Beliefs versus Declared Practices of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Teachers Regarding Teaching Grammar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers' beliefs, perceptions and declared practices of teaching grammar within a communicative language teaching (CLT) framework. Participants included 221 EFL teachers, who were teaching during the years 2013-2018 in different grades and schools throughout Israel. Participants were graduates of teacher training programs in colleges and universities and included Non-Native English Speaking Teachers (NNEST) and Native English Speaking Teachers (NEST).An on-line, self-report survey designed specifically for this study contained three closed questions and two open-ended questions. One-way ANOVA statistics, and mean scores of all the responses were performed on the quantitative data. Qualitative data were grouped, analyzed, and coded.Results show a discrepancy between EFL teachers' perceptions and declared practices of teaching grammar in classrooms. Results further reveal significant differences between NEST and NNEST teachers, as well as differences between teachers who teach in different grades (elementary school, junior high school and high school). Moreover, 'vocabulary' and 'speaking' were ranked of highest importance (58% and 55%, respectively), whereas 'writing' and 'grammar' were considered least important (24%). These findings have valuable implications for teachers and teacher education regarding teaching grammar in context and using contextualized activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".