Business and Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Business and Management - Essay Example It sells more than 2.5 million products to more than 190 countries around the world, which gives an indication towards the company's rapid global expansion (Nissan Motor Co Ltd, accessed 07.01.2006). According to the company's annual report for the year ended 2005, Nissan is basically a Japanese-based company and other than its home country, it has a major market for its products in the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Thailand, China, Egypt, Brazil and other 150 countries around the world where Nissan automotives and their components are sold. Nissan is a publicly traded company and listed on major stock exchanges of the world. According to the company's annual report for the year ended 2005, the company keeps a double management team comprising the Board of Directors and a Statutory Audit Committee based on their duties and responsibilities under the Commercial Code of Japan. The company's major stakeholders are its customers, employees, shareholders and suppliers etc. Currently, the company has nine members of the board of directors, of which only one is external. The company's Statutory Audit Committee comprises four auditors out of which three are external statutory auditors. The company's management structure is designed in a way that the Board of Directors is responsible for taking the entire management decisions whereas the Statutory Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing the Directors' performance.NISSAN- GLOBAL STRATEGY As mentioned above, Nissan is an international company having its business operations in more than 190 countries around the world. But its major markets include the home market Japan, the North America, Europe, China, Asia, Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. The company maintains its global sales strategy and plans to enhance its sales in all the major areas of its operation. According to the company's Annual report, the company's strategy in Japan is to expand its sales by the enhancement of its marketing strategy and the establishment of an efficient dealership network. But despite all that, the company's sales in its home market are declining. The automotive industry in Europe is highly diverse having a great number of manufacturers engaged in car design, production and sales. To maintain its profitability in the European market, the company's strategy is to design and provide the unique and stylish products that could earn more profits for the company. The company's wide range of products is very popular in North America and China. The strategy behind the success in these areas is to provide its products at a price that is acceptable to its customer group. In the Asian market, the company has planned a strategy to penetrate into new growing markets. In the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean countries, the company is making its profit by adapting a strategy to remain flexible with the market conditions in terms of production. ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PROBLEMS AND ISSUES After the in-depth analysis of Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., it can be seen that the company has to confront with major issues that could affect its sales and profitability for the years to come. Some of the major issues are analyzed and discussed below: Increasing Cost of Sales Although the company has been successful in generating sales for its business for the current year, but still the

Write a summary of chapter 13 and 14 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Write a summary of chapter 13 and 14 - Essay Example This ensures its effectivity as it creates a sense of ownership and responsibility within the members of the committee and transferred to the entire organization. Committee management does not only mean chairing meetings but also following up on the action items that have been closed within meetings. Another aspect of aviation safety that is important in ensuring safety within the organization is inspection. Though pretty unpopular as it is viewed as fault-finding, inspection is crucial in order to determine if the organization is working towards the goal of the management, and that is to promote and guarantee safety within the organization. There are different types of inspection which leads to varying results. These are formal inspection, informal or daily inspections and spot inspections. Making sure that this is done regularly establishes the importance of meeting expectations and standards of safety. Also, this will enable the organization to gather additional information on how the organization is keeping its house. The inspection does not end in the inspection itself but in a follow up which focuses on areas that are needed to be improved. The FAA’s inspection program serves as part of an early warning system to identify possible hazardous incidents and to prevent these situations from happening. However, there are some loopholes in their program. It did not have adequate guidance in classifying problems and determining whether these problems have been addressed or resolved. The problem lies in the information management from the inspection program. Inspectors were not provided with adequate definitions of comment codes. And this results to a difficulty in classifying the recorded problems. Thus, it is suggested that a clear and distinctive definition of these codes must be provided in order to clearly identify the category it belongs to. This is important in forming resolutions

The Augustinian Theodicy Essay Example for Free

The Augustinian Theodicy Essay Throughout history, the problems of evil and suffering have always been prevalent in the world. The problems can be split up into two types: moral evil and natural suffering. Moral evil is generally viewed as anything that is caused by humans and inflicts pain (physical or psychological) or death or obstructs lifes freedom and/or expression; for example, murder, war, crime. Natural suffering is generally viewed as events that occur because of the physical world or environment; for example, earthquakes, volcanoes, flooding. Evil and suffering therefore present believers in the God of Classical Theism with a logical problem- one of them being the Inconsistent Triad. The Inconsistent Triad consists of three premises: 1- God is omnipotent; 2- God is omnibenevolent; 3- there is evil in the world. All three premises cannot be true at the same time which means either God does not exist or there is no evil in the world. St Augustine of Hippo, who lived from 354 to 430 AD in the Roman Province of Africa, was a Manichaean (Persian and Dualist religion) in his early until he later converted to Christianity. Augustine proposed a theodicy, which is an attempt to reconcile the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God with the undeniable fact of evil and suffering in the world; it is derived from the Greek words theos or God and dike or justice. Augustines theodicy explains that according to Genesis, God being perfect created a perfect world where because of His goodness and perfection, God gave humans free will. Therefore, the possibility of evil is necessary as the world can never be as perfect as God. The Fall is also central to his theodicy because when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, mans original purity was lost and all their descendents inherited original sin and original guilt because they were seminally present in the loins of Adam. As a result, we all deserve the consequences which means moral evil is a misuse of our freedom and natural evil is punishment for all mans sins. The theodicy goes further in explaining that we cannot blame God for evil as evil is not a thing in itself but rather privatio boni, which is Latin for the privation of good. This means evil is not an entity, but a lack of goodness or righteousness therefore evil only happens when good goes wrong. Augustines theodicy essentially says that God is right not to interfere with problems of evil and suffering in the world, as it is perfectly justified that we should suffer and at the end of our lives- if we have accepted that Gods forgiveness is necessary- we will go to Heaven, otherwise all non-believers will be punished in Hell for eternity. For some Christians- mainly fundamental Christians- Augustines theodicy succeeds in justifying evil and suffering in the world. However, for non-Christians and even liberal Christians, the theodicy fails for a number of different reasons. The theodicy fails in some ways because of the advance in science. Augustines theodicy is based on the Bible being interpreted as literal which opens him up to two scientific criticisms. In contrast to evolution theory, which is now widely accepted as an explanation for the existence of complex organisms through the gradual process of natural selection and random mutations over generations, if the Bible is taken as literal truth, then the theodicy is the reverse of evolution as it prescribes humans were created first. Another scientific criticism is whilst Augustine says we were all seminally present in the loins of Adam, our genes suggest otherwise. Not only does each person have their own unique DNA (with the exception of identical twins), other factors contribute to how a person develops, such as their socialization, which can create psychological differences too. Therefore it would be wrong to say that all humans are the same as Adam. Furthermore, there are logical criticisms of Augustines theodicy. If evil is not a thing in itself, then good and evil would unknown to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. So in Genesis, when Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she had no concept of evil. Schleiermacher, a late 18th/early 19th Century German philosopher, agreed the theodicy is flawed because he said it was a logical contradiction to say that a perfectly created world had gone wrong, since this would mean that evil had created itself ex nihilo, which is impossible. Either the world was created imperfect or God allowed it to go wrong. Perhaps the most important criticisms are moral as they challenge God. Being omniscient, God should have known that things would go wrong and being omnipotent, He could have made creation better and less flawed. Also, the creation of Hell is puzzling because surely God would not create it unless He knew that The Fall would happen which further questions His perfection. Not only that, the selection process for Heaven is discriminate as Heaven can be viewed as an exclusive club for people who have turned to Christ and accepted the need for Gods forgiveness. Therefore, God is wasteful of good souls as they would be punished eternally for having no Christian belief- even if they had been morally good people their whole lives. This clearly questions Gods omnibenevolence and fairness. At first evaluation, St Augustines theodicy appears to make some good points about the reasons for evil and suffering in the world, particularly his comparison of evil to darkness and them being an absence of good and light respectively. However on closer inspection, there are some clear flaws with the theodicy which challenge the God of Classical Theism as they criticise His creation and more importantly- Gods omnibenevolence. The theodicy works well for fundamental Christians, but is not effective in convincing other Christians and non-Christians into the reasons for the existence of evil and suffering in the world as it presents us with an arbitrary and flawed God.

Additive Manufacturing; Stereolithography in Dentistry

Additive Manufacturing; Stereolithography in Dentistry Introduction: Digital revolution because of computers has made the previously manual tasks much easier, faster and more reliable at a reduced cost. Such modifications are always welcomed in dentistry, especially from materials and manufacturing perspective. The digital revolution in the form of dental CAD–CAM took place many years ago, since than many modified systems have appeared on the market with great rapidity. It is expected that another digital dental revolution will take over dentistry in the form of layered fabrication techniques, once they are able to produce high quality dental prostheses. This situation has also posed great challenge for the material scientists in the form of materials that are suitable for long term use in dentistry and oral environment. This can potentially take dental materials research in a totally different direction. Additive manufacturing: Dentistry is the most suited field for additive manufacturing, as it is associated with rapid production of customized units made to fit the patient with high degree of precision and accuracy. In principle it creates a series of cross-sectional slices from a 3D computer file which are then printed one on top of the other to create the 3D object without any material being wasted. Additive manufacturing technologies includes many and Stereolithography (SLA) is one of them. Stereolithography (SLA) Stereolithography (SLA) is the most widely used rapid prototyping technology. The term â€Å"Stereolithography† was first introduced in 1986 by Charles W. Hull, who defined it as a method for making solid objects by successively printing thin layers of an ultraviolet curable material, one on top of the other. Materials and Required time: A number of materials that the industry uses have increased greatly and modern machines can utilize a broad array of photo curable polymers. Timing depends on the size and number of objects being created, the laser might take a minute or two for each layer (a typical run 6 to 12 h). One can now even print 50 to 80 dental crown units in 56 minutes with high quality mode. Applications in dentistry: Dental applications are very suitable for processing by means of SLA due to their complex geometries, low volume and strong individualization. Most common are models fabricated from intraoral or impression scans. However, popularity is gaining for orthodontics and removable prosthodontics. 1. Production of anatomical models: SLA models are preferred because of higher strength, higher temperature resistance, lower moisture absorption, and lower shrinkage. They can be sterilized for surgical use, and literature has shown superior accuracy (Barker et al., 1994, Choi et al., 2002, Cunningham et al., 2005). Table-1 summarizes basic characteristics of the three most common types of 3-D models used in the United States. SLA clinical models are used as an aid to diagnosis, preoperative planning and implant design and manufacturing. Surgeons use models to help plan surgeries but prosthetists and technologists also use models as an aid to the design and manufacturing of custom-fitting implants. These models are particularly very useful for restorative rehabilitation of oral cancer patients. Medical models are frequently used to help in the construction of Cranioplasty plates. The models are effective tools to facilitate patient education and as a teaching aid for students and ju nior colleagues. 2. Manufacture of crowns and bridges, resin models: Its use is gradually being extended to include the manufacture of temporary crowns and bridges and resin working models for loss wax casting. 3. Production of removable partial denture frameworks: The removable partial denture frameworks is made using rapid prototyping, SLA technique. It was developed by 3D Systems of Valencia, CA, USA in 1986. 4. Production of individually-customized digital aligner models for orthodontic use: Whole trays of individually-customized aligner models which serve as extremely accurate base-mold tools upon which the clear aligners are then thermoformed, can be produced by this additive technique. 5. Manufacturing of scaffolds for bioengineering and nerve guide conduits: Scaffolds for bioengineering and nerve guide conduits for peripheral nerve regeneration are the newer applications of a similar process i.e. microstereolithography ( µ SLA). Future advancements: With the improvements in the speed, reliability, and accuracy of the hardware, additive manufacturing will seriously compete with traditional manufacturing in creating end-use products. Many possible biomedical engineering applications might be available in the coming years. Conclusion: It will still be many years before the machines will be able to produce work of a quality that can be achieved by the best dental technologists in the world. For the dental materials scientist these technologies will throw up a whole new way of materials processing and with it the opportunity to use a whole new range of materials. Table-1 Basic characteristics of 3 D models (Choi et al., 2002) References and further reading: Barker, T.M, Earwaker, W.J.S, Lisle D.A. (1994) Accuracy of stereolithographic models for human anatomy.Australas Radiol,38(106). Berman, B. (2012) 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution.Business horizons,55(2), 155-162. Cassetta, M., Giansanti, M., Di Mambro, A., Stefanelli, L. V. (2013) Accuracy of Positioning of Implants Inserted Using a Mucosa-Supported Stereolithographic Surgical Guide in the Edentulous Maxilla and Mandible.The International journal of oral maxillofacial implants,29(5), 1071-1078. Choi, J.Y., Choi, J.H., Kim N.K. (2002) Analysis of errors in medical rapid prototyping models.Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 31(23). doi: 10.1054/ijom.2000.0135. Cunningham, L., Madsen, M., Peterson, G. (2005) Stereolithographic modeling technology applied to tumor resection.J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 63, 873–878. Gauvin, R., Chen, Y. C., Lee, J. W., Soman, P., Zorlutuna, P., Nichol, J. W., Khademhosseini, A. (2012) Microfabrication of complex porous tissue engineering scaffolds using 3D projection stereolithography.Biomaterials, 33(15), 3824-3834. Mehra, P., Miner, J., D’Innocenzo, R., Nadershah, M. (2011) Use of 3-D stereolithographic models in oral and maxillofacial surgery.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery,10(1), 6-13. Melchels, F. P., Feijen, J., Grijpma, D. W. (2010) A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering.Biomaterials, 31(24), 6121-6130. Morris, L., Sokoya, M., Cunningham, L., Gal, T. J. (2013) Utility of stereolithographic models in osteocutaneous free flap reconstruction of the head and neck.Craniomaxillofacial trauma reconstruction,6(2), 87. Patel, M., Al-Momani, Z., Hodson, N., Nixon, P., Mitchell, D. (2013) Computerized tomography, stereolithography and dental implants in the rehabilitation of oral cancer patients.Dental update,40(7), 564-6. Tasaki, S., Kirihara, S., Soumura, T. (2011, November) Fabrication of Ceramic Dental Crowns by using Stereolithography and Powder Sintering Process. In Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings (Vol. 32(8), 141-146). American Ceramic Society, Inc., 735 Ceramic Place Westerville OH 43081 United States. Van Noort, R. (2012) The future of dental devices is digital.Dental Materials, 28(1), 3-12.

How Effective was Athenian Democracy? Essay -- right to vote, minoriti

Plan of Investigation Between the years of 508 BCE and 322 CE, Greece flourished under democracy. However, some question if the flourishing of Athens is due to the democracy that was in place as opposed to other factors relevant in building a successful community. This investigation will examine the effectiveness of Athenian democracy in Greek society. Relevance of Athenian democracy can be seen in foundation of many democracies found worldwide. In this investigation the right to vote, protection of minorities, use of social class, the structure of democracy and how Greek democracy has influenced the world will be addressed. The place investigated will be Greece, specifically the capitol Athens. The effectiveness of Athenian democracy can be seen in social structure, protection of minorities, and right to vote, as well as its structure and influence of other countries around the world. â€Æ' Summary of Evidence Basic- †¢ Democracy literally means â€Å"people-power† †¢ 4th century BC o hundreds of Greek democracies spread over Greece o not a single political entity but a collection of 1,500 separate poleis or 'cities' around the Mediterranean and Black Sea o Those cities that were not democracies were oligarchies†¦ ï‚ § Where power was in the hands of the few richest citizens o Or monarchies †¢ Of the democracies, the oldest, most stable, was Athens Social Structure/Class- †¢ Households o Within the household there would be a land owner o Wife and children of the house owner would come next in the hierarchy o Paid servants o Slaves †¢ â€Å"The foundation of Athenian democracy was the deme , a sort of village ward.† o communities that gave members political identity †¢ The next level of structure was the tribe o 1... ...fornia: University of California Press, 2010. about:newtab. Saxonhouse, Arlene. Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens. 1st ed. Cambrige, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Vermeer, Dura. â€Å"Structure and Agency in Modern Greek Education, Photograph.† Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Structure and Agency in Modern Greek Education. Accessed April 8, 2014. about:newtab. â€Å"Women’s Political Participation,† July 2013. http://www.iwdc.org/resources/fact_sheet.htm. â€Å"World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras - Athenian Democracy.† Accessed April 8, 2014. http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/586553?terms=Athenian+democracy. â€Å"World History: Ancient and Medieval Eras - Greek Citizenship.† Accessed April 8, 2014. http://ancienthistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/586950?terms=Greek+citizenship.

Artificial Intelligence and Investing Essay -- Technology, Stock Exch

Artificial Intelligence and Investing INTRODUCTION Artificial intelligence can be defined as the ability of a computer to perform activities normally considered to require human intelligence. The techniques of this intelligence include knowledge-based, machine learning, and natural language processing techniques. Investing can be defined as the act of committing money to an endeavour with the exception of obtaining profit. Investing activities require data identification, asset valuation (the process of determining the worth of something), and risk management (the process of managing the uncertainty in investment decision-making). Artificial intelligence techniques can be applied to financial investing, especially in the areas of credit risk assessment and stock valuation. In the future, we can expect that the techniques of artificial intelligence will be integrated into systems that simultaneously address investing activities. WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE? Technology is an important factor in investing activities. For example, stock trading is computer-based and can automatically execute the trading of large volumes of shares. This has become an extremely frequent activity on stock exchanges in our advanced world. Artificial intelligence is allowing humans to have a â€Å"cutting edge† by using computers when investing. Years ago, a usual activity for a computer program was a simple, or even a complex, numerical calculation. An example of this could be a forensic officer’s ability to compute the path and pattern of a bullet. Today, computers are more advanced. It is no problem for a computer program to assist humans in their decision making processes. Humans have access to huge databases across the world over the interne... ...ollection, asset valuation, and portfolio management). These systems will interact with humans and humans will be able to specify their preferences and make difficult decisions. SUMMARIZER’S CRITIQUE In general, the article â€Å"Artificial Intelligence and Investing† offered a lot of valuable information regarding the both the current, and future, paths of artificial intelligence systems. The article was broken down into simple sections that helped the article come together. The author’s intent of relating artificial intelligence to investing was successful in explaining that artificial intelligence is of great assistance to investors across the globe. On the other hand, I believe the article contained some examples and terms which were not really explained in enough detail to the average user. Basically, some terms were not presented at an average reader’s level.

Difficulties in Learning English Grammar

International Journal of Instruction e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ? www. e-iji. net July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 p-ISSN: 1694-609X DIFFICULTIES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING GRAMMAR IN AN EFL CONTEXT1 Abdu Mohammed Al-Mekhlafi PhD. , College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman [email  protected] com Ramani Perur Nagaratnam PhD. , Ministry of Manpower, Oman The role of grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context has been for decades a major issue for students and teachers alike.Researchers have debated whether grammar should be taught in the classroom and students, for their part, have generally looked upon grammar instruction as a necessary evil at best, and an avoidable burden at worst. The paper reports a study undertaken to investigate the difficulties teachers face in teaching grammar to EFL students as well as those faced by students in learning it, in the teachers' perception.The study aimed to find out whether there are significant differences in teachers' perceptions of difficulties in relation to their gender, qualification, teaching experience, and the level they teach in school, thus providing insights into their own and their students' difficulties. Mean scores and t-test were used to interpret the data. The main findings are reported with implications. Key Words: English language teaching, instruction, EFL grammar instruction, teaching, difficulties in grammar instructionINTRODUCTION The English teacher is often portrayed as an â€Å"unattractive grammar monger whose only pleasure in life is to point out the faults of others† (Baron, 1982, p. 226). For the most part, within the classroom, any mention of grammar causes the student moments of discomfort and sometimes even terror. Many teachers have tried to make grammar teaching a non-threatening, imaginative and useful activity within the English curriculum. A summary of this paper was presented at the 54th World Assembly of the International Council on Education for Teaching (ICET) on ‘Maintaini ng Strategic Agility: Managing change and assuring quality in education for teaching’, 14-17 December 2009, Muscat, Oman. 70 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Previous studies on students' and teachers' attitudes and perceptions of grammar instruction in the context of language teaching and learning suggest a disparity between students and teachers.While students favour formal and explicit grammar instruction and error correction, teachers favour communicative activities with less conscious focus on grammar (e. g. , Brindley 1984; Kumaravadivelu 1991; Leki 1995; Schultz 1996, 2001; Spratt 1999). Rationale for the present study The foregoing review of literature shows that practicing teachers are faced with a range of options for grammar instruction in their classrooms. There are, however, many types of difficulties faced by students and teachers with regard to grammar instruction in an ESL/EFL context.Identifying such difficulties and being consciously awar e of them would help teachers find ways of overcoming them and provide effective grammar instruction. There has, however, been little investigation of the difficulties faced by EFL teachers and Aran learners in the Gulf region with regard to grammar instruction. The teachers employ theoretically recommended methods without necessarily taking into account their own and their learners’ potential difficulties.They may not be conscious of difficulties which are serious and may thus hinder students’ learning of English grammar, and do not choose the method of instruction that would pose fewer difficulties and problems to their learners. It is in this context that the present study was undertaken to capture valuable insights into how EFL school teachers in Oman perceive students’ as well as their own difficulties with grammar instruction. The study reported here aims to address this need by presenting the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students' difficulties in this regard.It also aims to add to the knowledge base in this area. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attitudes towards grammar instruction In teaching grammar, three areas have to be considered: grammar as rules, grammar as form, and grammar as resource. For many L2 learners, learning grammar often means learning the rules of grammar and having an intellectual knowledge of grammar. Teachers often believe that this will provide the generative basis on which learners can build their knowledge and will be able to use the language eventually. For them, prescribed rules give a kind of security.International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 71 A better approach is perhaps to see grammar as one of many resources that we have in language which helps us to communicate. We should see how grammar relates to what we want to say or write, and how we expect others to interpret what our language use and i ts focus. According to Widdowson (1990: 86), † . . . grammar is not a constraining imposition but a liberating force: it frees us from a dependency on context and a purely lexical categorization of reality. Given that many learners – and teachers – tend to view grammar as a set of restrictions on what is allowed and disallowed in language use – ‘a linguistic straitjacket’ in Larsen-Freeman’s words (2002: 103) – the conception of grammar as something that liberates rather than represses is one that is worth investigating. According to Morelli (2003), students perceived themselves as having a better attitude towards grammar instruction in context, while performing slightly better after having experienced the traditional grammar instruction.Elkilic and Akca (2008) reported generally positive attitudes of students studying English grammar at a private primary EFL classroom towards studying grammar. In particular, however, a little ov er 50% of their subjects claimed to enjoy grammar very much and only about 10% reported finding some difficulty in learning and remembering grammar. Student expectations Student expectations of traditional, explicit grammar teaching have been confirmed by many teachers (cf. Borg, 1999a, b).Burgess and Etherington (2002:440-441) also conclude that teachers believe that explicit teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because of expectations and feelings of insecurity. Since the 1970s, attention has shifted from ways of teaching grammar to ways of getting learners to communicate, but grammar has been seen to be a powerful undermining and demotivating force among L2 learners. In terms of motivation and learner success with languages, grammar has been seen to be a problem and to stand in the way of helping learners to communicate fluently.The hard fact that most teachers face is that learners often find it difficult to make flexible use of the rules of grammar taught in the cl assroom. They may know the rules perfectly, but are incapable of applying them in their own use of the language. Teachers' recognition of this process (i. e. , of transferring declarative knowledge about grammar into procedural knowledge) as a problem for many of their students has been reported by Burgess and Etherington (2002:442). Haudeck International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 72 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ as reported that many learners have difficulty in internalising grammar rules, although these have been taught intensively (1996, cited in European Commission, 2006). The use of grammatical terminology Metalinguistic discussion (i. e. , the use of grammatical terminology to talk about language) is seen by Stern (1992:327) as one of the characteristics of explicit grammar teaching. According to Burgess and Etherington (2002: 444), teachers believe that their students see grammatical terminology as useful and that its use does no t present a particular difficulty for students.Descriptive grammars acknowledge the fact that language is dynamic and its use is constantly changing, although not in major ways. The problem for ESL/EFL learners, however, is that there is a time-lag between the awareness of such changes and their acceptance as the proper use of the language. As Morelli (2003:33-34) has observed, â€Å"Grammar can be taught traditionally or contextually, but student perception should be considered by teachers in the decision-making process. Students need to feel confident that educators have met their needs . . . nd educators should be willing to consider the attitudes and perceptions of students when making decisions about how to teach grammar. † METHOD Purpose The study reported here aims to investigate the difficulties of a cross section of school EFL teachers in Oman as well as their perceptions of their students' difficulties with regard to grammar instruction. Research questions The study aimed to answer the following questions: 1. What are EFL teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties of students and teachers with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context? 2.Are there any differences in teachers' perceptions between the difficulties faced by teachers and those faced by students? 3. Do these perceptions of difficulties vary according to the teachers’: †¢ Gender, †¢ Level taught, †¢ Qualifications, and †¢ Experience? International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 73 4. Are there any significant differences in teachers' perceptions due to the type of difficulty? Limitation of the study The present study is limited to: †¢ EFL teachers teaching English in Omani Basic Education schools, and †¢ The use of questionnaire as the research instrument.Nevertheless, the responses are valuable in themselves, indicating the general difficulties that students and teachers face with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Research design The study was mainly quantitative in design, using a questionnaire and the subjects responded to each statement on a five-point Likert-type attitude scale (from 5 for ‘strongly agree' to 1 for ‘strongly disagree'). The respondents also provided background information on gender, qualification, teaching experience and the level they teach, for creating their profile in terms of variables. The data was analyzed (t-test and ANOVA) using the SPSS.The research instrument The questionnaire used in the present study, which comprises 20 statements, was the one employed by Burgess and Etherington in their study (2002: 451452) (See ANNEXURE – I for the questionnaire used in the present study). Subjects Only one broad geographical context was chosen for the study, namely Oman, in order to be context-specific and be able to make a close connection between teachers, their assumptions and their practical experience. It is b elieved that the subjects fairly represented the context of EFL teaching at different levels in Omani schools.Besides, the sample size was 90, more than the minimum number required for making useful statistical analyses according to Cohen and Manion (1994:77). The profile of the subjects in terms of the four variables is given below in Table 1: International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 74 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Table 1. Profile of Respondents to the Study Instrument Variable Gender Level they teach Categories within the variable Male Female Grades 1-4 Grades 5-10 Grades 11-12 Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Diploma ? years > 5 ? 10 years > 10 years No. of respondents in each category 39 51 17 31 42 8 76 6 27 41 22 Total (N) 90 90 Qualification 90 Experience 90 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION With regard to the first research question whether there are difficulties faced by students and teachers with grammar instruction, Tabl e 2 (ANNEXURE – II) shows an overall mean of 3. 51 on a five-point scale, the means for individual statements ranging from 2. 97 to 4. 10, thus indicating teachers' general agreement with most of the statements in the survey questionnaire (See Fig. below). This suggests that, in the perceptions of teachers, there are difficulties faced by teachers as well as students with regard to grammar instruction in an EFL context. Fig. 1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 75 With regard to the second research question about the differences between students and teachers in the difficulties faced, Table 3 shows that there is a statistically significant difference at the level of p ; 0. 01 in the perceptions of teachers and students, with students experiencing difficulties to a greater extent than teachers, which is understandable. The overall mean for students' difficulties as perceived by the teachers was 3. 58, while the overall mean for teachers' difficulties was 3. 23 (Table 3 below). Table 3. Teachers’ Perceptions of Teachers’ and Students’ Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement Teachers’ Difficulties Students’ Difficulties as perceived by the Teachers Mean 3. 331 3. 5779 SD . 58484 . 42214 t Sig. (2-tailed) 5. 225 . 000 The third research question is about the differences in perception of difficulties in terms of the four teacher variables: gender, level taught, qualification, and teaching experience. With regard to gender, a comparison of the overall mean response for male (3. 508) and female teachers (3. 510) (See Fig. 2 below) shows that they are quite nearly the same and that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 5 in their perceptions about the difficulties (Sig. : . 978) (Table 4 in ANNEXURE – II)). This suggests that gender does not play a significant role i n the teachers' perceptions when it comes to articulating their own difficulties as well as those of their students with English grammar instruction. Fig. 2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Gender With regard to the level taught, Table 5 (ANNEXURE – II) shows that teachers teaching at different levels have similar perceptions about their wn and their International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 76 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ students' difficulties with English grammar instruction, with a slightly higher mean for teachers of Grades 1-4 (3. 58) than the means for teachers of the other two levels, which are nearly the same (3. 49 and 3. 5) (See Fig. 3 below). Table 5 also shows that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 686). Fig. 3.Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Level Taught With r egard to teachers’ qualifications, Table 6 (ANNEXURE – II) shows a slightly higher overall mean for teachers with a diploma qualification (3. 78) than the overall means for teachers with higher qualifications, viz. bachelor's (3. 46) or master's degree (3. 49) (See Fig. 4 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 211 – Table 6). Fig. 4.Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Qualifications With regard to teachers' experience, it does not seem to be a significant variable with regard to their perceptions of their own and their students' difficulties with English grammar instruction, as Table 7 (ANNEXURE – II) shows (See Fig. 5 below). The results also show that there is no statistically significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of this variable (Sig. : . 869 – Table 7). International Journal of Instructio n, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 7 Fig. 5. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to Experience The foregoing discussion is based on the overall mean score obtained for the difficulties in general and for each of the four teacher variables considered in the present study. With regard to the fourth research question, a detailed analysis of the results provides interesting and valuable insights into teachers’ perceptions of different types of difficulties for students and teachers themselves and their concerns about classroom application of grammar teaching principles.The results are discussed with respect to difficulties categorized in terms of the themes listed in Table 8 below: Table 8. Statements in the Questionnaire Categorised according to Themes Theme Explicit grammar teaching The transfer of declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge The use of grammatical terminology Error correction Problem-solving activities The use of authentic texts for grammar instruction The use of spoken and written communicative activities Statement(s) 3, 4, 5, 13 1, 17, 18 14, 19 15, 16 2, 20 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 17, 18Explicit grammar teaching The dichotomies of unconscious/conscious learning and inductive/deductive teaching methods are both sometimes equated with the dichotomy between implicit and explicit instruction. Attitudes to inductive and deductive methods were investigated through statements concerning explicit presentation of grammar by teachers, students finding form-function matches for themselves, and the constraints in using either of the two methods. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 78 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦Statement 3 (My students expect teachers to present grammar explicitly) and Statement 13 (A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure) produced a mean score of 3. 61 and 3. 38 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXU RE – II), supporting the view that students, in teachers’ perception, prefer explicit grammar teaching. This is not surprising, as students are known to expect traditional, explicit grammar instruction (e. g. , Borg, 1999a, b). The responses in the present study indicate that this expectation of students still remains, especially at the school level.Responses to Statement 5 (My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves), however, produced a mean score of 3. 59 (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II), which is very close to the mean score for students’ expectation about explicit teaching of grammar. This perception of students’ preference for an inductive method of learning grammar on the part of the same responding teachers is surprising. With regard to the same statement, the difference in mean between males and females seems to be higher than for the other statements (Table 4 – ANNEXURE – II).A follow-up interview with teachers might have provided more specific information and thrown light on their understanding of explicit and implicit methods of teaching grammar. With regard to Statement 4 (My students prefer to learn grammar from onesentence examples), which links to explicit grammar teaching, responding teachers produced the lowest mean score (2. 97) of all statements in the questionnaire (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of experience, however, there seems to be some significant difference at the level of 0. 5 in favour of teachers with more than 10 years of experience (Table 7 – ANNEXURE – II). Declarative vs procedural knowledge Statement 1 (My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use), designed to identify teachers’ beliefs about the possible transfer of declarative knowledge (i. e. , knowledge about grammar) into procedural knowledge (i. e. , ability to use that knowledge in actua l communication), produced a mean score of 3. 81 (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II).This indicates that responding teachers recognise this process of transfer of one kind of knowledge into another as a problem for a large number of their students. This gap between students’ grammatical knowledge and communicative ability is not surprising to teachers, who often find that most of their students can recall grammatical rules accurately and perform very well on discrete-point grammar International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 79 exercises, but fail to achieve such grammatical accuracy in actual communication.This fact is corroborated by the responses to Statements 17 and 18 (My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical knowledge within a totally communicative writing/speaking activity), which produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). In terms of teacher qua lifications, teachers with a diploma agree strongly (mean of 4. 33) that their students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II).The use of grammatical terminology The use of grammatical terminology in the EFL classroom is seen as a necessary part of the explicit method of teaching grammar. When students and teachers talk about grammar (i. e. , in meta-linguistic discussion), which is one of the characteristics of explicit language teaching (Stern 1992: 327), they need to use grammatical terms. Two statements (14 & 19) sought to explore teachers’ perceptions of how their students feel about the use of grammatical terminology.Statement 14 (My students find grammatical terminology useful) and Statement 19 (My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology) produced a mean score of 3. 82 and 4. 07 respec tively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). This indicates that, in the responding teachers’ perception, their students see grammatical terminology as useful, but find difficulty in using the terms to be of a greater magnitude. Interestingly, the usefulness of grammatical terminology seems to be linked to the students’ preference for explicit grammar instruction. The difference in mean between teachers of Grades 1-4 and 11-12 on the one hand (mean of ? ) and those of Grades 5-10 (mean of 3. 4), however, seems to be higher with regard to their perceptions of the usefulness of grammatical terminology to their students. That is, teachers of the lowest and highest levels think that their students find grammatical terminology more useful than those of the middle grades. There is a significant difference at the level of 0. 05 in terms of the level taught with regard to the usefulness of grammatical terminology (statement 14) (Table 5 – ANNEXURE – II). In te rms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 0) that their students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelor's International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 80 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 04). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II). Error Correction Teachers generally tend to believe that errors of form committed by EFL learners should be corrected even when communicative goals are intended.This need for correction of form even within a communicative context, either spoken or written, may arise from a concern for grammatical accuracy in students’ communicative output or for avoiding fossilization of errors in their interlanguage. Statements 15 and 16 aim to capture teachers’ perceptions in this regard. Statement 15 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context) and Statement 16 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context) produced a mean score of 3. 26 and 3. 7 respectively (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II). It may be inferred from the results that the responding teachers experience more difficulty in correcting their learners’ spoken communication than written. Problem-solving techniques Problem-solving techniques in relation to grammar teaching are inductive techniques that require learners to find form-function matches by themselves. (e. g. , Hall and Shepheard, 1991). Responses of teachers surveyed in the present study produced a mean score of 3. 58 for Statement 2 (My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar), showing a link to responses to Statement 5 bout studentsâ⠂¬â„¢ preference for finding matches between meaning and structure for themselves. Surprisingly, however, the same responding teachers produced a mean score of 3. 60 for Statement 20 (My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II). A possible interpretation could be that teachers, while recognising the motivational potential of problem-solving techniques, also observe their students’ frustrating experience with such techniques, possibly because they are too ‘challenging’ for the learners to cope with.Another interpretation could be that teachers’ responses to Statement 2 are based on their theoretical assumption about what these techniques could do to the learners, while those to Statement 20 could be based on teachers’ assessment of the ground reality. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 81 With regard to the statement about students being motivated by problemsolving techniques for learning grammar (Statement 2), there is also a significant difference at the level of 0. 5 between males and females in their perceptions (Table 4 – ANNEXURE – II). The use of authentic texts for grammar instruction Authentic texts are texts that are not produced artificially for the purpose of language teaching, but are used for genuine purposes in the real world, like newspaper articles and recipes. By implication, these texts are contextualised and communicatively complete in themselves. They focus is on conveying real meaning rather than on form.Decontextualised examples of language, on the other hand, are one-sentence examples usually found in EFL textbooks and grammar practice books. They illustrate grammatical forms and structures in context-free sentences and are generally associated with the explicit method of teaching grammar. The use of texts illustrating authentic communication for presenting gramma r is generally seen as posing problems to teachers and students alike. Students’ problems with their use arise from difficulties of variety of structures Statement 7), culture (Statement 8), vocabulary (Statement 9), and implicit form-function matches (Statement 10), besides an overall difficulty in handling grammar presented within authentic texts (Statement 6). Teachers’ difficulties with authentic texts include those arising from the amount of time needed for using them (Statement 11) and producing suitable tasks from such texts (Statement 12). According to the responding teachers’ perceptions, students experience greater difficulties from vocabulary (Mean=3. 52), variety of structures (Mean=3. 49) and finding form-function matches (Mean=3. 3) than from handling from presented within authentic texts (Mean=3. 33) and culture (Mean=3. 26). Statements 11 and 12 relating to teachers’ difficulties in using authentic texts produced a mean score of 3. 03 and 3. 09 respectively (Table 2 – ANNEXURE – II), which indicates a lower perception of teachers of their own difficulties than those of students. The use of spoken and written communicative activities Statements 17 and 18 refer to the possible difficulties students might have in improving the accuracy of their grammatical language within totally communicative activities.Responding teachers produced a mean score of 4. 10 and 3. 73 for the two statements respectively. In fact, the highest mean score of International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 82 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ all scores for the survey questionnaire (4. 10) was obtained for Statement 17 (My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical knowledge within a totally communicative writing activity) (Table 2 ANNEXURE – II).The results indicate that, in teachers' perceptions, totally communicative activities, whether written or spoken, po se great difficulties to students for learning grammar and improving grammatical accuracy, writing activities proving more challenging than spoken ones. It might be inferred that the teachers surveyed might have a serious concern about the lack of sufficient focus on form in purely communicative activities or tasks for developing students' grammatical knowledge. Practising language as communication in real-life tasks might not give sufficient opportunities for students to improve their grammatical knowledge.In terms of teacher qualifications, teachers with a diploma agree very strongly (mean of 4. 67) that their students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity and the majority of teachers surveyed, who have a bachelor's degree, also seem to show a high level of agreement with regard to the same statement (mean of 4. 01). The mean for this statement for teachers with higher qualifications is lower (Table 6 – ANNEXURE – II).CONCLUSION Generally speaking, in teachers’ perceptions, both teachers and students invariably face serious difficulties with regard to EFL grammar instruction, students facing them to a greater extent than teachers. It is obvious that EFL teachers consider these difficulties quite serious, which suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to them. There may be generally recommended ways of teaching EFL grammar (for example, the implicit method), but it would not be proper to adopt them universally without looking at the possible difficulties that might go with those methods suggested.While a less favoured method might pose fewer problems and hence be more effective, a more favoured method might be less effective owing to greater difficulties or problems in implementing it. The difficulties may also be influenced by the context in which a particular method is used. It is, therefore, necessary to make a detailed study of such difficulties faced by teachers and students in specific contexts, take appropriate steps to overcome them, and adapt the method to suit the actual teaching and learning International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 83 environment. This is not to suggest ‘diluting’ a sound approach or method, but only to plan mediating or supplementary tasks to help learners tide over the difficulties. IMPLICATIONS The findings of the present study point to the following implications: 1. EFL Curriculum and material developers should show an understanding of learners’ and teachers’ difficulties, and provide sufficient guidance and help in the curriculum document and the teachers’ book showing how the potential difficulties could be addressed in planning their classroom activities.Teachers may be given examples of mediating tasks, which would mitigate the difficulties. 2. As Morelli (2003: 33-34) has pointed out, students need to be taught grammar through various methodologies and approaches to cater to their individual styles of learning, and educators should consider students’ attitudes and perceptions when making decisions about how to teach grammar. 3. EFL teachers would do well to understand and address their learners’ concerns in planning their lessons and classroom activities, and use supplementary materials, if necessary, to help learners cope with the difficulties. 4.Both in-service and pre-service training programmes should be planned in such a way that student-teachers and practising teachers articulate the potential and actual difficulties and discuss ways of overcoming or at least coping with them. The database relating to teaching English as a foreign language, including the difficulties of learners and teachers with regard to grammar instruction, should be enriched by more detailed research and analysis, which would enable generalizations across the gulf countries. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 84 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦REFERENCES Baron, D. (1982). Grammar and good taste: Reforming the American language. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press. Borg, S. (1999a). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: a qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics, 20 (1): 95-126. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002) Borg, S. (1999b). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53 (3): 157-167. (cited in Burgess and Etherington, 2002). Brindley, G. (1984). Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. NSW Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney.Burgess, J. and Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit? System, 30: 433-458. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. C. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Elkilic, G. and Akca, C. (2008). Attitudes of the Students Studying at K afkas University Private Primary EFL Classroom towards Storytelling and Motivation. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 4(1): 1-22. European Commission (2006). The Main Pedagogical Principles Underlying the Teaching of Languages to Very Young Learners. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 Study: Edelenbos, P. , Johnstone, R. and Kubanek, A. Hall, N. nd Shepheard, J. (1991). The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. London: Longman. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45 (2): 98-107. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The Grammar of Choice. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds. ). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leki, I. (1995). Good writing: I know it when I see it. In In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds. ) Academic Writing in a Second Language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. , No. 2 Al-Mekh lafi & Nagaratnam 85 Morelli, J. A. (2003). Ninth Graders’ Attitudes toward Different Approaches to Grammar Instruction. Unpublished Dissertation. The Graduate School of Education, Fordham University, New York. Schultz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3): 343-364. Schultz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. USAColombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(ii): 244-258. Spratt, M. 1999). How good are we at knowing what learners like? System, 27:141-155. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Grammar and nonsense and learning. In H. G. Widdowson, Aspects of language teaching, pp. 79-98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. International Journal of Instructio n, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 86 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ ANNEXURE – I RESEARCH INSTRUMENT – QUESTIONNAIRE STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITH GRAMMAR These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in the classroom.Please indicate how far you agree or disagree with these statements. If you agree strongly, mark a 5 on the scale; if you strongly disagree, mark a 1 on the scale. No. Statement SA 1 My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2 My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3 My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4 My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5 My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7 My students find authentic texts difficult becaus e of the wide variety of structures which appear. 8 My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9 My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10 My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers. 11 Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12 Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts. 3 A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14 My students find grammatical terminology useful. 15 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context. 16 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context. 17 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 18 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 9 My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20 My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. A N D SD International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 87 ANNEXURE – II Table 2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar (N = 90) Statement 1. My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. 2. My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. 3. My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly. 4.My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples. 5. My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves. 6. My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts. 7. My students find authentic texts difficult because of t he wide variety of structures which appear. 8. My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound. 9. My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used. 10. My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers. 11.Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming. 12. Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts. 13. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure. 14. My students find grammatical terminology useful. 15. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context. 16. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context. 17. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity. 8. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity. 19. My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology. 20. My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar. Overall Mean 3. 8111 3. 5778 3. 6111 2. 9667 3. 5889 3. 3333 3. 4889 3. 2556 3. 5222 3. 4333 3. 0333 3. 0889 3. 3778 3. 8222 3. 2556 3. 5730 4. 1000 3. 7333 4. 0667 3. 6000 3. 5090 SD . 93490 . 97125 1. 04607 1. 49494 . 94684 1. 03858 1. 01941 1. 03382 1. 07293 1. 02825 1. 05415 1. 16739 . 97816 1. 5937 1. 25027 . 83785 . 90006 . 99210 . 87152 1. 08927 7. 71887 Table 4. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Gender (Males: N=39; Females: N=51) Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 3. 8718 3. 7647 3. 2308 3. 8431 3. 7436 3. 5098 3. 1282 2. 8431 3. 7949 3. 4314 3. 2821 3. 3725 3. 5128 3. 4706 3. 2051 3. 2941 3. 5128 3. 5294 3. 3846 3. 4706 3. 0769 3. 0000 3. 1282 3. 0588 SD . 86388 . 99173 1. 6281 . 80926 . 96567 1. 10223 1. 47219 1. 51489 . 95089 . 92206 1. 02466 1. 05756 . 79046 1. 17223 1. 10452 . 98578 . 99662 1. 13759 1. 09100 . 98697 1. 10940 1. 01980 1. 19603 1. 15606 F 1. 357 4. 942 1. 447 . 032 . 068 . 095 9. 319 . 295 1. 240 . 600 . 062 . 107 t . 536 3. 105 1. 051 . 895 1. 828 . 408 . 194 . 403 . 072 . 391 . 341 . 278 Sig. (2-tailed) . 593 . 003 . 296 . 373 . 071 . 684 . 847 . 688 . 943 . 697 . 734 . 782 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 88 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 OverallGender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean 3. 3333 3. 4118 3. 9231 3. 7451 3. 3590 3. 1765 3. 5385 3. 6000 4. 0769 4. 1176 3. 7179 3. 7451 3. 8974 4. 1961 3. 4359 3. 7255 3. 5077 3. 5100 SD . 98230 . 98339 1. 28523 1. 24649 1. 34726 1. 17823 . 82226 . 85714 . 98367 . 84017 .88700 1. 07412 . 94018 . 80049 1. 16517 1. 02134 6. 67887 8. 50930 F . 018 . 105 1. 363 . 174 . 023 1. 454 . 201 2. 494 1. 604 t . 375 . 662 . 684 . 342 . 212 . 128 1. 626 1. 254 . 028 Sig. (2-tailed) . 708 . 510 . 496 . 733 . 833 . 898 . 108 . 213 . 978 Table 5.Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to the Level taught Statement 1 Level 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 N 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 Mean 3. 8824 3. 5484 3. 9762 3. 8111 3. 5882 3. 2903 3. 7857 3. 5778 3. 7059 3. 5161 3. 6429 3. 6111 2. 7647 3. 4516 2. 6905 2. 9667 3. 7059 3. 6774 3. 4762 3. 5889 3. 1765 3. 3871 3. 3571 3. 3333 3. 6471 3. 4839 3. 4286 3. 889 3 . 6471 3. 2903 3. 0714 3. 2556 3. 7059 3. 5484 3. 4286 3. 5222 3. 7647 SD 1. 05370 1. 09053 . 71527 . 93490 1. 00367 . 97275 . 92488 . 97125 1. 04670 . 99569 1. 10036 1. 04607 1. 52190 1. 43385 1. 47314 1. 49494 . 77174 . 79108 1. 10956 . 94684 1. 01460 1. 02233 1. 07797 1. 03858 1. 16946 1. 06053 . 94075 1. 01941 . 99632 . 93785 1. 09082 1. 03382 1. 26317 1. 09053 . 99125 1. 07293 1. 20049 F 1. 970 Sig. .146 2 2. 394 .097 3 .213 .809 4 2. 593 .081 5 .557 .575 6 .242 .785 7 .274 .761 8 1. 943 .149 9 .413 1. 116 .663 . 332 10 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 9 Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Level 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total 1-4 5-10 11-12 Total N 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 41 89 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 17 31 42 90 Mean 3. 3871 3. 3333 3. 4333 2. 8824 3. 0968 3. 0476 3. 0333 3. 1176 3. 1290 3. 0476 3. 0889 3. 5294 3. 0645 3. 5476 3. 3778 4. 0000 3. 3871 4. 0714 3. 8222 3. 0588 3. 5161 3. 429 3. 2556 3. 6471 3. 7419 3. 4146 3. 5730 4. 2941 4. 0323 4. 0714 4. 1000 3. 6471 3. 6774 3. 8095 3. 7333 4. 3529 3. 9355 4. 0476 4. 0667 3. 5294 3. 5806 3. 6429 3. 6000 3. 5824 3. 4871 3. 4951 3. 5090 SD . 91933 1. 02806 1. 02825 1. 05370 1. 10619 1. 03482 1. 05415 1. 21873 1. 14723 1. 18841 1. 16739 1. 17886 . 99785 . 83235 . 97816 1. 22474 1. 22956 1. 23748 1. 25937 1. 39062 1. 17958 1. 24100 1. 25027 . 93148 . 68155 . 89375 . 83785 . 77174 . 87498 . 97262 . 90006 1. 27187 . 90874 . 94322 . 99210 . 70189 . 81386 . 96151 . 87152 1. 12459 1. 14816 1. 05510 1. 08927 7. 94466 8. 51652 7. 09156 7. 71887 F Sig. .230 .795 049 .953 2. 509 .087 2. 968 .057 1. 056 .352 1. 443 .242 .499 .609 .233 .792 1. 287 .281 .072 .931 .378 .686 Table 6. Teach ers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Qualifications Statement 1 Qualification MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 3. 5000 3. 8026 4. 3333 3. 8111 3. 6250 3. 5395 4. 0000 3. 5778 SD 1. 30931 . 89472 . 81650 . 93490 . 91613 . 99921 . 63246 . 97125 F 1. 394 Sig. .253 2 .630 .535 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 90 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Qualification MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma N 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 75 6 89 8 76 6 Mean 3. 5000 3. 5921 4. 00 00 3. 6111 3. 3750 2. 9605 2. 5000 2. 9667 3. 7500 3. 5526 3. 8333 3. 5889 2. 6250 3. 4079 3. 3333 3. 3333 3. 2500 3. 4605 4. 1667 3. 4889 3. 5000 3. 2237 3. 333 3. 2556 3. 1250 3. 5000 4. 3333 3. 5222 3. 3750 3. 4079 3. 8333 3. 4333 2. 7500 3. 0526 3. 1667 3. 0333 3. 5000 3. 0132 3. 5000 3. 0889 3. 2500 3. 4079 3. 1667 3. 3778 3. 1250 3. 8947 3. 8333 3. 8222 3. 3750 3. 2237 3. 5000 3. 2556 3. 5000 3. 5200 4. 3333 3. 5730 4. 5000 4. 0132 4. 6667 SD 1. 06904 1. 03509 1. 26491 1. 04607 1. 40789 1. 50058 1. 64317 1. 49494 1. 38873 . 91498 . 75277 . 94684 1. 30247 . 96854 1. 36626 1. 03858 1. 16496 1. 01247 . 75277 1. 01941 1. 06904 1. 02760 1. 21106 1. 03382 1. 24642 1. 05198 . 81650 1. 07293 1. 18773 1. 03509 . 75277 1. 02825 1. 58114 1. 00525 . 98319 1. 05415 1. 30931 1. 13717 1. 37840 1. 6739 1. 58114 . 86684 1. 47196 . 97816 1. 80772 1. 16137 1. 60208 1. 25937 1. 68502 1. 18433 1. 64317 1. 25027 1. 19523 . 77738 . 81650 . 83785 . 75593 . 91642 . 51640 F . 467 Sig. .629 .586 .559 .3 66 .694 2. 108 .128 1. 596 .209 .272 .762 2. 348 .102 .484 .618 .345 .710 1. 029 .362 .240 .787 1. 363 .261 .173 .842 2. 757 2. 407 .069 . 096 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 Al-Mekhlafi & Nagaratnam 91 Statement 18 19 20 Overall Qualification Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total MA BA Diploma Total N 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 8 76 6 90 Mean 4. 1000 3. 6250 3. 7632 3. 5000 3. 333 4. 0000 4. 0395 4. 5000 4. 0667 3. 8750 3. 5658 3. 6667 3. 6000 3. 4563 3. 4933 3. 7750 3. 5090 SD . 90006 1. 40789 . 92186 1. 37840 . 99210 . 75593 . 90097 . 54772 . 87152 1. 35620 1. 08733 . 81650 1. 08927 10. 98619 7. 29186 7. 44983 7. 71887 F Sig. .244 .784 .798 .453 .299 .742 1. 582 .211 Table 7. Teachers’ Perceptions of Difficulties with EFL Grammar according to their Experience Statement 1 Exp. (yrs) ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 0 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 N 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 Mean 3. 5556 3. 9250 3. 9130 3. 8111 3. 4444 3. 5500 3. 7826 3. 5778 3. 4444 3. 8000 3. 4783 3. 6111 3. 2222 3. 1500 2. 3478 2. 9667 3. 7407 3. 5000 3. 5652 3. 5889 3. 2963 3. 4000 3. 2609 3. 3333 3. 4074 3. 5250 3. 5217 3. 4889 3. 1481 3. 2000 3. 4783 3. 2556 3. 8519 3. 3000 3. 5217 3. 5222 3. 3333 3. 4500 SD 1. 12090 . 91672 . 66831 . 93490 . 84732 . 95943 1. 12640 . 97125 . 97402 1. 01779 1. 16266 1. 04607 1. 52753 1. 45972 1. 40158 1. 49494 . 81300 1. 13228 . 2777 . 94684 1. 17063 . 98189 1. 00983 1. 03858 1. 24836 . 93336 . 89796 1. 01941 . 81824 1. 11401 1. 12288 1. 03382 1. 06351 1. 11401 . 94722 1. 07293 1. 03775 1. 06096 F 1. 457 Sig. .239 2 .778 .462 3 1. 185 .311 4 2. 772 .068 5 .525 .593 6 .153 .859 7 .121 .886 8 .733 .484 9 2. 189 . 214 .118 . 808 10 Interna tional Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2 92 Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar†¦ Statement 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Overall Exp. (yrs) ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total ? 5 ; 5 ? 10 ; 10 Total N 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 89 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 27 41 22 90 Mean 3. 5217 3. 4333 2. 8889 3. 0750 3. 1304 3. 0333 3. 3333 3. 0750 2. 8261 3. 0889 3. 3704 3. 2750 3. 5652 3. 3778 3. 4815 3. 8500 4. 1739 3. 8222 3. 1481 3. 2500 3. 3913 3. 2556 3. 6667 3. 5000 3. 5909 3. 5730 4. 0741 4. 1000 4. 1304 4. 1000 3. 6667 3. 8250 3. 6522 3. 7333 4. 0370 4. 0500 4. 1304 4. 0667 3. 4074 3. 000 3. 6522 3. 6000 3. 4759 3. 5250 3. 5201 3. 5090 SD . 99405 1. 02825 1. 25064 . 99711 . 9 1970 1. 05415 1. 14354 1. 11832 1. 26678 1. 16739 . 92604 1. 01242 . 99206 . 97816 1. 36918 1. 23101 1. 11405 1. 25937 1. 43322 1. 14914 1. 23359 1. 25027 . 87706 . 87706 . 73414 . 83785 1. 03500 . 74421 1. 01374 .90006 1. 03775 . 84391 1. 19121 . 99210 . 70610 . 90441 1. 01374 . 87152 1. 18514 1. 06699 1. 02730 1. 08927 9. 44364 7. 20399 6. 48558 7. 71887 F Sig. .377 .687 1. 182 .311 .639 .530 1. 935 .151 .232 .794 .321 .727 .024 .976 .304 .739 .083 .921 .612 .545 .140 .869 International Journal of Instruction, July 2011 ? Vol. 4, No. 2