Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 324
https://doi.org/10.69639/arandu.v12i1.603
The Role of Grammar to Enhance Accuracy and Fluency in
EFL Teaching
El papel de la gramática para mejorar la precisión y la fluidez en la enseñanza de inglés como
lengua extranjera
Josceline Michell Pereira Loor
jpereiral@unemi.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5423-0307
Universidad Estatal de Milagro
Milagro Ecuador
Ninfa Sofia Guevara Peñaranda
nguevarap@unemi.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6638-8851
Universidad Estatal de Milagro
Milagro, Ecuador
Artículo recibido: 20 diciembre 2024 - Aceptado para publicación: 26 enero 2025
Conflictos de intereses: Ninguno que declarar
ABSTRACT
The study examines the impact of explicit grammar instruction on enhancing both accuracy and
fluency in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in Ecuador. Despite national educational
efforts, English proficiency in Ecuador remains low, particularly in productive skills like speaking
and writing. The study argues that explicit grammar teaching and communicative practice are
necessary for improving these skills. Using a mixed-methods approach, 50 undergraduate
students participated in grammar instruction over 14 weeks. Results showed significant
improvements in grammatical accuracy, such as reduced errors related to verb conjugation,
articles, and sentence structuring. Fluency also increased, with more coherent and natural written
production. These findings suggest that grammar teaching integrated with real-life
communication enhances both accuracy and fluency. The study recommends continued use of
this integrated approach for improving EFL proficiency and calls for further research with larger
samples and over extended periods.
Keywords: EFL, grammar instruction, accuracy, fluency, explicit grammar teaching
RESUMEN
El estudio examina el impacto de la instrucción explícita de gramática en la mejora tanto de la
precisión como de la fluidez en los estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL) en
Ecuador. A pesar de los esfuerzos educativos nacionales, la competencia en inglés en Ecuador
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 325
sigue siendo baja, particularmente en habilidades productivas como la expresión oral y escrita. El
estudio sostiene que una combinación de enseñanza explícita de gramática y práctica
comunicativa es necesaria para mejorar estas habilidades. Utilizando un enfoque de métodos
mixtos, 50 estudiantes universitarios participaron en una instrucción gramatical durante un
período de 14 semanas. Los resultados mostraron mejoras significativas en la precisión
gramatical, como una reducción en los errores relacionados con la conjugación de verbos, los
artículos y la estructura de oraciones. La fluidez también aumentó, con una producción escrita
más coherente y natural. Estos hallazgos sugieren que la enseñanza de gramática integrada con la
comunicación en contextos reales mejora tanto la precisión como la fluidez. El estudio
recomienda continuar con el uso de este enfoque integrado para mejorar la competencia en EFL
y solicita investigaciones adicionales con muestras más grandes y en períodos más prolongados.
Palabras clave: EFL, instrucción gramatical, precisión, fluidez, enseñanza explícita de
gramática
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
sigue siendo baja, particularmente en habilidades productivas como la expresión oral y escrita. El
estudio sostiene que una combinación de enseñanza explícita de gramática y práctica
comunicativa es necesaria para mejorar estas habilidades. Utilizando un enfoque de métodos
mixtos, 50 estudiantes universitarios participaron en una instrucción gramatical durante un
período de 14 semanas. Los resultados mostraron mejoras significativas en la precisión
gramatical, como una reducción en los errores relacionados con la conjugación de verbos, los
artículos y la estructura de oraciones. La fluidez también aumentó, con una producción escrita
más coherente y natural. Estos hallazgos sugieren que la enseñanza de gramática integrada con la
comunicación en contextos reales mejora tanto la precisión como la fluidez. El estudio
recomienda continuar con el uso de este enfoque integrado para mejorar la competencia en EFL
y solicita investigaciones adicionales con muestras más grandes y en períodos más prolongados.
Palabras clave: EFL, instrucción gramatical, precisión, fluidez, enseñanza explícita de
gramática
Todo el contenido de la Revista Científica Internacional Arandu UTIC publicado en este sitio está disponible bajo
licencia Creative Commons Atribution 4.0 International.
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 326
INTRODUCTION
The current state of English proficiency in Ecuador reveals a significant gap in language
competence among EFL students. Despite efforts to improve language skills among the
population, Ecuador still needs to work on achieving high levels of English fluency. According
to the English Proficiency Index (EF EPI, 2023), Ecuador ranks among the countries with low
English proficiency, with most students demonstrating only basic communication skills. This
situation has been attributed to various factors, including the educational methods employed and
the quality of English instruction in the country.
In Ecuador, English language proficiency is typically evaluated using standardized tests
aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). These
assessments measure students’ abilities across various language skills, including reading, writing,
speaking, and listening. However, results from these evaluations often reveal a considerable
deficit in both accuracy and fluency, particularly in productive skills such as speaking and writing.
The ongoing struggle to improve English proficiency in Ecuador emphasizes a key question: Are
we focusing enough on the fundamentals of language learning, particularly grammar, to enhance
students’ communicative competence?
The Ecuadorian Ministry of Education has implemented Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL), which integrates language learning with subject matter instruction, and it has
been recognized for its potential to make language learning more relevant and engaging as
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which focuses on developing practical
communication skills through real-life interactions and learner-centered activities. However,
despite their theoretical advantages, applying both methodologies has not yet to produce
the expected improvements in English proficiency.
Recent studies and evaluations suggest that students still need help with fundamental
aspects of the language, particularly grammar, which is fundamental for achieving accuracy and
fluency in communication. This study explores how effective grammar instruction can enhance
the accuracy and fluency of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Ecuador. By mixing
explicit grammar teaching methods with communicative practice, the study seeks to demonstrate
that a solid grammatical foundation is essential for improving students’ communicative abilities.
Literature Review
Grammar teaching is a core but complicated aspect of foreign language instruction (Ellis
et al., 2002). While curricula have traditionally focused on meaning-based communicative
approaches, research indicates that explicit grammar teaching also plays an essential role in
developing student proficiency (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). This literature review aims to analyze
the role of grammar instruction in enhancing accuracy and fluency in English as a foreign
language (EFL). It will discuss different approaches to teaching grammar and examine empirical
INTRODUCTION
The current state of English proficiency in Ecuador reveals a significant gap in language
competence among EFL students. Despite efforts to improve language skills among the
population, Ecuador still needs to work on achieving high levels of English fluency. According
to the English Proficiency Index (EF EPI, 2023), Ecuador ranks among the countries with low
English proficiency, with most students demonstrating only basic communication skills. This
situation has been attributed to various factors, including the educational methods employed and
the quality of English instruction in the country.
In Ecuador, English language proficiency is typically evaluated using standardized tests
aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). These
assessments measure students’ abilities across various language skills, including reading, writing,
speaking, and listening. However, results from these evaluations often reveal a considerable
deficit in both accuracy and fluency, particularly in productive skills such as speaking and writing.
The ongoing struggle to improve English proficiency in Ecuador emphasizes a key question: Are
we focusing enough on the fundamentals of language learning, particularly grammar, to enhance
students’ communicative competence?
The Ecuadorian Ministry of Education has implemented Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL), which integrates language learning with subject matter instruction, and it has
been recognized for its potential to make language learning more relevant and engaging as
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which focuses on developing practical
communication skills through real-life interactions and learner-centered activities. However,
despite their theoretical advantages, applying both methodologies has not yet to produce
the expected improvements in English proficiency.
Recent studies and evaluations suggest that students still need help with fundamental
aspects of the language, particularly grammar, which is fundamental for achieving accuracy and
fluency in communication. This study explores how effective grammar instruction can enhance
the accuracy and fluency of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Ecuador. By mixing
explicit grammar teaching methods with communicative practice, the study seeks to demonstrate
that a solid grammatical foundation is essential for improving students’ communicative abilities.
Literature Review
Grammar teaching is a core but complicated aspect of foreign language instruction (Ellis
et al., 2002). While curricula have traditionally focused on meaning-based communicative
approaches, research indicates that explicit grammar teaching also plays an essential role in
developing student proficiency (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). This literature review aims to analyze
the role of grammar instruction in enhancing accuracy and fluency in English as a foreign
language (EFL). It will discuss different approaches to teaching grammar and examine empirical
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 327
evidence of their effectiveness. The review also explores the relationship between grammar and
language acquisition and best practices for teaching grammar.
Definition of Grammar
Grammar, within the context of foreign language teaching, refers to the set of rules that
govern the structure of sentences in a language, and its instruction is a key to developing students’
linguistic competence. According to Chomsky (1986), grammar is the underlying system that
defines how sentences are built in a language, allowing native and non-native speakers to produce
and comprehend linguistic structures coherently. In English as a Foreign Language teaching,
grammatical knowledge provides students with the necessary tools to construct effective and
correct sentences, enhancing their ability to communicate accurately and fluently. Grammar
instruction has traditionally been a core part of the EFL curriculum, although its focus and
teaching methods have evolved.
Historical Perspectives on Grammar Instruction
Grammar has historically been a fundamental component of language teaching. During the
Grammar-Translation era, grammar was the primary focus, aimed at fostering reading and writing
skills. However, with the appearance of the Direct Method and later the Communicative Language
Teaching approach, the emphasis changed towards communication over grammatical accuracy.
Despite this change, recent research has re-emphasized the importance of integrating grammar
instruction within communicative language teaching. (Tsulaia, 2022).
Definition of Accuracy and Fluency
In language teaching, accuracy and fluency are fundamental for assessing students’
linguistic proficiency. Ellis (2006) defines accuracy as grammatical correctness and adherence to
language rules, implying that the speaker consistently uses grammatical structures correctly.
Accuracy is particularly important in academic and professional contexts, where exactness in
communication is a determinant. On the other hand, fluency, according to Skehan (2009), refers
to the ability to produce language continuously and without excessive hesitation, enabling the
speaker to communicate effectively and naturally. Fluency is essential in communicative
situations where speed and ease of expression are valued more than grammatical correctness. In
the context of EFL, instruction should aim to balance these two aspects, as both are important for
students’ overall communicative competence.
Grammar Teaching Methods
Grammar teaching has been debated in foreign language education, with various
approaches and methods emerging over the years. Traditional grammar, often associated with the
grammar- translation method, focuses on memorizing grammatical rules and structures, allowing
students to learn the language systematically (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). However, this approach
has been criticized for needing more connection to the practical use of language in real
communicative situations. In contrast, the communicative approach, developed in recent decades,
evidence of their effectiveness. The review also explores the relationship between grammar and
language acquisition and best practices for teaching grammar.
Definition of Grammar
Grammar, within the context of foreign language teaching, refers to the set of rules that
govern the structure of sentences in a language, and its instruction is a key to developing students’
linguistic competence. According to Chomsky (1986), grammar is the underlying system that
defines how sentences are built in a language, allowing native and non-native speakers to produce
and comprehend linguistic structures coherently. In English as a Foreign Language teaching,
grammatical knowledge provides students with the necessary tools to construct effective and
correct sentences, enhancing their ability to communicate accurately and fluently. Grammar
instruction has traditionally been a core part of the EFL curriculum, although its focus and
teaching methods have evolved.
Historical Perspectives on Grammar Instruction
Grammar has historically been a fundamental component of language teaching. During the
Grammar-Translation era, grammar was the primary focus, aimed at fostering reading and writing
skills. However, with the appearance of the Direct Method and later the Communicative Language
Teaching approach, the emphasis changed towards communication over grammatical accuracy.
Despite this change, recent research has re-emphasized the importance of integrating grammar
instruction within communicative language teaching. (Tsulaia, 2022).
Definition of Accuracy and Fluency
In language teaching, accuracy and fluency are fundamental for assessing students’
linguistic proficiency. Ellis (2006) defines accuracy as grammatical correctness and adherence to
language rules, implying that the speaker consistently uses grammatical structures correctly.
Accuracy is particularly important in academic and professional contexts, where exactness in
communication is a determinant. On the other hand, fluency, according to Skehan (2009), refers
to the ability to produce language continuously and without excessive hesitation, enabling the
speaker to communicate effectively and naturally. Fluency is essential in communicative
situations where speed and ease of expression are valued more than grammatical correctness. In
the context of EFL, instruction should aim to balance these two aspects, as both are important for
students’ overall communicative competence.
Grammar Teaching Methods
Grammar teaching has been debated in foreign language education, with various
approaches and methods emerging over the years. Traditional grammar, often associated with the
grammar- translation method, focuses on memorizing grammatical rules and structures, allowing
students to learn the language systematically (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). However, this approach
has been criticized for needing more connection to the practical use of language in real
communicative situations. In contrast, the communicative approach, developed in recent decades,
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 328
prioritizes the practical use of grammar within real communicative situations (Richards &
Rodgers, 2014). This approach suggests that grammar should be taught in context, allowing
students to see how grammatical structures are used in everyday language practice. Despite these
differences, both approaches agree on the importance of grammar for language acquisition,
although they differ in how and when it should be taught.
Deductive vs. Inductive Approach in Grammar Teaching
The debate between the deductive and inductive approaches in grammar teaching has been
a central issue in language pedagogy. Traditionally used in grammar teaching, the deductive
approach presents grammatical rules before students apply them in exercises or language
production (Thornbury, 1999). This method is efficient regarding time and provides a clear
structure for students. However, it has yet to be disapproved for its theoretical focus, which may
be disconnected from actual communicative practice. Otherwise, the inductive approach allows
students to discover grammatical rules from specific examples, promoting more active and
participatory learning (Hedge, 2000). This approach is based on observation and inference, where
students deduce the rules from their experience with the language, which can lead to more
profound and more lasting learning. Although both approaches have pros and cons, the choice
between one or the other often depends on the educational context and the specific needs of the
students.
The role of grammar in language competence
The significance of grammar in developing both accuracy and fluency in language learning
can not be overstated. Grammar instruction provides a foundation for constructing correct
sentences and understanding the variation of meanings in communication. The integration of
grammar within communicative competence frameworks ensures that learners balance fluency
and accuracy, which is crucial for effective communication in the EFL context (Tsulaia, 2022).
Research highlights the role of grammar in developing the four macro language skills:
listening, speaking, reading and writing. Without a strong grammatical foundation, learners may
face difficulties in comprehending and producing language accurately, leading to potential
fossilization of errors (Sugiharto, 2005). Additionally, grammar instruction supports learners in
achieving greater syntactic accuracy, which is essential for academic success and effective
communication (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Recent studies have shown that the inclusion of self-
evaluation, teacher support, and L2 determination can significantly enhance the effectiveness of
grammar instruction in EFL contexts. These factors contribute to learners’ overall language
development, including their grammatical accuracy and fluency.
Role of Grammar in Language Acquisition
Second language acquisition research indicates some irregular structures can not be
subconsciously acquired from input alone (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Explicit instruction plays a
role in internalizing these complex forms. Metalinguistic awareness developed through conscious
prioritizes the practical use of grammar within real communicative situations (Richards &
Rodgers, 2014). This approach suggests that grammar should be taught in context, allowing
students to see how grammatical structures are used in everyday language practice. Despite these
differences, both approaches agree on the importance of grammar for language acquisition,
although they differ in how and when it should be taught.
Deductive vs. Inductive Approach in Grammar Teaching
The debate between the deductive and inductive approaches in grammar teaching has been
a central issue in language pedagogy. Traditionally used in grammar teaching, the deductive
approach presents grammatical rules before students apply them in exercises or language
production (Thornbury, 1999). This method is efficient regarding time and provides a clear
structure for students. However, it has yet to be disapproved for its theoretical focus, which may
be disconnected from actual communicative practice. Otherwise, the inductive approach allows
students to discover grammatical rules from specific examples, promoting more active and
participatory learning (Hedge, 2000). This approach is based on observation and inference, where
students deduce the rules from their experience with the language, which can lead to more
profound and more lasting learning. Although both approaches have pros and cons, the choice
between one or the other often depends on the educational context and the specific needs of the
students.
The role of grammar in language competence
The significance of grammar in developing both accuracy and fluency in language learning
can not be overstated. Grammar instruction provides a foundation for constructing correct
sentences and understanding the variation of meanings in communication. The integration of
grammar within communicative competence frameworks ensures that learners balance fluency
and accuracy, which is crucial for effective communication in the EFL context (Tsulaia, 2022).
Research highlights the role of grammar in developing the four macro language skills:
listening, speaking, reading and writing. Without a strong grammatical foundation, learners may
face difficulties in comprehending and producing language accurately, leading to potential
fossilization of errors (Sugiharto, 2005). Additionally, grammar instruction supports learners in
achieving greater syntactic accuracy, which is essential for academic success and effective
communication (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Recent studies have shown that the inclusion of self-
evaluation, teacher support, and L2 determination can significantly enhance the effectiveness of
grammar instruction in EFL contexts. These factors contribute to learners’ overall language
development, including their grammatical accuracy and fluency.
Role of Grammar in Language Acquisition
Second language acquisition research indicates some irregular structures can not be
subconsciously acquired from input alone (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Explicit instruction plays a
role in internalizing these complex forms. Metalinguistic awareness developed through conscious
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 329
grammar learning also aids important cognitive processes like contrasts between the L1 and L2
(Rutherford, 1987). This evidence supports integrating form-focused instruction for a subset of
grammatical patterns.
Impact of grammar teaching on fluency
The relationship between grammar instruction and fluency in language production has been
a subject of debate among language learning theorists. Krashen (1982), in his affective filter
hypothesis, suggests that excessive grammar teaching can hinder fluency, as students may become
overly conscious of grammatical rules, preventing them from speaking naturally and
spontaneously. According to this theory, fluency develops best in an environment where students
are less focused on grammatical correctness and more on effective communication. However,
other studies suggest that a solid understanding of grammar can facilitate fluency by providing
students with the tools needed to formulate sentences quickly and accurately. This approach
suggests that the key is finding a proper balance between grammatical instruction and
communicative practice.
Grammar Teaching in the Communicative Approach
The communicative approach to language teaching has revolutionized how grammar is
addressed in the classroom. Larsen-Freeman (2003) argues that within this approach, grammar is
not taught in isolation but is integrated into activities that simulate real communicative situations.
This approach allows students to see how grammatical structures function in practice rather than
simply in isolation; a teacher might design an activity where students narrate past events, using
the past simply naturally. This method facilitates the acquisition of grammar and improves
students’ ability to use the language in authentic contexts, enhancing accuracy and fluency.
Use of grammar in oral and written practice
Contextualized grammar practice in both oral and written activities is essential for effective
language acquisition. Harmer (2007) states that students need to see how the grammatical
structures they learn are applied to daily language practice. For instance, writing exercises that
require different verb tenses can help students internalize grammatical rules more effectively than
traditional grammar exercises. Similarly, conversation activities that emphasize the use of specific
grammatical structures can improve both accuracy and fluency in students’ oral production. This
integrative approach not only reinforces the grammar learned but also boosts students’ confidence
in their ability to use the language in real situations.
Case Studies
Case studies have explored how different educational context approaches to grammar
teaching can provide valuable insights into effective practices. Shiman (2024) conducted a
comparative analysis of how schools in Asia and Europe approach grammar teaching, revealing
that cultural and pedagogical expectations play a determining role in how grammar is taught. In
many Asian countries, where accuracy is highly valued, grammar instruction tends to be more
grammar learning also aids important cognitive processes like contrasts between the L1 and L2
(Rutherford, 1987). This evidence supports integrating form-focused instruction for a subset of
grammatical patterns.
Impact of grammar teaching on fluency
The relationship between grammar instruction and fluency in language production has been
a subject of debate among language learning theorists. Krashen (1982), in his affective filter
hypothesis, suggests that excessive grammar teaching can hinder fluency, as students may become
overly conscious of grammatical rules, preventing them from speaking naturally and
spontaneously. According to this theory, fluency develops best in an environment where students
are less focused on grammatical correctness and more on effective communication. However,
other studies suggest that a solid understanding of grammar can facilitate fluency by providing
students with the tools needed to formulate sentences quickly and accurately. This approach
suggests that the key is finding a proper balance between grammatical instruction and
communicative practice.
Grammar Teaching in the Communicative Approach
The communicative approach to language teaching has revolutionized how grammar is
addressed in the classroom. Larsen-Freeman (2003) argues that within this approach, grammar is
not taught in isolation but is integrated into activities that simulate real communicative situations.
This approach allows students to see how grammatical structures function in practice rather than
simply in isolation; a teacher might design an activity where students narrate past events, using
the past simply naturally. This method facilitates the acquisition of grammar and improves
students’ ability to use the language in authentic contexts, enhancing accuracy and fluency.
Use of grammar in oral and written practice
Contextualized grammar practice in both oral and written activities is essential for effective
language acquisition. Harmer (2007) states that students need to see how the grammatical
structures they learn are applied to daily language practice. For instance, writing exercises that
require different verb tenses can help students internalize grammatical rules more effectively than
traditional grammar exercises. Similarly, conversation activities that emphasize the use of specific
grammatical structures can improve both accuracy and fluency in students’ oral production. This
integrative approach not only reinforces the grammar learned but also boosts students’ confidence
in their ability to use the language in real situations.
Case Studies
Case studies have explored how different educational context approaches to grammar
teaching can provide valuable insights into effective practices. Shiman (2024) conducted a
comparative analysis of how schools in Asia and Europe approach grammar teaching, revealing
that cultural and pedagogical expectations play a determining role in how grammar is taught. In
many Asian countries, where accuracy is highly valued, grammar instruction tends to be more
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 330
formal and structured, while in some European countries, where fluency and communication are
emphasized, grammar is taught more integratively and contextually. Their case studies highlight
the importance of adapting grammar teaching practices to the specific cultural and pedagogical
context of students
Challenges in Grammar Teaching in EFL Context
Teaching grammar in EFL context presents numerous challenges, ranging from limited
classroom time to students’ resistance to learning complex grammatical structures. Thornbury
(2005) notes that one of the biggest challenges is the limited time available to adequately cover
both grammar and communicative activities in the classroom. This challenge is particularly
relevant in settings where English is taught as a foreign language, as students often have fewer
opportunities to practice the language outside the classroom. Additionally, grammar is
sometimes perceived as boring or irrelevant, leading to a lack of motivation among students. To
overcome these difficulties, it is essential for teachers to use pedagogical strategies that make
grammar more accessible and relevant to students, integrating it into activities that are both
educational and motivating.
Strategies to Improve Grammar Teaching
To address the challenges mentioned above, pedagogues have developed various strategies
to improve grammar teaching in EFL contexts. Hinkel (2016) suggested that integrating
grammatical tasks into project-based learning is an effective strategy, as it allows students to see
how grammar is applied in real and meaningful contexts. For instance, a project that requires
students to write and present a report on a specific topic could include teaching the grammatical
structures needed to draft formal statements. Additionally, the use of technology in grammar
teaching, such as mobile apps and online learning platforms, can offer students additional
opportunities to practice and reinforce their grammatical skills outside the classroom. These
strategies improve the effectiveness of grammar instruction and empower students’ motivation to
learn.
Consequences of Grammar Teaching for Assessment
Grammar teaching has significant implications for assessing students’ performance in EFL.
Brown (2012) argues that assessment practices should align with grammar teaching, valuing
accuracy and fluency in students’ linguistic productions. This means that exams and assessments
should measure grammatical correctness and students’ ability to use the language fluently and
naturally in communicative contexts. A balanced evaluation might include traditional grammar
tests and oral and written production tasks that evaluate students’ ability to apply grammatical
structures in authentic contexts. This approach ensures that grammar instruction contributes to
students’ comprehensive linguistic competence development.
Curriculum Development
Developing curricula that integrate grammar teaching with communicative activities is
formal and structured, while in some European countries, where fluency and communication are
emphasized, grammar is taught more integratively and contextually. Their case studies highlight
the importance of adapting grammar teaching practices to the specific cultural and pedagogical
context of students
Challenges in Grammar Teaching in EFL Context
Teaching grammar in EFL context presents numerous challenges, ranging from limited
classroom time to students’ resistance to learning complex grammatical structures. Thornbury
(2005) notes that one of the biggest challenges is the limited time available to adequately cover
both grammar and communicative activities in the classroom. This challenge is particularly
relevant in settings where English is taught as a foreign language, as students often have fewer
opportunities to practice the language outside the classroom. Additionally, grammar is
sometimes perceived as boring or irrelevant, leading to a lack of motivation among students. To
overcome these difficulties, it is essential for teachers to use pedagogical strategies that make
grammar more accessible and relevant to students, integrating it into activities that are both
educational and motivating.
Strategies to Improve Grammar Teaching
To address the challenges mentioned above, pedagogues have developed various strategies
to improve grammar teaching in EFL contexts. Hinkel (2016) suggested that integrating
grammatical tasks into project-based learning is an effective strategy, as it allows students to see
how grammar is applied in real and meaningful contexts. For instance, a project that requires
students to write and present a report on a specific topic could include teaching the grammatical
structures needed to draft formal statements. Additionally, the use of technology in grammar
teaching, such as mobile apps and online learning platforms, can offer students additional
opportunities to practice and reinforce their grammatical skills outside the classroom. These
strategies improve the effectiveness of grammar instruction and empower students’ motivation to
learn.
Consequences of Grammar Teaching for Assessment
Grammar teaching has significant implications for assessing students’ performance in EFL.
Brown (2012) argues that assessment practices should align with grammar teaching, valuing
accuracy and fluency in students’ linguistic productions. This means that exams and assessments
should measure grammatical correctness and students’ ability to use the language fluently and
naturally in communicative contexts. A balanced evaluation might include traditional grammar
tests and oral and written production tasks that evaluate students’ ability to apply grammatical
structures in authentic contexts. This approach ensures that grammar instruction contributes to
students’ comprehensive linguistic competence development.
Curriculum Development
Developing curricula that integrate grammar teaching with communicative activities is
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 331
essential for maximizing the effectiveness of EFL learning. According to Richards and Schmidt
(2010), a well-designed curriculum should include a combination of explicit and implicit
grammatical instruction. This might consist of lessons introducing new grammatical structures,
followed by oral and written practice activities that allow students to apply what they have
learned. In addition, curricula should be flexible, allowing adjustments based on students’ needs
and progress. Students can develop accuracy and fluency by integrating grammar into a
communicative approach, essential for mastering the language.
METHODOLOGY
This study employs a mixed methodology with the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness
of explicit grammar instruction in improving accuracy and fluency in learning English as a foreign
language. The study sample consisted of fifty undergraduate students who are in sixth semester
of the Pedagogy for National and Foreign Language career, with a B1 English language
proficiency level according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR)
To measure the relevance of explicit grammar instruction, a previously validated
questionnaire with 20 questions was used. This questionnaire is designed to assess accuracy and
fluency in student’s written production in the context of grammar instruction that combines
communicative practices in real - life scenarios. The study was carried out during an academic
semester, which allowed to apply at the end of the semester a new questionnaire with the same
topics but different exercises to evaluate the understanding and acquisition of learners’
knowledge.
The research aims to provide a deeper understanding of how the combination of explicit
grammar instruction and communicative practices impacts the development of language skills in
English language learning, as well as to offer recommendations for optimizing grammar
instruction in similar educational contexts. For the present study, descriptive statistics have been
used to characterize the study population. Taking as reference the participation of 50 participants,
this, in turn, is distributed as follows. In Figure 1, 70% were female, while 30% were male.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of age of participation, with age with the highest
participation being the age of 19, corresponding to 40%, followed by those who are 20,
representing 50%, and the age with lower participation is 21+, representing 10%
essential for maximizing the effectiveness of EFL learning. According to Richards and Schmidt
(2010), a well-designed curriculum should include a combination of explicit and implicit
grammatical instruction. This might consist of lessons introducing new grammatical structures,
followed by oral and written practice activities that allow students to apply what they have
learned. In addition, curricula should be flexible, allowing adjustments based on students’ needs
and progress. Students can develop accuracy and fluency by integrating grammar into a
communicative approach, essential for mastering the language.
METHODOLOGY
This study employs a mixed methodology with the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness
of explicit grammar instruction in improving accuracy and fluency in learning English as a foreign
language. The study sample consisted of fifty undergraduate students who are in sixth semester
of the Pedagogy for National and Foreign Language career, with a B1 English language
proficiency level according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR)
To measure the relevance of explicit grammar instruction, a previously validated
questionnaire with 20 questions was used. This questionnaire is designed to assess accuracy and
fluency in student’s written production in the context of grammar instruction that combines
communicative practices in real - life scenarios. The study was carried out during an academic
semester, which allowed to apply at the end of the semester a new questionnaire with the same
topics but different exercises to evaluate the understanding and acquisition of learners’
knowledge.
The research aims to provide a deeper understanding of how the combination of explicit
grammar instruction and communicative practices impacts the development of language skills in
English language learning, as well as to offer recommendations for optimizing grammar
instruction in similar educational contexts. For the present study, descriptive statistics have been
used to characterize the study population. Taking as reference the participation of 50 participants,
this, in turn, is distributed as follows. In Figure 1, 70% were female, while 30% were male.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of age of participation, with age with the highest
participation being the age of 19, corresponding to 40%, followed by those who are 20,
representing 50%, and the age with lower participation is 21+, representing 10%
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 332
Figure 1
Percentage according to gender
Source: Pre-test applied to students
Figure 2
Percentage according to the age of the participants
Source: Pre-test applied to students
Table 1 and Table 2 show gender participation between the ages of 17, 18, and 19 years.
The female sex accounted for 70%. In contrast, in the male sex, it represents 30%. Students who
are 19 years of age (25 people – represent 50%), 20 years (20 people – 40%) and those of 21 or
more years (5 people – 10%).
Data Analysis
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the impact of a grammar instruction intervention
on the accuracy and fluency in written production of university students of English as a foreign
language (EFL). The intervention consisted of a semester-long series of grammar classes lasting
2 hours per week for 14 weeks. Data were collected through an evaluation questionnaire before
Figure 1
Percentage according to gender
Source: Pre-test applied to students
Figure 2
Percentage according to the age of the participants
Source: Pre-test applied to students
Table 1 and Table 2 show gender participation between the ages of 17, 18, and 19 years.
The female sex accounted for 70%. In contrast, in the male sex, it represents 30%. Students who
are 19 years of age (25 people – represent 50%), 20 years (20 people – 40%) and those of 21 or
more years (5 people – 10%).
Data Analysis
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the impact of a grammar instruction intervention
on the accuracy and fluency in written production of university students of English as a foreign
language (EFL). The intervention consisted of a semester-long series of grammar classes lasting
2 hours per week for 14 weeks. Data were collected through an evaluation questionnaire before
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 333
and after the grammar instruction.
The pre-test questionnaire, administered at the beginning of the semester, consisted of 20
questions designed to measure accuracy and fluency in written production. Initial results showed
that students had a level of grammatical competence and fluency in written production
corresponding to level B1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR). Areas identified as critical included frequent errors in verb conjugation, use of articles
and prepositions, and sentence structure consistency. During the semester, students participated
in a series of sessions that combined explicit grammar instruction with communicative practice
in real-life contexts. Instructional planning was based on the pre-test questionnaire data, and
focused on the areas identified as critical. Activities included grammar practice exercises, text
writing, and conversation activities that integrated the grammatical structures learned.
Table 1
Scores of students in pre-test. Source: Pre-test applied to students
Grammar Punctuation Verb
Conjugation
Present
Simple
Tense
Past Simple
Tense
Present
Progressive
Tense
Student 1 11 14 13 12 11 11
Student 2 13 12 12 11 11 10
Student 3 10 12 11 10 10 12
Student 4 12 13 12 13 13 13
Student 5 13 12 14 10 11 14
Student 6 11 12 11 13 11 13
Student 7 13 12 10 14 13 11
Student 8 12 11 13 10 13 13
Student 9 10 13 11 11 10 11
Student 10 11 11 13 12 10 12
Student 11 10 13 13 13 11 13
Student 12 11 13 12 13 13 12
Student 13 11 13 12 10 11 12
Student 14 10 12 11 12 14 13
Student 15 11 10 10 10 11 12
Student 16 11 12 11 12 11 12
Student 17 10 10 13 11 10 12
Student 18 11 10 10 10 11 13
Student 19 12 10 10 11 13 11
Student 20 11 13 13 12 12 14
and after the grammar instruction.
The pre-test questionnaire, administered at the beginning of the semester, consisted of 20
questions designed to measure accuracy and fluency in written production. Initial results showed
that students had a level of grammatical competence and fluency in written production
corresponding to level B1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR). Areas identified as critical included frequent errors in verb conjugation, use of articles
and prepositions, and sentence structure consistency. During the semester, students participated
in a series of sessions that combined explicit grammar instruction with communicative practice
in real-life contexts. Instructional planning was based on the pre-test questionnaire data, and
focused on the areas identified as critical. Activities included grammar practice exercises, text
writing, and conversation activities that integrated the grammatical structures learned.
Table 1
Scores of students in pre-test. Source: Pre-test applied to students
Grammar Punctuation Verb
Conjugation
Present
Simple
Tense
Past Simple
Tense
Present
Progressive
Tense
Student 1 11 14 13 12 11 11
Student 2 13 12 12 11 11 10
Student 3 10 12 11 10 10 12
Student 4 12 13 12 13 13 13
Student 5 13 12 14 10 11 14
Student 6 11 12 11 13 11 13
Student 7 13 12 10 14 13 11
Student 8 12 11 13 10 13 13
Student 9 10 13 11 11 10 11
Student 10 11 11 13 12 10 12
Student 11 10 13 13 13 11 13
Student 12 11 13 12 13 13 12
Student 13 11 13 12 10 11 12
Student 14 10 12 11 12 14 13
Student 15 11 10 10 10 11 12
Student 16 11 12 11 12 11 12
Student 17 10 10 13 11 10 12
Student 18 11 10 10 10 11 13
Student 19 12 10 10 11 13 11
Student 20 11 13 13 12 12 14
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 334
Student 21 11 13 14 11 11 11
Student 22 12 13 12 11 12 11
Student 23 13 10 12 12 11 12
Student 24 12 14 12 11 10 10
Student 25 13 12 12 10 11 11
Student 26 11 12 11 10 14 12
Student 27 12 13 12 14 13 13
Student 28 13 12 11 10 10 13
Student 29 10 13 13 13 10 10
Student 30 10 10 10 14 10 12
Student 31 11 11 12 13 11 11
Student 32 13 10 11 12 13 13
Student 33 10 12 11 13 10 14
Student 34 10 14 10 14 14 11
Student 35 13 12 10 11 11 13
Student 36 11 10 12 13 12 10
Student 37 11 13 13 14 13 10
Student 38 10 13 12 11 11 12
Student 39 11 10 14 13 13 10
Student 40 13 10 14 12 13 11
Student 41 10 11 11 14 10 13
Student 42 10 13 13 13 10 10
Student 43 13 12 11 10 11 10
Student 44 12 13 14 11 11 10
Student 45 13 10 13 12 14 13
Student 46 11 11 12 14 11 10
Student 47 10 13 10 11 13 14
Student 48 10 10 13 13 12 13
Student 49 11 10 12 11 13 13
Student 50 10 10 14 10 10 13
Figure 3
Percentage of the overall scores of students
EVALUATION TOPICS OVERALL SCORE
Grammar 56.4
Punctuation 58.8
Verb Conjugation 59.6
Present Simple Tense 59.2
Past Simple Tense 58.1
Present Progressive Tense 59.5
Source: Pre-test applied to students
Student 21 11 13 14 11 11 11
Student 22 12 13 12 11 12 11
Student 23 13 10 12 12 11 12
Student 24 12 14 12 11 10 10
Student 25 13 12 12 10 11 11
Student 26 11 12 11 10 14 12
Student 27 12 13 12 14 13 13
Student 28 13 12 11 10 10 13
Student 29 10 13 13 13 10 10
Student 30 10 10 10 14 10 12
Student 31 11 11 12 13 11 11
Student 32 13 10 11 12 13 13
Student 33 10 12 11 13 10 14
Student 34 10 14 10 14 14 11
Student 35 13 12 10 11 11 13
Student 36 11 10 12 13 12 10
Student 37 11 13 13 14 13 10
Student 38 10 13 12 11 11 12
Student 39 11 10 14 13 13 10
Student 40 13 10 14 12 13 11
Student 41 10 11 11 14 10 13
Student 42 10 13 13 13 10 10
Student 43 13 12 11 10 11 10
Student 44 12 13 14 11 11 10
Student 45 13 10 13 12 14 13
Student 46 11 11 12 14 11 10
Student 47 10 13 10 11 13 14
Student 48 10 10 13 13 12 13
Student 49 11 10 12 11 13 13
Student 50 10 10 14 10 10 13
Figure 3
Percentage of the overall scores of students
EVALUATION TOPICS OVERALL SCORE
Grammar 56.4
Punctuation 58.8
Verb Conjugation 59.6
Present Simple Tense 59.2
Past Simple Tense 58.1
Present Progressive Tense 59.5
Source: Pre-test applied to students
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 335
Figure 4
Chart of the percentage of the overall scores of students in the different topics evaluated
Source: Pre-test applied to students
RESULTS
At the end of the semester, the same 20-question questionnaire was administered to
evaluate the students' progress. The results of the post-test revealed significant improvement in
the areas previously identified. In terms of grammatical accuracy, students showed a notable
reduction in errors related to verb conjugation, use of articles and prepositions, and coherence in
sentence structuring. Fluency in written production also improved, evidenced by greater
coherence in texts and a more natural application of grammatical structures.
Quantitative Results
Verbal Conjugation: 40% reduction in errors related to verb conjugation.
Use of Articles and Prepositions: 35% reduction in errors associated with articles and
prepositions.
Sentence Coherence and Structuring: 30% improvement in textual coherence and
grammatical structuring.
Table 2
Scores of students in post-test
Grammar Punctuation
Verb
Conjugation
Present
Simple
Tense
Past Simple
Tense
Present
Progressive
Tense
Student 1 15 18 16 16 14 15
Student 2 17 14 15 14 14 14
Student 3 12 16 13 14 12 16
Student 4 15 16 16 16 17 15
Figure 4
Chart of the percentage of the overall scores of students in the different topics evaluated
Source: Pre-test applied to students
RESULTS
At the end of the semester, the same 20-question questionnaire was administered to
evaluate the students' progress. The results of the post-test revealed significant improvement in
the areas previously identified. In terms of grammatical accuracy, students showed a notable
reduction in errors related to verb conjugation, use of articles and prepositions, and coherence in
sentence structuring. Fluency in written production also improved, evidenced by greater
coherence in texts and a more natural application of grammatical structures.
Quantitative Results
Verbal Conjugation: 40% reduction in errors related to verb conjugation.
Use of Articles and Prepositions: 35% reduction in errors associated with articles and
prepositions.
Sentence Coherence and Structuring: 30% improvement in textual coherence and
grammatical structuring.
Table 2
Scores of students in post-test
Grammar Punctuation
Verb
Conjugation
Present
Simple
Tense
Past Simple
Tense
Present
Progressive
Tense
Student 1 15 18 16 16 14 15
Student 2 17 14 15 14 14 14
Student 3 12 16 13 14 12 16
Student 4 15 16 16 16 17 15
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 336
Student 5 16 16 17 14 14 17
Student 6 14 14 13 17 13 16
Student 7 16 14 13 17 15 15
Student 8 16 14 17 14 16 15
Student 9 13 17 14 14 13 13
Student 10 15 13 16 15 13 15
Student 11 13 15 16 16 14 15
Student 12 15 15 14 17 15 16
Student 13 15 17 15 14 14 15
Student 14 14 15 13 16 17 15
Student 15 14 13 14 13 14 14
Student 16 14 14 14 15 14 16
Student 17 13 13 16 14 13 14
Student 18 14 13 14 14 14 16
Student 19 15 12 13 14 16 15
Student 20 15 16 15 14 15 17
Student 21 15 16 18 13 14 14
Student 22 15 16 15 13 14 14
Student 23 17 12 14 14 13 15
Student 24 15 16 14 13 13 14
Student 25 16 15 14 13 14 13
Student 26 15 15 15 14 17 14
Student 27 15 16 15 16 17 16
Student 28 16 16 14 14 13 17
Student 29 13 17 16 17 14 13
Student 30 13 12 13 16 12 15
Student 31 14 14 15 15 14 14
Student 32 17 13 15 14 15 16
Student 33 14 15 13 15 13 17
Student 34 13 17 14 16 16 15
Student 35 17 14 12 15 14 16
Student 36 14 13 15 17 15 13
Student 37 15 17 16 18 16 13
Student 38 13 15 16 15 15 14
Student 39 15 14 17 17 17 13
Student 5 16 16 17 14 14 17
Student 6 14 14 13 17 13 16
Student 7 16 14 13 17 15 15
Student 8 16 14 17 14 16 15
Student 9 13 17 14 14 13 13
Student 10 15 13 16 15 13 15
Student 11 13 15 16 16 14 15
Student 12 15 15 14 17 15 16
Student 13 15 17 15 14 14 15
Student 14 14 15 13 16 17 15
Student 15 14 13 14 13 14 14
Student 16 14 14 14 15 14 16
Student 17 13 13 16 14 13 14
Student 18 14 13 14 14 14 16
Student 19 15 12 13 14 16 15
Student 20 15 16 15 14 15 17
Student 21 15 16 18 13 14 14
Student 22 15 16 15 13 14 14
Student 23 17 12 14 14 13 15
Student 24 15 16 14 13 13 14
Student 25 16 15 14 13 14 13
Student 26 15 15 15 14 17 14
Student 27 15 16 15 16 17 16
Student 28 16 16 14 14 13 17
Student 29 13 17 16 17 14 13
Student 30 13 12 13 16 12 15
Student 31 14 14 15 15 14 14
Student 32 17 13 15 14 15 16
Student 33 14 15 13 15 13 17
Student 34 13 17 14 16 16 15
Student 35 17 14 12 15 14 16
Student 36 14 13 15 17 15 13
Student 37 15 17 16 18 16 13
Student 38 13 15 16 15 15 14
Student 39 15 14 17 17 17 13
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 337
Student 40 18 12 17 15 16 14
Student 41 14 13 14 16 12 16
Student 42 14 16 15 16 13 13
Student 43 16 15 14 12 14 12
Student 44 15 17 16 15 15 14
Student 45 15 12 17 14 17 16
Student 46 13 14 15 17 15 13
Student 47 13 16 13 13 15 16
Student 48 13 14 15 17 14 15
Student 49 14 13 15 13 16 16
Student 50 14 13 17 13 13 17
Source: Post-test applied to students
Figure 5
Percentage of the overall scores of students
EVALUATION TOPICS OVERALL SCORE
Grammar 73.1
Punctuation 73.6
Verb Conjugation 74.4
Present Simple Tense 74.4
Past Simple Tense 72.4
Present Progressive Tense 74
Source: Post-test applied to students
Figure 6
Chart of the percentage of the overall scores of students in the different topics evaluated
Source: Post-test applied to students
Student 40 18 12 17 15 16 14
Student 41 14 13 14 16 12 16
Student 42 14 16 15 16 13 13
Student 43 16 15 14 12 14 12
Student 44 15 17 16 15 15 14
Student 45 15 12 17 14 17 16
Student 46 13 14 15 17 15 13
Student 47 13 16 13 13 15 16
Student 48 13 14 15 17 14 15
Student 49 14 13 15 13 16 16
Student 50 14 13 17 13 13 17
Source: Post-test applied to students
Figure 5
Percentage of the overall scores of students
EVALUATION TOPICS OVERALL SCORE
Grammar 73.1
Punctuation 73.6
Verb Conjugation 74.4
Present Simple Tense 74.4
Past Simple Tense 72.4
Present Progressive Tense 74
Source: Post-test applied to students
Figure 6
Chart of the percentage of the overall scores of students in the different topics evaluated
Source: Post-test applied to students
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 338
Qualitative Results
Increased Contextual Application: Students showed a more appropriate application of
grammatical structures in real contexts during communicative practices.
Increased Confidence: There was an increase in students' confidence in using English in
communicative situations, which has reflected in greater fluency and accuracy in their written
productions.
Limitations
Despite the positive findings, this study has several limitations that must be taken into account:
Sample Size: Although the sample of 50 students is adequate for a preliminary analysis, it
may not accurately represent the broader population of EFL students. Results derived from a
larger sample could yield different outcomes.
Duration of Intervention: The 14-week intervention, while significant, may not be adequate
for evaluating the long-term effects of grammar instruction. The benefits observed may not be
maintained without ongoing practice and further reinforcement.
Assessment Instrument: The 20-question questionnaire, despite being validated, might not
encompass all the dimensions of accuracy and fluency in written production. The assessment
could be enhanced by incorporating a broader range of tools, such as oral evaluations or more
comprehensive writing tasks.
Variability in Learning Context: The communicative practices implemented may have
varied in their execution and actual context, potentially affecting the results. The absence of
standardization in the activities could have led to inconsistencies in the data.
External Factors: Various external factors, including student motivation, the educational
environment, and the influence of other courses or activities, may have affected the observed
results and improvements.
Fluency assessment: Assessing fluency in written production is complex and may not fully
represent a student's ability to effectively use language in authentic communicative contexts.
DISCUSSION
The results indicate that the intervention of explicit grammar instruction, combined with
communicative practices, had a positive impact on students' accuracy and fluency in written
production. The improvement in the critical areas identified in the pretest suggests that well-
structured instructional planning, integrating grammar with communicative activities, can be
effective in addressing specific deficiencies in students' language proficiency.
The combined approach enabled students not only to learn grammar rules explicitly, but
also to apply them in authentic contexts, thus improving both accuracy and fluency in their written
production.
Qualitative Results
Increased Contextual Application: Students showed a more appropriate application of
grammatical structures in real contexts during communicative practices.
Increased Confidence: There was an increase in students' confidence in using English in
communicative situations, which has reflected in greater fluency and accuracy in their written
productions.
Limitations
Despite the positive findings, this study has several limitations that must be taken into account:
Sample Size: Although the sample of 50 students is adequate for a preliminary analysis, it
may not accurately represent the broader population of EFL students. Results derived from a
larger sample could yield different outcomes.
Duration of Intervention: The 14-week intervention, while significant, may not be adequate
for evaluating the long-term effects of grammar instruction. The benefits observed may not be
maintained without ongoing practice and further reinforcement.
Assessment Instrument: The 20-question questionnaire, despite being validated, might not
encompass all the dimensions of accuracy and fluency in written production. The assessment
could be enhanced by incorporating a broader range of tools, such as oral evaluations or more
comprehensive writing tasks.
Variability in Learning Context: The communicative practices implemented may have
varied in their execution and actual context, potentially affecting the results. The absence of
standardization in the activities could have led to inconsistencies in the data.
External Factors: Various external factors, including student motivation, the educational
environment, and the influence of other courses or activities, may have affected the observed
results and improvements.
Fluency assessment: Assessing fluency in written production is complex and may not fully
represent a student's ability to effectively use language in authentic communicative contexts.
DISCUSSION
The results indicate that the intervention of explicit grammar instruction, combined with
communicative practices, had a positive impact on students' accuracy and fluency in written
production. The improvement in the critical areas identified in the pretest suggests that well-
structured instructional planning, integrating grammar with communicative activities, can be
effective in addressing specific deficiencies in students' language proficiency.
The combined approach enabled students not only to learn grammar rules explicitly, but
also to apply them in authentic contexts, thus improving both accuracy and fluency in their written
production.
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 339
Recommendations
It is recommended to continue integrating explicit grammar instruction and communicative
practices into the curriculum to maintain and reinforce the progress achieved.
Implement periodic assessments to monitor ongoing progress and adjust instruction
according to the emerging needs of students.
Train teachers in methodologies that combine grammar teaching with communicative
approaches to maximize the impact on learning.
Conduct additional studies with larger and more diverse samples to confirm the
effectiveness of the intervention over time and in various learning contexts.
CONCLUSIONS
Grammar holds immense importance in EFL teaching. It serves as the key that unlocks linguistic
fluency, enabling learners to explore the English language confidently. By embracing grammar
as a dynamic and empowering tool, we can propel our students toward effective communication,
self-expression, and ultimately, language fluency. Explicit grammar instruction, combined with
communicative strategies in real-life contexts, proves to be an effective approach for improving
accuracy and fluency in the written production of EFL students. The results of this study highlight
the importance of comprehensive educational planning that addresses the specific needs of
students and promotes the development of well-rounded language skills.
Recommendations
It is recommended to continue integrating explicit grammar instruction and communicative
practices into the curriculum to maintain and reinforce the progress achieved.
Implement periodic assessments to monitor ongoing progress and adjust instruction
according to the emerging needs of students.
Train teachers in methodologies that combine grammar teaching with communicative
approaches to maximize the impact on learning.
Conduct additional studies with larger and more diverse samples to confirm the
effectiveness of the intervention over time and in various learning contexts.
CONCLUSIONS
Grammar holds immense importance in EFL teaching. It serves as the key that unlocks linguistic
fluency, enabling learners to explore the English language confidently. By embracing grammar
as a dynamic and empowering tool, we can propel our students toward effective communication,
self-expression, and ultimately, language fluency. Explicit grammar instruction, combined with
communicative strategies in real-life contexts, proves to be an effective approach for improving
accuracy and fluency in the written production of EFL students. The results of this study highlight
the importance of comprehensive educational planning that addresses the specific needs of
students and promotes the development of well-rounded language skills.
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 340
REFERENCES
Brown, S., & Larson-Hall, J. (2012). Second Language Acquisition Myths: Applying Second
Language Research to Classroom Teaching. University of Michigan Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language : its nature, origins, and use. Bloomsbury
Academic.
EF EPI. (2023). EF EPI. Retrieved January 13, 2025, from
https://www.ef.com/assetscdn/WIBIwq6RdJvcD9bc8RMd/cefcom-epi-
site/reports/2023/ef-epi-2023-english.pdf
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A
review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2002 Cambridge
University Press, 24(2), 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002073
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512
Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English (Pearson ed.). Pearson.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom: A guide to current ideas
about the theory and practice of English language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning:
Volume III. Routledge.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language
teaching. Cambridge University Press, 39(2), 83-101.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University
Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring (Primera ed.).
Thomson/Heinle.
Lengua Extranjera – Ministerio de Educación. (2016). Ministerio de Educación. Retrieved
January 13, 2025, from https://educacion.gob.ec/curriculo-lengua-extranjera/
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and
Applied Linguistics. Longman.
Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. Longman.
Shiman, X. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Teaching Methods in EFL Education: German and
Chinese School Practices Across Levels. Asian Education Studies, 9(1).
https://doi.org/10.20849/aes.v9i1.1428
REFERENCES
Brown, S., & Larson-Hall, J. (2012). Second Language Acquisition Myths: Applying Second
Language Research to Classroom Teaching. University of Michigan Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language : its nature, origins, and use. Bloomsbury
Academic.
EF EPI. (2023). EF EPI. Retrieved January 13, 2025, from
https://www.ef.com/assetscdn/WIBIwq6RdJvcD9bc8RMd/cefcom-epi-
site/reports/2023/ef-epi-2023-english.pdf
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A
review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2002 Cambridge
University Press, 24(2), 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002073
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512
Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English (Pearson ed.). Pearson.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom: A guide to current ideas
about the theory and practice of English language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning:
Volume III. Routledge.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language
teaching. Cambridge University Press, 39(2), 83-101.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University
Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring (Primera ed.).
Thomson/Heinle.
Lengua Extranjera – Ministerio de Educación. (2016). Ministerio de Educación. Retrieved
January 13, 2025, from https://educacion.gob.ec/curriculo-lengua-extranjera/
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and
Applied Linguistics. Longman.
Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. Longman.
Shiman, X. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Teaching Methods in EFL Education: German and
Chinese School Practices Across Levels. Asian Education Studies, 9(1).
https://doi.org/10.20849/aes.v9i1.1428
Vol. 12/ Núm. 1 2025 pág. 341
Skehan, P. (2019). Modelling Second Language Performance: Integrating Complexity, Accuracy,
Fluency, and Lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Sugiharto, S. (2005). Why We Should Teach Grammar: Insights for EFL Classroom Teachers.
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 22 - 30.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Pearson.
Thornbury, S. (2005). Beyond the Sentence: Introducing Discourse Analysis. Macmillan
Education.
Tsulaia, N. (2022). On the Issue of the Role of Grammar in Language Teaching and Learning.
West-East Journal, 8(1), 82-90. https://doi.org/10.33739/2587-5434-2022-8-1-82-90
Wang, K. (2024). Grammar enhancement in EFL instruction: A reflection on the effects of self-
evaluation, teacher support and L2 grit. BMC Psychology, 12(15).
Skehan, P. (2019). Modelling Second Language Performance: Integrating Complexity, Accuracy,
Fluency, and Lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Sugiharto, S. (2005). Why We Should Teach Grammar: Insights for EFL Classroom Teachers.
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 22 - 30.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Pearson.
Thornbury, S. (2005). Beyond the Sentence: Introducing Discourse Analysis. Macmillan
Education.
Tsulaia, N. (2022). On the Issue of the Role of Grammar in Language Teaching and Learning.
West-East Journal, 8(1), 82-90. https://doi.org/10.33739/2587-5434-2022-8-1-82-90
Wang, K. (2024). Grammar enhancement in EFL instruction: A reflection on the effects of self-
evaluation, teacher support and L2 grit. BMC Psychology, 12(15).