method of teaching preferred by the teacher naturally influenced

the method chosen by students to study, which in turn affects the improvement of students’

diverse abilities with the English language. The study also suggests applying both inductive and

deductive methods in order to cultivate an all-round proficiency in the English language. It also

concluded that overall, the schools and teachers have the strongest impact on teaching and on

students’ learning. In addition, it also suggests using an inductive approach when teaching new

grammar topics, but a deductive approach for analyzing grammar rules in the exercises is a

recommendable grammar teaching style. Following these principles, deductive method will be

applied to the grammar points which need improvement, and inductive method to the grammar

points that are not part of the participants’ background knowledge. Contextualized grammar

teaching is also applied in making instructional materials in this study. Current research says

that teaching grammar through context by providing grammatical structure in context will help

learners learn language structures effectively, enable the learners to acquire new grammar

structures and forms and helps them to master the language better if they grammatical structure

in context (Mart, 2013). Authentic use of springboards in grammar is also reflected in the output

of this research study. Olcay Sert (2006) concluded in his project that there is a possibility to

suggest that by making use of a project-based grammar assignment which analyze English

grammar in discourses of authentic sources, the learners can reflect and judge whether the words

in the discourse which they encountered are grammatical or not prescriptively recognized, and

distinguish if these are descriptively accepted. Thus, it leads to developing students’ evaluative

skill in the real world as they learn grammar. Another study by Ozkan (2011) concluded that

implementation of authentic texts in classes for teaching grammar requires an authentic

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 12

assessment approach where both form and meaning are equally gauged. The study also suggests

that the model, using authentic texts, may be proven to be one alternative assessment to

traditional approaches in the field of language learning and teaching, basing on the principle that

language learning and assessment are positively interrelated. Therefore, authentic materials for

instructional materials are used, as well as authentic assessment. Ahmed and Alamin (2012)

stated that the communicative methods in language teaching are still relevant and making sense

today provided that form and correctness are not neglected. It is also emphasized that focusing

heavily on form will create learners with language accuracy, but are lacking knowledge about

cultural and pragmatic language use, while focusing deeply on communication will produce

learners who commit inaccuracies, specifically, errors which can be fossilized, and it is stressed

that, learners who have fossilized errors are barely considered as fruitful learners. Thus,

communicative approach and teaching grammar must be balanced. Moreover, grammar

instruction must be relevant- that is, it should address the needs, nature and interest of the

learner. English and language arts teachers must embrace the idea that grammar instruction

should reflect current pedagogical approaches, i.e., it should be suitable and tailor-made to

address the needs of students, thus helping the students learn grammar rules linked to their lived

experiences (Christy, 2005; Li & Song, 2007).

There are related studies about assessment of grammatical competence that are helpful in

understanding this research. Belk and Thompson (1999) assert that a number of pre-service

teachers are not able to acquire the necessary grammar skills, although a lot of opportunities are

given to acquire requisite knowledge in teacher preparation. Consequently, this inadequacy of

knowledge in grammar can have disadvantageous effects, especially for teachers who have a

diversity of learners that have different nature and needs to be addressed (Belk & Thompson,
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 13

1999). The aforementioned research on grammar literacy of pre-service teachers is the source of

the research instrument utilized in this study, which is the Grammar Inventory for Teachers

(GIFT). The said study further asserts that effective teachers are characterized by having good

communication skills, and future teachers should be grammatically competent in to communicate

effectively with students and other people. In addition, Majeed and Yassein’s (2013) study

concluded that the linguistic competence of intermediate school teachers falls under average

level, but they still have difficulties or weaknesses in linguistic competence. The study concludes

that the participants are not as competent as expected, and did not develop their linguistic

competence via self-improvement. Another study about the correlation of grammatical

competence and speaking skills revealed that most students have fair grammar competence and

speaking fluency (Priyanto, 2013). Grammatical competence of future English teachers is very

necessary because it will reflect the kind of grammar instruction that they will provide to their

future students. Apparently, if the English teacher has a low level of grammatical competence,

there will be a negative implication on the kind of learning that the students will acquire in the

classroom. This is supported by an ELT journal article, as it reports that teachers’ self-

perceptions of their knowledge about grammar have an impact on the practice of their work

(Borg, 2001). In the study at Queensland University, the results of a survey conducted with first

year Education students regarding the levels of competency in literacies expected of teachers in

schools revealed that spelling and grammar competency rated the highest among all the aspects

chosen to be examined in terms of the skill level students thought to be essential for effective

teaching (Penn-Edwards, 2010). Hence, it supports that high grammatical competence is a

necessity for future teachers to be effective in classroom instruction. More than two decades ago,

negative perceptions of teachers about grammar teaching were already existent. Shulman (1987)
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 14

discovered that teachers experience apprehension in teaching grammar lessons in the classroom.

As a result of this factor or fear, the quality of their teaching is affected. It is concluded that the

apprehension is due to their lack of knowledge about the subject matter which is the result of

their inadequate preparation in teaching grammar (Shulman, 1987). Therefore, it is suggestive

that inadequate grammatical competence has a negative effect on the actual execution of

teaching. As suggested by research, the level of grammatical competence really has an effect on

the confidence and efficiency of the English teacher. According to the study of Stathis and

Gotsch in 2008, which was about the ELD (English Language Development) and ESL (English

as a Second Language) teachers’ attitudes toward and perceptions of grammar instruction,

slightly more than half of the survey respondents said that most ESL/ELD teachers do not have

the grammatical knowledge and writing skills to provide this kind of instruction. These related

studies are revisited in analyzing the results of grammatical competence assessment in this

research.

Future English language teachers need to have the necessary skills that are expected of

them, including proficient or ideally advanced level of grammatical competence. As a call,

Meyer (2003) seems to propose a move for teachers as she states that good teaching in the

structure of English will not be existent except when the teachers have curiosity about it, have

the training to observe it, and have the knowledge where to look for answers. Additionally,

Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) argue that the further the teachers have knowledge

about grammar, the more efficiently they should be able to increase the awareness of a learner as

regards to how language works. As a response to the conventional views and issues connected to

grammar and its instruction, the conceptions about grammar are challenged in the modern world

of language teaching.Larsen-Freeman (2003) discussed the nature of grammar and challenged

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 15

some of the basic assumptions about it. She pointed out that grammar can be considered more of

a skill rather than an area of knowledge and stressed that language teaching has more than four

skills: grammar being the fifth, along with listening, speaking reading and writing. She also

believed that grammar is also about meaning, and not just about the form. In connection to that,

Larsen Freeman (1992) coined the term grammaring, which is defined as the capacity to use

grammar structures with accuracy, meaningfulness and appropriateness (cited by Larsen-

Freeman, 2003).

The study’s scope includes grammatical competence only, limited to classes of words,

sentence elements, sentence types, modifiers, correct use of verbs, subject verb agreement, and

pronoun usage. The classes of words assessed include nouns, pronouns, adverbs, prepositions,

action verbs, linking verbs, auxiliary verb, adjectives, coordinating conjunctions, correlative

conjunction and interjections. Sentence elements include simple predicates, complete subjects,

adverbial clause, adjective clause, predicate nominatives, complete predicates, direct objects,

predicate adjectives, the object of the preposition, prepositional phrase, and simple subjects.

Sentence types include simple sentences, compound sentences, complex sentences, run-

ons/comma splice sentences and sentence fragment. Modifiers include the adverb of manner,

limiting adjective, and the degrees of adjectives namely: descriptive, comparative and

superlative. Correct use of verbs includes correct use of the verb “lie”, past tense of the verb,

base form of the verb after the auxiliary verb “did” and perfect aspect of the verb, along with an

item containing verbs that are not possible answers. Items assessed in subject-verb agreement

include the following pairs: singular subject with a verb as a state of being, singular subject with

a verb in the present perfect aspect, plural subject with a verb in the past tense, singular subject/

“not one” with a verb in a singular verb, and compound subject with a linking verb in the past
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 16

tense. Lastly, pronoun usage includes pronouns used as predicate nominatives, possessive form

of pronoun (singular) and possessive form of pronoun (plural). The grammar areas and specific

grammar points that are not mentioned were not assessed in this study, thus reflect its limitations.

The grammatical competence assessed are limited to those of pre-service teachers, specifically,

the first year English majors and excluding grammatical competence of students in other year

levels and other fields of specialization. The aforementioned scope and delimitations are

acknowledged in this study.

The assessment of the grammatical competence of first year English major Education

students can be beneficial to different sectors of an educational institution. For curriculum

designers and curriculum implementers of Teacher Education department of the university, the

results of this study can lead to refinement of the existing curriculum, considering the level of

grammatical competence of English major education students that is determined from this study.

For department chair or English department head, this study can serve as a point of

reference/input for the teacher education department’s interventions for the English program,

addressing the students’ needs and points for improvement, based on the results of this study. In

addition, the results of this study can be a basis for possible consideration of comprehensive

qualifying exam for students who like to take English as their major of specialization and for

placement of students to other possible fields of specialization; in case the assessment reveals

that they have unsatisfactory grammatical competence. For English instructors and professors,

this study can help for possible adjustments of teaching the content areas of instruction through

focusing on weaknesses to improve students’ knowledge of grammar. Most importantly, for

English major education students, the results of the assessment in this study can give them a
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 17

sense of self awareness about their level of grammatical competence, identifying their strengths

and weaknesses in the English language.

Method

Participants

The participants were the first year Teacher Education students who currently specialize

in English, whose ages are typically ranging from 15-17 years. They graduated from different

public and private high schools. The rationale behind the selection of the participants is based on

the findings of Belk and Thompson’s (1999) study which stated that the pre-service teachers,

who are classified to be in higher level in college, were not yet able to acquire necessary

grammatical skills and knowledge despite the opportunities given to them through various

courses and practicum. Thus, first year students were chosen as the respondents to address their

grammatical needs based on the results of the study as early as possible. The study acknowledges

that every teacher is a language teacher, regardless of the area of specialization, however; it is the

English teacher who needs to be grammatically correct. As Lindsay and Knight (2006) point out,

it is very significant for the language teachers to be knowledgeable about the language that they

are teaching as much as possible, for the English language teacher’s role include helping learners

learn, and the large responsibility of what happens in the classroom, including ‘what is taught’ or

content, feedback and correction. Consequently, the above-mentioned responsibilities demand

grammatical accuracy, in terms of the English teachers’ competence and skills. Therefore, it

implies that it is quite necessary to gauge the grammatical competence of first year English

major education students.

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 18

The participants in this study can be classified in the formal operational stage of Jean

Piaget’s theory of Cognitive development. Formal operational thinkers have the capacity to

consider different solutions to a problem before taking any action which greatly increases

efficiency. The formal operational learners also consider their “past experiences, present

demands, and future consequences in attempting to maximize the success of his or her adaptation

to the world.” (Salkind, 2004).Hence, they are expected to have higher levels of grammatical

competence because at this stage, they can understand abstract concepts, and rules of the

language. The student-participants were from the College of Arts, Sciences and Education of

Holy Angel University. Further, the participants in this study are residents of Pampanga, ranging

from Angeles City, and its neighboring cities and municipalities. This study includes a sample

that covers the regular first year English major Teacher Education students of Holy Angel

University. The sample or the target population was based on the list of enrolled students in the

said course in the semester, which was provided by the university’s Information and Technology

Services (ITS). However, due to some unavoidable reasons, such as dropouts, absences, and

having irregular students with irregular schedule, only 70 first year English major Teacher

Education students of Holy Angel University were able to answer the test questionnaires for

English grammar in the actual administration of the test.

Instruments

The researchers adapted a grammar test questionnaire as the research instrument for this

study. The aforementioned test questionnaire was adapted from Belk and Thompson’s (1999)

Grammar Inventory for Teachers (GIFT), which was utilized in their study titled, “Are Pre-

service teachers Literate in Grammar and Usage?”. The 100-item multiple choice objective test
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 19

had the following components: 30 items for classes of words, 30 items for sentence elements,

10 items for types of sentences, 10 items for correct use of verbs, 10 items for modifiers, 5 items

for subject-verb agreement, and 5 items for pronoun usage. The classes of words portion include

four (4) items on nouns, two (2) items in pronouns, five (5) items in action verbs, four (4) items

in preposition, three (3) items on adverbs, three (3) items on linking verbs, three (3) items on

adjectives, one (1) item in auxiliary verb, two (2) items in coordinating conjunctions, two (2)

items in interjections and one (1) item in correlative conjunction. Sentence elements include one

(1) item on adverbial clause, three (3) items on simple predicate, three (3) items on complete

subject, four (4) items on predicate nominative, two (2) items on adjective clause, four (4) items

on direct object, two (2) items on predicate adjective, two (2) items on complete predicate, four

(4) items on simple subject, two (2) items on prepositional phrase, and three (3) items on object

of the preposition. Sentence types include three (3) items on simple sentence, two (2) items on

compound sentence, two (2) items on complex sentence, one (1) item on sentence fragment, and

two (2) items on run-ons/comma splice sentence. Correct use of verbs includes five (5) items on

past tense, two (2) items on perfect aspect of the verb, one (1) on correct use of “lie”, one (1)

item on base form of the verb following the auxiliary verb “did”, and one (1) item on homonym

(right-write) wherein the verb is not a possible answer. Modifiers include three (3) items on

adverb of manner, four (4) items on the superlative degree of adjective, one (1) item on the

comparative degree of adjectives, one (1) item on descriptive degree of adjective and one (1)

item on one (1) item on article/limiting adjective. Subject verb-agreement includes one (1) item

on singular subject and verb as a state of being, one (1) item on singular subject and a verb in

present perfect aspect, one (1) item on plural subject with a verb in the past tense, one (1) item

on singular subject, “not one” and a singular verb, singular subject, “not one”, singular verb and
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 20

one (1) item on compound subject and a linking verb in the past tense. Pronoun usage includes

two (2) items on pronoun used as a predicate nominative, two (2) items on pronoun in possessive

form (singular), and one (1) item on pronoun in possessive form (plural).

The adapted instrument, the Grammar Inventory for Teachers (GIFT) underwent

validations and reliability test when it was initially constructed and utilized. In the study, which

the instrument was initially used, professors in graduate classes determined the necessary

grammar points to be tested. Additionally, face validity was done through the affirmation of

teachers, while four language arts instructors examined and validated the test items. In terms of

reliability, the GIFT has split-half reliability coefficient of .76 (Belk & Thompson, 1999).

The adaptation of the instrument was under the consent of its author. Some of the test

items were modified to fit into the Philippine culture and to participants’ background knowledge.

Thus, the items are modified by contextualizing them, to get away from discrete point testing or

having grammar items in isolation, because it is criticized (Green, 2014). The items were

contextualized based on the participants’ background, culture and interest. Mart (2013) asserts

that providing grammatical structure in context will help learners learn language structures

efficiently, will enable the learners to acquire new grammar structures and forms and will help

them to master the language better. Moreover, grammar teaching should be tailor-made to

address the needs of students, thus helping the students learn grammar rules linked to their lived

experiences (Christy, 2005; Li & Song, 2007). Hence, grammar teaching includes assessment,

which also needs contextualization. The revision was limited to the restatement of questions,

while the contents or the exact number of grammar points of the test remained. The revisions

made as part of the adaptation were validated by language experts in the field. The first validator
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 21

is a doctor of philosophy in English Literature, and an assistant superintendent in the Division of

Mabalacat City. The second validator is a professor of English at Holy Angel University and a

secondary school teacher in Francisco G. Nepomuceno Memorial High School.

Procedure

The researchers employed a quantitative type of methodology in identifying the level of

the grammatical competence of the participants in this study. An assessment was done through

administering test questionnaires including items in English grammar. Assessment is defined as

the wide assortment of methods that are used to evaluate, measure, and file the academic

readiness, acquisition of skills, and learning progress of the learners. Assessment is also used in

order to detect the academic strengths and difficulties that can potentially serve as bases in

providing specialized academic support social services or programming in education.

(http://edglossary.org/assessment). Since this study aims to be informed about the current level of

grammatical competence, accurate analysis and treatment of numerical data were assured and

safeguarded. The researchers conducted an assessment on the level of grammatical competence

of the said participants through an adapted grammar test. The researchers secured permission to

the concerned authorities in the university and to the participants, in order to proceed and gather

information about the study. The participants were oriented about the test’s objectives, directions

and mechanics prior to its actual administration. The researchers coordinated with the

participants’ English instructors/professors for smooth and efficient administration of test

questionnaires. The research instrument or the grammar test was administered to the participants.

They were given a maximum period of 1 hour to answer the 100-item test questionnaires, which

are retrieved on the same day of administration. The data gathered were then interpreted and

analyzed.
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 22

Data Analysis

For data analysis and interpretation, tools were constructed by an assessment expert to

interpret the scores and have the corresponding levels of grammatical competence in terms of the

overall scores of the participants and in terms of grammar areas and specific grammar points.

These tools were verified by a language expert. The constructed tools for interpretation of data

were as follows:

Table 1.

Levels of grammatical competence for individual and overall scores

Scores Levels of Description

grammatical
competence
84-100 Very high The student has an excellent level of grammatical
competence, with no or minimal errors in all the
covered grammar areas and has excellent background
of all the grammar concepts covered in the test.
67-83 High The student has a good level of grammatical
competence, with tolerable errors in all the covered
grammar areas and has a fair background of all the
grammar concepts covered in the test.
50-66 Average The student has a fair level of grammatical
competence, with a number of errors in all the covered
grammar areas and has limited background of most
grammar concepts covered in the test.
25-49 Low The student has poor level of grammatical competence,
with several errors in all the covered grammar areas
and has very inadequate background of most grammar
concepts covered in the test.
0-24 Very low The student has a very poor level of grammatical
competence, with several errors in all the covered
grammar areas and has no background of most
grammar concepts covered in the test.

Table 2.
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 23

Levels of grammatical competence per grammar and specific grammar points

Percentage of Correct Answers per grammar Levels of competence

area and specific grammar point
50% and below Low
51% and above High

The participants’ scores were interpreted and analyzed, thus, the grammatical competence

of first year English major students of Teacher Education Department in Holy Angel University

were processed using the scales and data interpretation tools mentioned as the research materials

through the aid of the statistician. In the data analysis and interpretation, the researchers, through

the aid of a statistician, solved for the percentage of the number of correct responses, mean, and

level of grammatical competence. The overall level of grammatical competence was based on the

mean of the individual scores of the participants in the test. The levels include very low, low,

average, high, and very high. In each grammar area and in each specific grammar point, the

participants’ percentages of correct responses, vis-à-vis level of grammatical competence were

classified into high or low in order to determine the grammar areas where the participants are

most competent and least competent. The levels of grammatical competence per grammar area

and specific grammar point were divided into two: a.) high grammatical competence, which was

obtained if the participants’ percentage of correct answer is 51% and above, and b.) low

grammatical competence, which was obtained if the participants’ percentage of correct answer is

50% and below. Based on the grammar areas and specific grammar points wherein the

participants have low levels of grammatical competence, the researchers constructed an

instructional material to address the respondent’s weaknesses in terms of the grammar items.
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 24

Based on the literature available, there are no existing standards found in terms of ideal

level of grammatical competence in the Philippines, provided by the Commission on Higher

Education, or by other educational institutions. Moreover, there are no standards found in other

countries that are relevant or applicable to grammatical competence.

Results

A 100- item grammar test was administered to 70 first year BSEd-English students of

Holy Angel University for a maximum period of one (1) hour. The grammar test has seven (7)

sections representing the grammar areas, namely: classes of words, sentence elements, sentence

types, correct use of verbs, modifiers, subject-verb agreement, and pronoun usage. The mean of

all individual scores on the test was obtained to determine the overall grammatical competence

of the participants. In each grammar area and each specific grammar point, the percentage of

correct responses in their corresponding items served as the basis in determining the level of

grammatical competence, thus, to determine which area the participants are least and most

competent. The results of the assessment were as follows.

The table shows that the mean score of all individual test scores of the participants is

54.11, which falls under average level of grammatical competence. In general, modifiers

obtained the highest percentage of correct responses from the participants. On one hand,

sentence types, sentence elements and pronoun usage got the lowest percentage of correct

answers from the participants.

Table 3

Descriptive comparison of the participants’ test results in each grammar area

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 25

Grammar Areas %correct answers Mean Grammatical

Competence Level

classes of words 60.33 18.10 high

sentence elements 41.67 12.50 low

sentence types 40.14 4.01 low

correct use of verbs 59.00 5.90 high

modifiers 83.86 8.39 high

subject-verb agreement 55.43 2.77 high

pronoun usage 48.46 2.44 low

Total 55.56 54.11

The test results in the word classes section showed that the participants got the high

percentages of correct answers in items regarding adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, action verbs,

nouns, linking verbs and adjectives. The participants have low percentages of correct answers in

items that include auxiliary verb, coordinating conjunctions, correlative conjunctions, and

interjections.

Table 4. 1

Descriptive statistics of the participants’ test results in classes of words

Specific Grammar Points %correct answers Mean Grammatical

Competence

Level
adverbs 68.10 0.68 high
pronouns 76.43 0.76 high

prepositions 63.57 0.64 high

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 26

action verbs 69.14 0.69 high

nouns 60.36 0.60 high

linking verbs 58.10 0.58 high

adjectives 60.95 0.61 high

auxiliary verb 50.00 0.50 low

coordinating conjunctions 32.86 0.33 low

correlative conjunction 44.29 0.44 low
interjections 47.14 0.47 low
Total 60.33 18.10

On the sentence element section, it indicated that the participants obtained the highest

percentage of scores in items about predicate adjectives. On the other hand, the participants

obtained low percentages of correct answers in items about predicate nominatives, simple

predicates, complete subjects, adverbial clause, adjective clause, complete predicates, direct

objects, objects of the preposition, prepositional phrases, and simple subjects.

Table 4. 2

Descriptive statistics of the participants’ test results in sentence elements

Specific Grammar Points %correct answers Mean Grammatical

Competence

Level
simple predicates 37.14 0.37 low

complete subjects 50.95 0.51 low

adverbial clause 32.86 0.33 low

adjective clause 30.71 0.31 low

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 27

predicate nominatives 26.43 0.26 low

complete predicates 49.29 0.49 low

direct objects 49.29 0.49 low

predicate adjectives 51.43 0.51 high

object of the preposition 34.76 0.35 low

prepositional phrase 48.57 0.49 low

simple subjects 46.43 0.46 low

Total 41.67 12.50

Under the subsection sentence types, test results showed that the items about compound

sentences have the highest percentage of correct answers. However, complex sentences, simple

sentences, sentence fragments and run-ons have the low percentages of correct answers obtained

by the participants. It indicated that the participants have low grammatical competence on these

specific grammar points.

Table 4. 3

Descriptive statistics of the participants’ test results in sentence types

Specific Grammar Points %correct answers Mean Grammatical

Competence level
simple sentences 46.67 0.47 low
compound sentences 59.29 0.59 high
sentence fragment 28.57 0.29 low
complex sentences 25.00 0.25 low
run-ons 32.14 0.32 low
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 28

Total 40.14 4.01

In terms of the correct use of verbs, the participants got the high percentages of correct

responses in the items which required the past tense of the verb and perfect aspect of the verb to

make a grammatical sentence. The items which required the correct use of the verb “lie” got the

lowest percentage of correct responses. The students had low grammatical competence in the

correct use of the base form of the verb after the auxiliary “did”, and in items wherein the verb

alternatives were not possible answers.

Table 4. 4
Descriptive statistics of the participants’ test results in correct use of verbs

Specific Grammar Points %correct Mean Grammatical

answers Competence

Level

correct use of the verb “lie” 28.57 0.29 low

past tense 71.14 0.71 high

base form of the verb after the auxiliary verb 42.86 0.43 low

“did”

verb is not possible answer 40.00 0.40 low

perfect aspect of the verb 61.43 0.61 high

Total 59.00 5.90

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 29

The participants’ scores indicated that they have high grammatical competence in

modifiers, which consists of adverbs and verbs. Based on the correct number of responses, the

item about descriptive adjective has the highest percentage, whereas the items about superlative

adjectives have the lowest percentage. In general, the participants obtained high percentages of

correct answers in “modifiers” as a grammar area.

Table 4. 5

Descriptive statistics of the participants’ test results in modifiers

Specific Grammar Points %correct Mean Grammatical

answers Competence

Level
adverb of manner 85.71 0.86 high

superlative adjective 79.64 0.80 high

descriptive adjective 91.43 0.91 high

comparative adjective 85.71 0.86 high

limiting adjective/article 85.71 0.86 high

Total 83.86 8.39

Regarding subject-verb agreement, the item that contains a singular subject that should

agree with a verb in a state of being got the high percentages of correct responses along with the

item that contains a singular subject, having the phrase- ‘not one’, that required a singular verb.

On the other hand, the item that contained a plural subject and required a verb in the past tense
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 30

got the low percentages of correct responses. The same is true with the items which contain

compound subject that required a linking verb in the past tense and singular subject that should

agree with the verb in the present perfect aspect.

Table 4. 6

Descriptive statistics of the participants’ test results in subject-verb agreement

Specific Grammar Points %correct answers Mean Grammatical

Competence

Level
singular subject, state of being 77.14 0.77 high

singular subject, present perfect aspect 42.86 0.43 low

plural subject, past tense state of being 37.14 0.37 low

singular subject, “not one”, singular verb 74. 29 0.74 high

compound subject, past tense of linking verb 45.71 0.46 low

Total 55.43 2.77

In the last grammar area, pronoun usage, the participants’ scores show highest percentage

of correct answers in the item that contains a plural pronoun in its possessive form. The

participants have the lowest percentages of correct responses in the items that consist of

pronouns used as predicate nominatives in a sentence.

Table 4. 7

Descriptive statistics of the participants’ test results in pronoun usage

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 31

Specific Grammar Points %correct Mean Grammatical

answers Competence Level

pronouns as predicate nominative 25.00 0.25 low

possessive form of pronoun (singular) 56.43 0.56 high

possessive form of (plural) pronoun 81. 43 0.81 high

Total 48.46 2.44

Discussion

The overall grammatical competence of first year Education major in English students

falls under the average level. In this certain level, the participants exhibited high grammatical

competence in modifiers, classes of words, and correct use of verbs and subject-verb agreement.

However, the students still have difficulties in sentence elements, sentence types and pronoun

usage in this particular level (average) of grammatical competence.

Figure 1.

Grammatical Competence in the Grammar Areas

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 32

90 83.86
80

70
percentage of correct answers 60.33 59
60 55.43
48.46
50
41.67 40.14
40

30

20

10

0
classes of sentence sentence correct use of modifiers subject verb pronoun
words elements types verbs agreement usage

grammar areas

The obtained overall level of grammatical competence of the participants shows

similarity with the outcomes of other related studies. Belk and Thompson (1999) claimed in their

study that some pre-service teachers are not able to acquire the necessary grammar skills. The

results are also parallel with Priyanto’s (2013) study which revealed that the participants have

fair grammatical competence. Likewise, it echoes the results in the study of Majeed and Yassein

(2013) which concluded that the linguistic competence of intermediate school teachers falls

under average level, and still have difficulties or weaknesses in their linguistic competence.

Based on these results of similar studies, there are consistent evidences regarding the struggle in

terms of the level of grammatical competence of students, teachers, and future teachers alike.

Looking at the grammar areas wherein students obtained high levels of grammatical

competence, the research findings can suggest that the participants have the satisfactory

competence in modifying nouns, pronouns, and verbs. This implies that the said future teachers
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 33

will not have difficulty in describing words, and will have ease in using and teaching them in

class.

It can be noted that most of the grammar items in the test are not discrete point, for it can

be considered as measuring integrated competencies. For the purpose of analysis, the researchers

looked at the items/questions as integrated, to assess what causes the difficulty in identifying and

using a certain grammar point. Meaning, even if a grammar item mainly asks about pronoun

usage, it can also be an indicator of the students’ knowledge about singularity and plurality of the

subject. Say for example, in the last item of the test- Everyone went in______ own car. If a

respondent answers correctly by choosing the answer his/her, it would mean that knowledge is

present not just about possessive pronouns, but also about plurality and singularity. It is the

ability to understand that the indefinite pronoun ‘everyone’ should be regarded as singular and

not as plural.

This study focused on the grammar areas and grammar points where the participants are

having difficulty, as concluded, based on their level of grammatical competence. It is considered

beneficial to analyze these areas, and to trace and interpret the underlying causes of the

difficulty.

In classes of words, there is a struggle in identifying that given word is classified as an

auxiliary verb. It can be concluded that participants do not have a clear concept of what an

auxiliary verb is, and may not be aware that modals, such as ‘should’ is considered an auxiliary

verb, and not a linking verb, nor an adverb. The participants lack concept of modality, which is

defined as the manner the verbal action is displayed, and deals with degrees of probability,

possibility, desire, obligation and ability regarding the action (Disterheft, 2004). There is also a
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 34

perceived difficulty in terms, recognizing the coordinating conjunction “for”, which is used in a

sentence to show reason (Brandon, 2006), and has the similar meaning with because. However,

‘for’ is more frequent and commonly used as a preposition in sentences (Davidson, 2004), thus,

leads the students to confusion. Correlative conjunctions, as one of the least mastered, must be

introduced and explained clearly to the students so that they can identify that correlative

conjunctions has similarities with coordinators (but also and but); however, the students need to

be reminded that correlative conjunctions always come in sets of two, (e.g. not only, but also)

(Disterheft, 2004). Interjections were found difficult to be detected by the participants. As a word

or phrase that evokes emotions and exclamation, it is set off by exclamation points or commas

(Glencoe’s Grammar and Composition Handbook, 2000) -which make it easier to find, yet

mostly were not correctly identified in the test. This can suggest that the participants do not have

a solid and clear concept of interjections- as to how they function, how they look and how they

are punctuated. This can imply that the future teachers could experience confusion and difficulty

in teaching the said classes of words in their respective language classes.

Under sentence elements, the results show that participants are having great difficulty in

all the grammar points included except for predicate adjectives, since Filipinos almost certainly,

as assumed previously, can competently grasp descriptive words. The participants lack

competency in recognizing that certain parts of sentences are complete and simple subjects,

complete and simple predicates, predicate nominatives, adverbial clause, adjective clause, direct

objects, objects of the preposition, and prepositional phrases. The participants lack competency

in identifying the two basic parts of sentences, the subject and the predicate, which were already

taught in the elementary years. In terms of simple subjects, the students had difficulty in

identifying them, because there are some elements that precede the subject in some items,
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 35

whereas typically, the subject comes in the first part of the sentence. Consider the following

items taken from the test and note that the underlined words are the simple subjects: (a) The first

principal of Holy Angel Academy was Ricardo V. Flores; (b) Holy Angel University’s goal is the

development of the whole person for the greater glory of God. The subjects in these items are

preceded by words- an adjective or a modifier in item (a) and a possessive noun in item (b).

These words can be the source of confusion and difficulty to the participants, because the

subjects are not stated plainly but are used along with other words. In the first item, it would be

easier to detect the complete subject, not the simple one, because the preceding words hinder the

participants to identify it. Hence, the students lack information about the difference of a complete

and a simple subject, and that simple subject is a part of the complete subject. In the second item,

the participants might have thought that the subject is the possessive noun ‘Holy Angel

University’s’, and not ‘goal’, since the former is the first noun stated in the sentence. In this case,

the participants failed to identify that aside from acting as a subject, nouns can function in a

variety of ways in the sentence. Nouns can be direct or indirect objects, object complements,

subject complements and predicate nominatives. The complete subject is more noticeable than a

simple subject, but the participants had difficulty in distinguishing it in an interrogative sentence.

Consider this item from the test, where the underlined word is the complete subject: Do you

know who the most followed Filipino celebrities in Instagram are? It might be tricky to the

participants, because typically, a complete subject comes in phrase, and in this item, it is a single

word, and it is a complete and a simple subject at the same time. Greenbaum and Nelson (2002)

explain that questions usually start with a helping verb such as ‘do’, and in these cases, the

subject commonly follows the helping verb. In order to identify the subject of a question easier,

reposition the words of the question to form a statement (Glencoe Grammar and Composition
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 36

Handbook, 2000). In terms of predicates, the participants are probably accustomed that

predicates are usually the lengthy phrase or clause in the latter part of a sentence, and led them to

have difficulty in identifying the simple predicate, which is usually just one to two words. In

terms of complete predicates which can be more noticeable and detectable, some of the words

that are included in the predicate might have confused them. Consider this item where the

underlined phrase is the complete predicate: Philippines is a country with an interesting history.

The participants might have confused and thought that it was not a complete predicate, but a

predicate adjective, which is a wrong notion. The students lack a clear concept of the two main

parts of the sentence; the subject and the predicate. The ultimately low percentages of correct

answers in items about predicate nominatives definitely suggest that the majority of the

participants lacks a clear concept of what predicate nominatives are, and how they are used in

sentences. Predicate nominatives follow the linking verb and refer to the subject to identify it

further (Glencoe Grammar and Composition Handbook, 2000). In the case of participants who

have a clear concept of this sentence element, the confusion might be rooted from the words

preceding the predicate nominative. Consider these items where the underlined words are

predicate nominatives: (a) The Malays and the Chinese were the succeeding immigrants in the

Philippine islands; and (b) The Spaniards were the first colonizers of the Philippines. If

predicate nominatives are not placed right after the linking verbs, and are preceded by modifiers,

the test taker might think that they are not predicate nominatives. In the case of difficulty in

adverbial clause and adjective clauses, the respondents’ low competence levels suggest that they

need to have a basic understanding of these concepts of grammar. Carillo (2004) explains that

adverbial clauses or adverb clauses describe verbs and their modifiers which are useful in

presenting a sequence of events using the prepositions as, after, before etc. as combiners. It is
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 37

important because it clarifies ideas in terms of place, time, condition, cause and effect or

purpose. On one hand, adjective clauses describe nouns and pronouns to answer the questions

‘which one’ or ‘what kind’ , and usually begin with relative pronouns such as whose, which,

who, and that (Carillo, 2004). The participants also had difficulty in recognizing direct objects,

objects of the preposition, and prepositional phrases. A direct object is a person or thing that is

affected by the action directly, and usually comes right after the action of the verb (Greenbaum

& Nelson, 2002) Direct objects are easy to detect and identifiable, because they directly point out

who or what is being acted upon the verbs (Carillo, 2004). This is true with the items such as:

The Americans ruled the country… by answering the question, “What did the Americans rule?”

However, if the direct object is not placed right after the verb, and has a modifier that precedes it,

the participants might have difficulty in recognizing that the underlined word is an object, such

as in this example: The Filipino people staged several uprisings during the Spanish colonization.

In terms of objects of the preposition and prepositional phrase, Choy and Clark (2002) asserts

that one of the most usual causes of errors in identifying the sentence’s subject is mistaking it

with a noun used as the object of the preposition and to avoid this confusion, it is fundamental to

distinguish prepositions and prepositional phrases. Carillo (2004) defines prepositional phrases

as consisting of prepositions and their objects, with adjectives that modify these objects. Looking

at the item where participants mostly have incorrect responses, the prepositional phrase used is

composed of two prepositions and two objects which probably brought confusion to them (in the

old conventof the Holy Rosary Parish Church). It is quite acceptable in grammar, and the

participants must have the knowledge of it, as Greenbaum and Nelson (2002) clarifies that one

prepositional phrase may be imbedded within another. In addition, the participants hardly

recognized the object of the preposition if it is preceded by a possessive noun, such as in this
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 38

phrase in one of the test items- (to the founder’s vision…). To address the difficulty, participants

can identify these types of phrases easier, as well as the objects of the preposition by identifying

the ‘head’ of the phrase, which is the preposition (Collins and Hollo, 2000). The difficulties in

sentence elements may imply that the future English teachers included in this study may face

challenges in teaching these in their respective classes. They may encounter difficulties in

explaining how the sentence elements function in the sentence, which is necessary to be

understood by the language learners.

The participants are competent in recognizing simple sentences, except when simple

sentences have intervening phrases. In the item with the sentence, Teaching, the noblest

profession, is in demand for college students today, the participants might have considered that

having the phrases the noblest profession makes it compound or complex, but it does not.

Brandon (2006) stated that simple sentence may contain phrases (which describes the

aforementioned item), and may have more than one subject or verb. The participants have the

need to be taught that simple sentences can have different forms and structure, which they have

to learn and master. The participants’ low levels of competence in complex sentences strongly

suggest that they need to understand the concept of subordination first, in order to detect and

construct meaningful and correct complex sentences. In terms of sentence fragments and run-

ons, the extremely low level of competence suggest that the participants lack basic knowledge of

these sentence errors, probably because of respondent’s lack of background knowledge regarding

these concepts. These give the implication that the future teachers in this study might have a

problem with their writing skills especially in writing sentences to form compositions. More so,

they might find it difficult to guide their future learners in writing grammatical sentences.
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 39

In terms of the correct use of verbs, the participants had difficulty in the correct usage of

to lie. It is not surprising, though, as Hopper (1999) affirms that one of the troublesome sets of

similar looking verbs is to lay and to lie because parts of to lay are alike with parts of to lie. The

verb to lay is transitive, which takes a direct object, and to lie is intransitive, which does not take

a direct object (Hopper, 1999; Davidson, 2004). Another common mistake is the use of the past

tense of the main verb followed by the auxiliary verb did, as what the participants mostly did on

the test, which indicate that they have low competence in that area. The participants also had

difficulty in item wherein the verb alternatives were not possible answers. The participants who

had incorrect answers exhibit low competence in discerning the difference between the

homonyms right and write, and which word makes the given sentence grammatical, thus, if the

participants answered incorrectly, there is also a problem in their competence about subject -verb

agreement. These may imply that they lack competency in using correct verbs, both in writing

and speaking, which can have disadvantageous effects to the language learning of their future

students.

In terms of subject-verb agreement, there is also a difficulty in items that contained a

compound subject and required a linking verb in the past tense. This is seen in the item with the

sentence, Much time and money _____ spent in trying to locate her, with were as the correct

answer. Some of the participants with incorrect responses tend to show a lack of competency in

using plural verbs to agree with compound subjects. The rule states that two subjects connected

by conjunctions and are plural and therefore require plural verbs (Choy and Clark, 2002). To the

participants who answered are instead of were have the competency of subject verb agreement,

but were not competent in understanding context clues, that the sentence requires past tense of

the linking verb, even with the absence of the time element. There is also a perceived difficulty
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 40

in the item in this sentence: There _____ no men said to have seen him, which contain plural

subject (men or no men) that required a plural verb as a state of being in the past tense (were).

The participants’ confusion is understandable, for in conversations, singular verbs are commonly

used after the introductory “there”, (there’s) but a general rule must be followed, which states

that the verb should agree in number with the subject (Greenbaum & Nelson, 2002). Another

difficulty was seen in the item where this sentence occurred: It seems that Sarah Geronimo

_____ performed in almost every city in the country.- which has a singular subject (Sarah

Geronimo) that should agree with the verb in the present perfect aspect (has). This problem can

be rooted from the more frequent use of have as a main verb rather than an auxiliary verb, and

the more frequent use of have in its plural form, rather than in its singular form (has). The

difficulty of subject-verb agreement was also encountered by the participants of other related

studies. A study about 315 Form Two students’ showed that the most evident weaknesses are in

the area of grammar, and subject-verb agreement is one of the problematic grammatical

categories (Jalaluddin, Mat Awal & Abu Bakar, 2008). This weakness may imply that the future

teachers in this study can have grammatical lapses in subject-verb agreement, both in writing and

speaking.

The participants evidently have a low level of competence in usage of pronouns that

function as predicate nominatives in a sentence. The participants exhibited confusion in the

subjective and objective cases of pronouns. In the case of these items wherein the underlined

words are the correct pronouns acting as predicate nominatives (It was she and I who first saw

him in Manila) and (It was he who answered the phone), the difficulty lies in what is prescribed

in English grammar and what is used in informal conversations. Prescriptively, the correct

pronouns above are in the subjective cases (she and he), but in an informal style, the objective
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 41

cases (her and him) are more commonly used (Greenbaum and Nelson, 2002). The low

competence in identifying pronouns implies that there can be further difficulties of the

participants in guiding their future learners in pronoun usage.

Based on the results of the assessment, it can be concluded that the participants have

limited competence in grammar, and still have several specific grammatical competencies to

work on. This conclusion has parallelism with former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s call

for further improvement of English proficiency by training the Filipino teachers (Philippine

Government, 2006). Despite the fact that the overall scores fall under average level, it can be

noted through the distribution of percentages of scores that the majority of the participants have

low levels of grammatical competence (42.86%). It is also noticeable that only 18.57% of the

participants have high levels, and only 2.86% have very high grammatical competence. The

results were unsatisfactory, because grammar has been included in the curriculum in basic

education. Similarly, it is observed in a study conducted in Malaysia that students are still

incapable of acquiring or even comprehending the language even after eleven years of studying

the language at the elementary and secondary levels (Jalaluddin, Mat Awal & Abu Bakar, 2008).

Figure 2.

Percentage Distribution of Participants' Levels of Grammatical Competence

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 42

19% 3% 1%

43% very low

low
average
high
very high

34%

The perceived difficulties in specific grammar points are rooted on lack of background

knowledge and confusion about the grammatical points. The students failed to respond correctly

to the grammar questions if they lack schema about the structure or the form. Similarly, they

responded incorrectly to the questions if they are confused with the presence of other

grammatical forms, such as intervening words, and other grammatical categories. The statistical

results are unsatisfactory, for they imply that the participants lack other competencies apart from

the competency in a given specific grammar point in the test. The students’ errors imply that

they do not just lack knowledge in a certain grammar point covered in the test, but with other

related grammar points as well. Thus, the lack of competences in identifying correct grammar

forms was traced by analyzing the grammar items in the test. The results need urgent attention

and intervention to address the participants’ weaknesses and needs as regards to their

grammatical competence.
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 43

The results would likewise imply that a large amount of training is needed for these pre-

service teachers to acquire the necessary competence and skills expected of effective English

language teachers, which demands challenges. It can be seen as a laborious and time-consuming

activity to provide enrichment activities other than the subjects taught in college classrooms,

because in the coming years, these students will have several activities to cope with their major

and professional education subjects. Additionally, aside from the Structure of English, which

will be taken from the best- English in their third year, there will be no subjects that will focus on

English grammar, not even the teaching of grammar, because it was already removed from the

department’s curriculum years ago. In their second year, they will start taking up major subjects,

which will focus mostly on literatures and classroom methodologies excluding grammar and

professional educational subjects, which will demand their time, effort and attention. Towards

the aim of producing competitive, competent and efficient language teacher, it would be better to

establish a screening of students to qualify for the English specialization in order to avoid

pertinent problems about English language competence. Ideally, pre-service English teachers

should already have the necessary competence in grammar, and other competencies about the

subject matter, so that the college subjects will just be supplementary and will serve as an

enrichment, and the college instructors will just focus on providing them the essential theories

and educational principles and training them on how to transpire their knowledge of grammar in

their teaching approaches, methods, and strategies. Since college subjects focus more on

teaching methodologies, it would be very beneficial if the student already has the necessary

knowledge so that time won’t be wasted in learning basic grammar during higher college years.

This will be beneficial for the instructors, future English teachers and institutions alike.
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 44

Based on the results, conclusion and theories cited, this study presents a number of

recommendations. To strengthen further and sustain the high levels of grammatical competence

of the participants, it is highly recommended for them to engage more on reading grammar

books, and use correct English grammar in both writing and speaking activities. The current set

up of the curriculum makes it necessary to suggest that before being accepted in the English

program, a comprehensive qualifying exam should be conducted for incoming college students

who want to pursue English as their field of specialization. For quality control of future English

teachers, the implementation retention policies specific to English majors can also be one of the

considerations. To address the weaknesses in grammar identified in this study, it is reasonable to

recommend that English major students to engage in reading for competence enrichment. One

way to help enhance their grammatical competence is through personal support and development

through reading grammar books to supplement their knowledge, but it can never be guaranteed

for every student without strict monitoring, as supported by research. Thus, guidance and

monitoring of their learning progress in grammar are considered necessary. To strengthen the

respondent’s grammatical competence, they can undergo interventions that would include

grammar instruction. Researches show evidences that grammar instruction has a positive effect.

Essentially, the output of this study, which is the instructional material, can be used in the

grammar instruction sessions to improve the participants’ level of grammatical competence. An

interactive PowerPoint presentation was created by the researchers to address the difficulty of the

participants in different grammar points. This instructional material is made to be subjected for

evaluation for further improvement. The grammar instruction should be contextualized and using

deductive or inductive approach depending on the students’ grammar needs, in order to bring

effective mastery and use of English grammar. The instruction should also be balanced with
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 45

communicative approach and grammarand should be based on their needs. Indeed, grammar

teaching should not be ignored by teachers, and students should be helped to learn grammar rules

by linking them in their lived experiences. To realize the goal, grammar instruction for English

majors may not be in formal classroom, but can be integrated in English programs, such as

projects in English organization under the Teacher Education department, which is now a work

in progress. Additionally, it is recommended to have a regular diagnostic test to identify the

weaknesses in grammar and eventually address the identified difficulties through implementing

grammatical competence enhancement programs.

This study, despite its focus on grammatical competence assessment, is not necessarily

promoting prescriptive grammar over descriptive grammar. Its main goal is just to gauge the

grammatical competence of English majors to address what the future English teacher needs,

because they should be trained well to be effective and ideal models of the language. Therefore,

future English teachers must be acquainted with both descriptive and prescriptive grammar, and

how each of these works. The next step in identifying the competence is strengthening or

reinforcing the actual performance, which can be explored by succeeding researches. Since there

is no guarantee that good competence is tantamount to good performance, grammatical

performance is encouraged to be assessed along with grammatical competence. Grammatical

performance can be subjected to enhancement towards the development of an efficient language

teacher who is an effective model of the English language.

In addition, the researchers acknowledge the limitations of the study, recognizing that

future English language teachers need to develop holistically. Thus, some other skills should also

be explored and enhanced besides grammatical competence- such as sociolinguistic competence,

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 46

communicative competence and strategic competence pertinent to English language teaching.

Conducting studies aiming to explore more on the aforementioned competencies and to discover

their relationships and implications to today’s future teachers of English are highly encouraged.

Revision for improvement, or devising another instrument in assessing grammatical competence

can also be considered, by adding more grammar areas, and adjustment of the content than can

be seen useful and fundamental to existing theories and principles of second language and

grammar teaching. Grammar can also be explored with different sets of participants, or in

reverse, pre-service teachers of English can be explored with other language factors, and other

related variables. Additionally, it has also been reconsidered that grammatical competence may

be affected by some other factors. With respect to the related studies presented in this paper such

as apprehension of teachers about grammar teaching, and level of grammatical competence

affecting confidence and efficiency of the English teacher, it is recommended that studies be

conducted about grammatical competence correlated with other factors such as emotions, self-

confidence, etc. since researches suggest that it has an effect on their grammatical competence.

Furthermore, it is further recommended to correlate other variables such as language aptitude,

personality, among others, whichever is applicable and researchable. These recommendations

are prearranged to give more depth and increase more useful and groundbreaking findings that

would be essential for the teachers of second language teaching community.

In essence, this study reiterates the importance of grammatical competence of teachers as

they will be the models of a good language user. However, it is also acknowledged that

grammatical competence is not one size, fits all competence. Language teaching can be enhanced

by competent knowledge in grammar, but should be supported and supplemented by other

competencies such as communicative competence. They must not be seen as contradicting but
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 47

complementary. They are all needed to be developed within the future English teacher. Indeed,

grammatical competence among future English teachers is still relevant to the teaching world,

towards the development of effective English language teachers in the future.

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 48

References

Ahmed, S., & Alamin, A. (2012). The communicative approaches revisited and the relevance of
teaching grammar. English Language Teaching (5)1, 2-9. DOI: 10.5539/elt.v5n1p2

Assessment. (2013). In The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from

http://edglossary.org/assessment

Azar, B. (2007). Journal of grammar-based teaching: a practitioner's perspective. TESL-EJ.

11(2). 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej42/a1.pdf

Belk., & Thompson. (1999). Are pre-service teachers literate in grammar and usage? Retrieved
from the ERIC database(ED 429 974) http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED429974.pdf

Bilash, O. (2009). Modeling in language learning. Retrieved from:

http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.bilash/best%20of%20bilash/modeling.html

Bin N.T. & Ho, P. V. P (2014). The effects of communicative grammar teaching on students’
achievement of grammatical knowledge and oral production. English Language
TeachingDOI: 10.5539/elt.v7n6p74

Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal. DOI:
10.1093/elt/55.1.21

Brandon. L. (2006). At a glance: sentences. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Approaches to Communicative Competence. Singapore:

SEAMEO Regional Centre.
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 49

Carillo, J. A. (2005). English plain and simple: no-nonsense ways to learn today’s global
language. Manila: Manila Times Publishing Corporation

Cattel, R. (2006). An introduction to mind, consciousness and language. Great Britain:

Continuum International Publishing Group p. 163

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s
course. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Christy, J. (2005). To teach or not to teach grammar: no longer a question. Retrieved from
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/subject/to_teach.phtml

Clark, D. G. & Choy, P. (2002). Basic grammar and usage. 6th ed. USA: Hardcourt College
Publishers.

Clarke, S., Dickinson, P. & Westbrook, J. (2010). The complete guide to becoming an English
teacher. 2nd ed. Great Britain: SAGE Publications p. 113

Cowan, R. (2008). A teacher’s grammar of English: a coursebook and reference guide. USA:
Cambridge University Press pp. 3-5

Crystal, D. (2005). Making sense of grammar. 3rd ed. China: Pearson Education.

Davidson, G. (2005). The right way to improve your English. India: Shubham Book Distributions
pp. 27-30, 45-47,

Diaz-Rico, L.T. (2004). Teaching English learners: strategies and methods. USA: Pearson
Education pp. 257-263

Díaz-Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2010). The crosscultural, language, and academic
development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 50

Disterhet, D. (2004). Advanced grammar: a manual for students. USA: Pearson Education.

Freeman D. & Cornwell S. (eds.) (2002). New ways in teacher education. Illinois, USA:
Pantagraph Printing.

Gao, C. Z. (2001).Second language learning and the teaching of grammar. Education, 2, 326-
336. In Encyclopedia online.Retrieved from
http://slaencyclopediaf10.wikispaces.com/Grammatical+Competence+
%28Michael+Canale+%26+Merrill+Swain%29

Glencoe’s grammar and composition handbook. (2000). USA: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Green, A. (2014). Exploring language assessment and testing: language in action. New York:
Routledge

Greenbaum S. & Nelson G. (2002). An introduction to English grammar. 2nd ed. Great Britain:
Pearson Education.

Hagemann, J. A. (2003). Teaching grammar: a reader and a workbook. USA: Pearson

Education.

Hollo, C. & Collins P. (2000). English grammar: an introduction. Hongkong: MacMillan Press.

Hopper, P. J. (1999). A short course in grammar: a course in the grammar of standard written
English. Hongkong: W. W. Norton & Company.

Hu, R. (2012). Should Grammar be Taught? Theory and Practice in Language Studies. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.596-604

Ivady, R.E. (2007). Implicit learning and second language acquisition. Retrieved from
http://www.implab.hu/public/pic8.pdf
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 51

Jalaludin, N.H., Mat Awal, N. & Abu Bakar, K. (2008) The mastery of English language among
lower secondary school students in Malaysia: a linguistic analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.experts.scival.com/ukm/pubDetail.asp?
t=pm&id=65249156995&n=Kesumawati+A.+Bakar&u_id=9

Ju, Y. (2010). A study of the teaching and learning of English grammar in the Chinese junior
secondary school. Retrieved from
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25268/YaoxJu_master.pdf?sequence=1

Klammer, T.P, Schulz, M. R. della Volpe, A. (2000). Analyzing English grammar. 3rd ed. USA:
Allyn and Bacon pp. 3-4

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2003). Teaching language: from grammar to grammaring. Canada:

Thomson Heinle.

Li, Z. & Song M. (2007). The relationship between traditional English grammar teaching and
communicative language teaching. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497485.pdf

Lindsay, C. & Knight, P. (2006). Learning and teaching English: a course for teachers. China:
Oxford University Press.

Lightbrown. P. M. & Spada, N. (2000). How languages are learned. Hongkong: Oxford
University Press

Mahmoudian, H., Ramezaney, M., Safari, H., & Rezvanifar, S. (2012). Effects of intensive
reading on the mastery of grammar in Iranian junior high school students. Retrieved
from:http://jems.scienceline.com/attachments/article/12/J.%20Educ.%20Manage.
%20Stud.,%202%282%29%2028-33,%202012.pdf

Majeed N.T. & Yassein M.T. (2013) An assessment of the linguistic competence of intermediate
school teachers of English as a foreign language. Retrieved from http://www.iasj.net/iasj?
func=fulltext&aId=79339
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 52

Mart, C. T. (2013). Teaching grammar in context: why and how? Theory and Practice in
Language Studies (3)1, 124-129. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.124-129

Meyer, J. (2003). Living with competing goals: state frameworks vs. understanding of
linguistics. English Journal. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/822258

Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.101s7/s0267190504000066

Ozkan, Y. (2011). Assessment of grammatical competence based on authentic text. International

Journal of Linguistics. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n2p148

Penn-Edwards, S. (2010). The competencies of an English teacher: beginning student teachers'

perceptions.Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 35(2), pp. 49-66. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n2.4

Philippine Government. (2006). PGMA cites urgency of strengthening programs on English

proficiency. [Press Release]. Retrieved from:http://archives.pia.gov.ph/?
m=12&sec=reader&rp=8&fi=p071106.htm&no=77&date=

Priyanto, A. (2013). The correlation between English grammar competence and speaking fluency
of eleventh grade students in sman 1 sidoarjo. Retrieved from
http://ejournal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/retain/article/view/1847

Proshyants, N. (2011).Teaching grammar skill as a main constituent of professional English

communicative competence to would be specialist. Retrieved from
http://www.msun.ru/dir/marinejournal/issues/2011v01no01/8-Proshyats-79-105.pdf

Randolph, T. (2013). Teacher’s voice as language model. Retrieved from:

http://tomtesol.com/blog/2013/04/the-language-teacher-as-language-model-racy-topics-1/

Salkind, N. J. (2004). Jean Piaget's cognitive model. In An introduction to theories of human

development. (pp. 229-277). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483328676.n9
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 53

Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: the individual in the
communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Sert, O. (2006). Heightening grammatical awareness in English. Retrieved from

http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/awareness

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Foundations of the new reform. Retrieved from

http://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/shulman.pdf

Stathis, R.and Gotsch P. (2008). ESL/ELD teachers’ attitudes towards grammar teaching.
Retrieved from www.teacherwritingcenter.org/2012surveyreport.pdf

Wang, F. (2010). The necessity of grammar teaching. English Language Teaching. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n2p78

Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: from theory and research to the classroom. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. UK: Cambridge University Press

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS 54