2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

The Role of Grammar Teaching in College EFL

Chyi-Ching Kao
Associate Professor, Yuanpei University

Abstract: In the past, teaching grammar had been central to and often synonymous with teaching
foreign language for the past 2500 years ( Rutherford, 1987 ). However, with the advent of
communicative language teaching, the necessity of grammar instruction has become the center of an
ongoing debate. The role of grammar instruction in the classroom had moved from a position of central
importance to that of an “outcast,” and is now being brought back into the classroom to aid students’
communicative competence. In fact, in any case, it’s clear that on one should dismiss grammar
instruction altogether, because there is no empirical evidence that to do so is ultimately more beneficial
to foreign language learning. Instead, by forcing students into communication tasks beyond their
grammatical competence would encourage pidginization and premature fossilization in the process of
second/foreign language
acquisition.
In conclusion, grammar instruction is necessary, especially for the students in technical colleges
and universities in Taiwan even in the communicative language classroom.
To improve grammar teaching, three suggestions are presented. First, teaching needs to be
informed by descriptions of grammar which accurately reflect authentic language and show how
grammar is a resource for making and exchanging meanings in context. Second, grammar teaching
needs to be integrated into the teaching of speaking, listening, writing, and reading skills. In other
words, grammar should be seen as facilitating communication in all modes, not as an isolated area of
study exemplified by “the grammar lesson.” Third, grammar needs to be taught through engaging
learners in meaningful and motivating activities.

Keywords: grammar teaching, functional English grammar, communicative language teaching

Back to the time that we remembered, the teaching of grammar—the teaching

of morphological inflections, function words, and syntactical word orders—was a
central concern in English language teaching. In fact, what we meant to teach
grammar, traditionally, had often been synonymous with foreign language
teaching, especially during the days of grammar-translation approach. In this
approach, as the name suggests, the primary aim of teaching was a thorough
knowledge of the foreign language grammar. Hence, under the influence of this kind
of teaching style, language teachers are commonly regarded as the “knowledge
-imparting” dispensers, because their teaching hours are mostly spent in explaining
grammatical rules or conducting activities for students to produce sentences
containing the targeted structures. Students are considered to be the passive
“knowledge-receiving” collectors, because their learning hours are spent in practicing
patterns, memorizing grammatical rules and vocabulary as well as translation
exercises (Yang, 1992).

1
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

Since learning a foreign language is almost equated with memorizing a myriad

of grammatical rules and patterns drill, the learning process is no more than dull and
bring and the learning results are far from being successful at all. One of the serious
setbacks is students’ communicative competence. It’s not uncommon to find that
students are frequently unable to use a given grammatical point correctly in
spontaneous utterances even after repeated explanation, drill, and apparent mastery
as demonstrated on tests. Still worse, with the advent of what has come to be known
as the communicative approach, language teachers are misled to believe that paying
attention to grammar actively would impede the effort to achieve communicative
competence, because the learner’s attention is deflected from the expression of
meaning, which is the point of communication, to the consideration of form, which is
not. It’s the first time in centuries that the centrality of grammar either as content
for language teaching or as the organizing principle for curriculum or materials
development is challenged. Such a challenge is getting sharper and sharper, especially
since the mid-1970s (Celce-Murcia, 1991).
Starting from the mid-1970s, the notion that language should be treated as an
instrument of communication instead of as a linguistic knowledge has been sharply
brought into focus. Those who have applied this-philosophy to language teaching (e.g.,
Holiday, 1973; Wilkins, 1976), claim that communication is the goal of second or
foreign language instruction. Thus, the syllabus of a language course should not be
organized around grammar, but around subject matter, tasks/projects, or semantic
notions, and/or pragmatic functions. In other words, language instruction should be
content-based, meaningful, conceptualized, and discourse-based. The teacher’s role is
primarily to facilitate language use and communication. As for grammar instruction,
there is little or no place in a communicative classroom. Supporters believe that
students could simply absorb all the grammar they need from communicative
activities. Also, if students want to acquire more grammar, they could easily learn it
on their own through homework or reference books.
Unfortunately, existing research, which is not conclusive, strongly suggests that
some focus on “form” may well be necessary for many learners to achieve accuracy
as well as fluency in their acquisition of a second or foreign language (Long, 1983;
Rutherford and Smith, (1988). Indeed as Richards (1985) points out that there is no
actuarial empirical evidence that proves “communicative” language classroom,

2
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

especially those that preclude any learner focus on form, can produce better
language learners than do more traditional classrooms. Moreover, researchers like
Higgs and Clifford (1982) claim that the grammarless communicative approach may
lead to the development of a broken, ungrammatical, pidgin zed form of the target
language beyond which students can never really progress. Such students are said to
have “fossilized” in their acquisition of the language. Thus, it’s clear that grammar
instruction shouldn’t be dismissed altogether.
It seems that we as language teachers are confronted with a paradox:
grammatical competence must be an integral part of communicative competence, but
learning grammar doesn’t seem to help students achieve either. Of course, no one
argues that grammatical competence is irrelevant; the controversy is rather about how
or even whether teaching can promote it. Obviously, language teachers today can be
roughly split into two groups—those who believe that the grammarless
communicative approach and those who believe that the grammar-integrated
communicative approach. Supporters of the grammarless communicative approach
propose that all grammar instruction be excluded from the classroom since they feel
that it does not facilitate language acquisition; at best it merely helps learners to
monitor or become aware of the forms they use. Any grammatical errors produced by
the learners will gradually self-correct as learners axe exposed to even more complex,
rich, and meaningful input in the target language (Krashen and Terrell, 1983). On the
other hand, practitioners of the grammar-integrated communicative approach insist
that explicit grammar instruction is not only necessary but also helpful to make
language input more comprehensible as well as to facilitate language proficiency
level and accuracy (Omaggio, 1986; Pienemann, 1984; Pica, 1983). Although each
camp has its theoretical claims, no empirical research has been widely accepted as
supporting or refuting either. As a English language teachers at a military academy, I
agree that grammar should be integrated in the communicative classroom.

Strategies for Grammar Instruction

As indicated by Celce-Murcia (l985), there are several guidelines that can assist
teachers in deciding to what degree they ought to deal with grammar in their own
classes.

3
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

Among the many factors that can influence teachers’ teaching styles and
syllabus design, the most important one is students’ language proficiency level. If
students are beginners, there is little justification in focusing on form, beyond
presenting and practicing the obvious form-meaning correspondences in context.
However, if students are at the intermediate or advanced level, it may well be
necessary for the teacher to provide some form-related feedback and correction in
order for the students to progress.
As for the beginners, teachers select the most basic rules of English grammar
and teach only what is easily learnable as well as with high frequency value. The
patterns suggested to be suitable for students at the beginning level include: basic
sentence structures (e.g. declarative, Wh-questions, and tag-questions); adverb and
adjective; prepositions (in, on, at), pronouns, verb tenses (present/past) and aspect
(present perfect/present progressive), coordination (or, and), subordination (because,
if), modal auxiliaries (can, may, must, will, and would), and phrasal verbs.
On the other hand, for the intermediate level, teachers should provide students
with increased exposure to input that displays the use of the grammatical features in
diverse settings. They also provide students with multiple opportunities to use the
specific features. The grammatical patterns presented at this level are basically similar
to those presented to the students at the beginning level. In addition, the following
patterns should also be included: passives, relative clauses, causatives, conditional
clauses, and subject/verb agreement.
Finally, for the students at the advanced level, teachers should not only review
those specific grammatical features that students lack , but also introduce more
specific grammatical detai1 to help students increase their communicative
effectiveness. Hence, grammar instruction becomes more individualized and more
academically content-oriented. Although the same grammatical features that were
presented to intermediate students are presented to advanced students, more
information is provided about these features, and they are presented in ways that
require more sophisticated use of English. Also, other additional grammatical features
are presented such as parallel structures, cohesive markers, troublesome verb forms,
and adjective formed from-ing or -ed/-en participle.
The following is a chart that demonstrates to what extent does language teacher
provide students with grammatical features in the classroom.

4
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

1. Introduce the position of adjective

(a) Most adjectives are used in 2 ways in English:

- before a noun; He is an old man.
- after be, seem, look, feel, smell, taste
The man is old.
The lemon is sour.
Beginning (b) We can use a few adjectives on their own after "the" to refer to
"the group as a whole.''
The rich should pay more tax than the poor.
= Rich people should pay more tax than poor people.
(c) Comparison of adjective
- common comparative and superlative forms
- use more/the most with all three-syllabus adj..

(a) Some adjectives before and after nouns may change its meaning.
The elect body meets once a year.
(before the noun= specially chosen)
The president elect takes over in May.
(after the noun- who has been elected)
Intermediate (b) confused adjectives
e.g. further/farther; older/elder
(c) Irregular comparisons
good/well better the best
bad worse the worst
little less the least

(a) adjectives ending in "-ed" and "-ing"—We use"-ed" endings to

describe people; use "-ing" endings to describe thing or events
John was interested in the story.
Advanced The story was interesting.

Compare:
Gloria was interesting to be with.
Gloria was interested in the story.

Learning styles are the general approaches students use to learn a new language.
These are the styles they employ in learning many other subjects and solving various
problems. Therefore, students' learning style is also an important factor to influence
the need to focus on form. A sensible, observant ESL teacher knows that individuals
learn in different ways, which would strongly reflect how they learn as well as how
much they are successful in the language classroom. Some students, consciously or

5
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

unconsciously, have an analytical style and learn best by formulating and testing rules.
For this kind of analytical students, they tend to concentrate on contrastive analysis
between languages, on rule-learning, and on dissecting words and sentences; but they
often avoid more free-flowing communicative activities. On the other hand, other
students have a more global, holistic learning style and learn best by social interaction,
experiencing, and understanding relevant data, etc. Unlike analytical students, global
students find it hard to cope with what seems to them to be grammatical minutiae,
such as anglicizing words, sentences, and rules.
In second/foreign -language acquisition, these two types of students might be
designated as “rule learners” and “data gathers” (Hatch, et al., 1985, p. 44).
Apparently, students with different learning styles will benefit from the different
instructional approaches applied by the language teachers. In fact, it seems, then, if
language teachers adopt a methodology which favors either a holistic or an analytical
approach, the odds are that they’l1 not be equally effective with all of their students.
Language teachers should be very sensitive to vary their grammatical instruction in
order to accommodate all learning styles.
Learners’ needs is also an important factor to consider. What does the students”
need to be able to do in the target language? If the students’ immediate goal is
survival communication, formal accuracy is of marginal value; in contrast, if students’
need is to use language to function in academic settings and professional. situations, a
high degree of formal accuracy is essential. Considering the learning need for the
majority of students in technical colleges and universities in Taiwan, it seems that the
abilities of survival and vocational communication are more important and urgent
than those of academic, professional communication. Teachers should be sensible and
skillful enough to balance grammar instruction and students' learning needs in the
language classroom.
Finally, the instructionally objectives is another important factor to change the
need to focus on form. A teacher who is teaching a receptive skill ( such as listening
or reading ) may feel it is distracting and irrelevant to emphasize grammar unduly
since these receptive skills require competence primarily in the area of word
recognition and semantic processing. Although listening and reading may involve
some focus on form (e.g. Better understanding and awareness of logical connectors
can enhance both reading and listening comprehension. Teacher easily downplays the

6
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

role of grammar during the teaching process. However, if the teacher is focusing on
productive skills ( e.g. speaking and, in particular, writing ), formal accuracy can
become an important concern because rules of pedagogical grammar are essentially
rules of production.

Based on the four factors discussed above, it seems somewhat complicated but
not impossible for language teachers to decide the degree to which it is appropriate to
focus on form with a given group of students. A grid such as the following may be a
useful visual aid to help teachers make a correct decision.

Factors Less Important Focus on Form More Important

1. Proficiency level beginning intermediate advanced
2. Learning style global-centered analytical- centered analytical centered
3. Learning need survival vocational Academic/
communication communication professional
communication
4. Instructional listening, reading speaking Writing
objectives

The more factors the teacher identifies on the left side of the grid, the less
important it is to focus on form; the more factors the teacher identifies on the right,
the more important the grammatical focus. Such a grid helps the teacher decide, for
example, when teaching beginning-level students who are in need of survival
communication and are studying reading skill, the focus on form is not a top priority.
On the contrary, when teaching intermediate students who are analytical-centered and
are studying reading and speaking, some focus on form is essential if the teacher
wants to help students successfully meet their language achievement. Even though
students may be, more on the left hand side of the chart, it doesn’t' t mean that
grammar instruction can be ignored. Rather, the teachers should continue to teach
grammar, but it should take a secondary place to communicative competence.

Semantica Grammar Teaching

As the concept that language should be treated as a means to communicate with

rather than as a knowledge to study with is getting popular and widely accepted, it has

7
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

become increasingly clear that grammar is only a tool or a source to be used to

facilitate language comprehension and creation of oral and written discourse. When
learned as a decontextualized sentence-level system, grammar is not very useful to
learn as they listen, read, speak, and write in their foreign language. But, how to
introduce grammar to students so that they will not get bored is a great challenge for
language teachers. When presenting grammatical rules, there are several ways that
language teachers can choose from. For example, some teachers may prefer to teach
specific grammatical features by means of contextualized communicative activities,
while others may choose to present rules by means of explicit, deductive/implicit,
inductive instruction, or perhaps, the combination of either means mentioned before.

Contextualized Communicative Activities

Strongly influenced by the concept of communicative language teaching,

grammar is now viewed as but one component in the development of communicative
competence, and thus it should be taught with reference to meaning, social factors, or
discourse factors. Activities which can provide students with exposure to grammatical
structures in the context of meaningful communication are what is meant by
contextualized communicative activities.
In order to facilitate students’ comprehensible input and motivation, language
teachers’ instructional technique should be varied according to the function of the
specific grammatical features. For instance, if one is teaching modals of requests, the
degree of politeness, tag questions, etc., the most useful. techniques are dramatization
and other dynamic, interactional techniques that would allow students to make the
connection between structure and social function. On the other hand, while teaching
quantifiers, locative preposition, or medals of logical probability, the most useful
activities may be demonstration, illustration, and TPR ( Total. Physical Response ).
These techniques allow the teacher to focus on contrasts, semantic systems such as
sets of scales, of certain operations such as negation or inversion. Although these
activities are static rather than role-play or dramatization, they do help students match
linguistic form with semantic variables.

8
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

Explicit, deductive instruction

Both research and teaching experience tell us that many students benefit from
explicit, deductive instruction. In such instruction, grammatical rules are made salient
through teacher-directed instruction. Unlike the traditional grammar-translation
teaching, which emphasizes discrete grammatical points with lengthy grammatical
explanations and decontextualized grammar exercises, language teacher helps
students become aware of particular linguistic features by presenting explicit
grammatical rules.

Implicit, inductive instruction

Although many students prefer deductive learning, many others may like
inductive one. In inductive learning, students are asked to discover grammatical rules
by themselves. They are given input and asked to make sense of it by discovering the
rule. Since there is little research that suggests whether deductive or inductive is
inherently better, it is best for language teachers to provide students with both
inductive or deductive types of grammatical instruction to accommodate individual
students' learning styles and learning needs.
Since mingling with the fact that the majority of cadets' language proficiency
level is rather low and their learning need is to satisfy their survival and vocational
communication, I suggest that the best way to conduct a grammar lesson will be that
teacher presents grammatical features either explicitly or implicitly first, and later
design a contextualized communicative activity for students to practice them in a
functional situation. Even though students language proficiency level is low, language
teacher still need to conduct grammar lesson for students to build up their language
ability and to use it as a source to express their thought more rneaningful and accurate.
However, unlike the traditional grammar-translation instruction, this kind of grammar
lesson has to be presented in a sequential and meaningful way so that students can
efficiently develop their communicative competence.

9
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

Conclusion

In the past, teaching grammar had been central to and often synonymous with
teaching foreign language for the past 2500 years ( Rutherford, 1987 ). However, with
the advent of communicative language teaching, the necessity of grammar instruction
has become the center of an ongoing debate. The role of grammar instruction in the
classroom had moved from a position of central importance to that of an “outcast,”
and is now being brought back into the classroom to aid students’ communicative
competence. In fact, in any case, it’s clear that on one should dismiss grammar
instruction altogether, because there is no empirical evidence that to do so is
ultimately more beneficial to foreign language learning. Instead, by forcing students
into communication tasks beyond their grammatical competence would encourage
pidginization and premature fossilization in the process of second/foreign language
acquisition.
To conclude, grammar instruction is necessary, especially for the students in
technical colleges and universities in Taiwan even in the communicative language
classroom.

Suggestions Grammar Teaching

As indicated in the results of related literature, grammar teaching is now

very much on its way back into favor. However, it is important that there
should not be a return to some of the practices of the past, which could lead
to grammar teaching being again discredited. To avoid this, a number of
things have to happen.
First, teaching needs to be informed by descriptions of grammar which
accurately reflect authentic language and show how grammar is a resource for making
and exchanging meanings in context. This means that many of the rules of grammar
still found in some of the textbooks used by teachers and learners will need to be
jettisoned or radically revised, and that information from recent advances in text
linguistics and functional linguistics needs to be more widely available and accessible
to teachers.
Second, grammar teaching needs to be integrated into the teaching of speaking,

10
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

listening, writing, and reading skills. In other words, grammar should be seen as
facilitating communication in all modes, not as an isolated area of study exemplified
by “the grammar lesson.”
Third, grammar needs to be taught through engaging learners in meaningful and
motivating activities.

11
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

References

Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Burgess, J. (1994). Ideational frameworks in integrated language learning. System 22,
3: 309-318.
Bygate, M., A. Tonkyn, and E. Williams (eds.). (1994). Grammar and the language
teacher. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1985). Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in
language teaching. TESOL Newsletter, PP1,4-5
Celce-Murcia. (1991).Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), pp.459 479.
Celce-Murcia, M., and S. Hillies. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching
grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., and D. Larsen-Freeman. (1983). The grammar book: An ESL/EIF
teacher’s course. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Cokewood, Daniel Bernard. (1980). A Comparison of the Effectiveness of
Computer-Assisted Instruction and Programmed Instruction in improving
Problem-Solving in College Level Basic Electronics. EdD dissertation, Rutgers
University.
Collins. 1990. COBCIILD English Grammar. London and Glasgow: Collins.
Collins. 1987. COBCIILD English Language Dictionary. London and Glasgow:
Collins.
Cordry, Beverly. (1970). An experimental study comparing two methods of teaching
remedial English. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Cram, David. (1961). Explaining "Teaching Machines" and programming. San
Francisco, Fearon Publishers, Inc.
Dcnce, Marie. (1980). Toward defining the role of CAI: A review. Educational
Technology, November, pp. 50-54.
Dirven, R. (1990). Pedagogical grammar (state of the art article). Language Teaching
23: 1-18.

12
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

Eckman, F., L. Bell, and D. Nelson. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause
construction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied
Linguistics 9: 1-20.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL
Quarterly 27, 1: 91-113.
Espich, James E., and Bill Williams. (1967). Developing programmed instructional
materials. Pale Alto, California: Fearon Publishers.
Fader, Daniel N., and Morton H. Shaevitz. (1967). Hooked on Books. New York:
Berkley Medallion Books.
Finn, Jeremy D. (1974). A General Model for Multivariate Analysis. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Fotos, S., and R. Ellis. (1991). Communication about grammar: A task-based
approach. TESOL Quarterly 25(4), 605-628.
Fox, David J. (1969). The Research Process in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc.
Frank, C., and M. Rinvolucri. (1987). Grammar in Action Again: Awareness Activities
for Language Learning. London: Prentice Hall.
Hatch, E., et al. (1985). What case studies reveal about system sequence and variation
in second language acquisition. In Beyond Basics, edited by M. Celce-Murcia,
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to functional grammar. (2nd ed.). London:
Edward Arnold.
Higgs, T.V., and R. Clifford. (1982). The push toward communication. In Curriculum,
Competence, and the Foreign Language Teacher, edited by TV. Higgs,
Lincolnword, IL: National Textbook Co.
Hughes, J. (1976). An Experimental Study in Teaching Mathematical Concepts
Utilizing Computer-Assisted Instruction in Business Machines. Doctoral
dissertation, North Texas State University.

13
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

Hulbert, Jack E. (1980). "Basic Communication Competencies: Section A: Writing" in

The Changing Office Environment. Reston, Virginia: National Business
Education Association.
Ivarie, Theodore. (1968). An Experiment to Determine the Effectiveness of Teaching
Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization by Programmed Instruction to
Collegiate Business Communications Students. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona
State University.
Kerlinger, N., and Elazar J. P. (1973). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. New York: McGraw Hill.
Kulik, James, Chen-Lin Kulik, and Peter Cohen. (Winter, 1980). Effectiveness of
Computer-Based College Teaching: A Meta-Analysis of Findings. Review of
Educational Research, 50, 525-544.
Lewis, P. (December,1979). Needed Research in Business Communications. Journal
of Business Education, 55, 127-129.
Lindquist, E F. (1953). Design and Analysis of Experiments in Psychology and
Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Littlewood, W. (1985). Learning grammar. Institute of language in Education Journal
I, 1: 40-48.
Lock, G. (1995). Doers and causers. In M. C. Pennington (ed.), New Ways in
Teaching Grammar. Alexandria, Va: TESOL, pp. 129133.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of
research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.
McKay, S. L. (1987). Teaching Grammar. Form, Function, and Technique. London:
Prentice Hall.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Omaggio, A. (1986). Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction.
Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Pennington, M. C. (ed.). (1995). New ways in teaching grammar. Alexandria, Va.:
TESOL.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachnbility of languages.
Studies in Second Language Aquisition, 6(2), 86-213.

14
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different

conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33(4), 465-497.
Richard, J.C. (1985). The context of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richard, J.C. (1996). Functional English grammar: An introduction for second
language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rinvolucri, M. (1984). Grammar games: Cognitive, affective and drama activities for
EFL students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rutherford, W.E. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. New
York: Longman.
Rutherford, W.E. and Sharwood, Smith. (1988). Grammar and second language
teaching. New York: Newbury House.
Sasscer, Monica F. (1978). 1976-77 TICCIT Project. Final Report. U.S., Educational
Resources Information Center, ERIC document ED 148 430.
Schlattman, Ronald D. (1976). "The Effectiveness of Programmed English Usage on
the Achievement of College Students Enrolled in Business Communications."
EdD dissertation, University of Montana,.
Shaw, Marvin, and Jack M. Wright. (1967). Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Tesch, Robert C., Sr. (Fall, 1979). "An Analysis of Three Instructional Strategies Used
in Teaching Business Communication Grammar and Usage." Journal of
Business Communication, 17, 53-59.
Tesch, Robert C., Sr. (1980). "Content of the Business Communications Course As
Perceived by Instructors of Accounting, Management, Marketing, and Finance,
NRBTE Review, No. 7.
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar Practice Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, Jane F., and Patty G. Campbell. (1981). Abstracts of Studies in Business
Communications. Urbana, Illinois: The American Business Communications
Association.
Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

15
2007 年健康與管理學術研討會

Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yang, Nae-Dong. (1992). Second language learners' beliefs about language learning
and their use of learning strategies: A study of college students of English in
Taiwan. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, the University of Texas at Austin.

16