Students’ Proficiency in Grammatical Error Identification and Competence in Syntax

Transformation

Tibus, E. D.1, Mino, Z. S.2, Milla, N. E.3

Abstract

Language is crucial in learning and in the education process; and if the learner is ill-equipped
with the language of instruction, learning will not take place. This determined the students’
proficiency in grammatical error identification and their competence in syntax transformation to
its correct form. The 60 students from STEM program of Sogod National High School were
given worksheet with sentences that they have identified the grammatical errors and transformed
these erroneous utterances to grammatically correct sentences. The study has shown that students
have sufficient learning materials available at home. However, these are not always utilized by
the students to improve their understanding of the grammatical rules of the English language.
On the average, the students are proficient in identifying grammatical errors in sentences;
however, a large number of them are still in approaching proficiency. Though more than half of
the students have shown advance (excellent) level of competence in transforming grammatical
errors to their correct form, there is a significant number of students who have not yet achieved
the proficient (very satisfactory) level of competence. In addition, as revealed in this study,
availability and frequency of use of learning materials do not significantly translate to advance
level of proficiency of students to identify grammatical errors in sentences or excellent level of
competence in transforming grammatical errors to their correct form. These positive results are
not an assurance that students will have consistent performance in these two skills. Thus, there is
still a need to improve classroom language instruction and the quality of language learning of
students since these are strong determinants for success.

Keywords: language learning, language, analysis, language performance

1.0 Introduction

Language is anything that is written, spoken, shown or otherwise communicated between and
among people. Kephart (2012) believed that language is a method of human communication,
with the use of words in a structured and conventional way. Language is more than a
communication system. Consul (2014) said that language serves as a powerful identity marker
which binds people together and sets them apart as a distinct social group. It is vital for the
expression of thoughts, ideas, emotions; creation of friendships, cultural ties, and economic
relationships; and the determination of one’s perception of reality. Language is made up of a
complex system of words, phrases, clauses and discourse patterns used to conjure up images that
represent the speaker’s own world.
Language is one of the most influential and useful tools for human beings. Without it,
humans could not think thoughts expressible to others, nor could they engage in the activities
that commonly take place in the society they build themselves (Di Pietro, 1994). Language is
very crucial in education. Roy-Campbell and Qorro (1997) asserted that education is without a
doubt largely effective as the medium of language. Hence, language is very significant in the
education process. Language plays a crucial role in learning, and if the learner is handicapped in

1
the language of instruction, then learning may not take place at all as the teacher and the learner
will not be communicating (Malekela, 2003). In addition, ADEA (2005) argues, “Language is not
everything in education, but without language, everything is nothing in education”.
Victoria (2012) asserted that English is without a doubt the actual universal lingua franca of
the world. English language has a system which evolves over rules - grammar. Grammar is one
of the most difficult aspects of a foreign language to master. It is defined as “the rules that govern
how a language’s sentences are formed” (Thornbury, 2000). English grammar has been
traditionally viewed as “a system of syntax that decides the order and patterns in which words
are arranged in sentences” (Close, 1982). It is argued that mastering grammar is a complex
process that requires “making a series of decisions about when and why to use one form rather
than the other” (Celce-Murcia, 2002).
The grammar embodies a lot of rules and one of it is the Subject and Verb Agreement (SVA).
The SVA are rules to consider so that words in the sentence are grammatically correct and
coherent. Effective writing depends on having solid English grammar and structure at the word,
sentence, paragraph and essay levels. Grammar then, entails all of the macro-skills in learning
English.
Even after years and years of exposure and learning English language in school, its grammar
is just one of the things that many people do not always get right. In the Philippine educational
context, most of the second language learners, find it difficult to study English because of its
intricate grammar. Many are always caught up with the questions, “What is grammar and why is
it important? Studies have reported that second language learners, teachers, and any
professionals must be an adept, regardless of the country or the language, on the knowledge of
the English grammar since it is the foundation for communication. It is believed that the better
the grammar, the clearer the message, and the more likelihood of understanding the message's
intent and meaning (Dick, 1980).
Teachers and students overlook grammar in the teaching and learning process. In spite of the
fact that English is a second language to students, teachers, and other professionals, they need to
exert effort in studying the grammatical rules of the language. Knowing the grammatical rules
allows speakers to produce an infinite set of sentences that can be easily understood by any
anyone who is proficient in the language.
Teachers, regardless of specialization, need to evaluate the language proficiency and
competence of the students in English grammar. Students need to have the full grasp of the
English language since language is knowledge. In the world today, knowledge of the grammar of
the language is one of the key factors in competitiveness and success. One cannot survive unless
he/she knows the grammar of the lingua franca of the world. Brooks (2013) posited that, correct
grammar keeps one from being misunderstood and lets him/her effectively express his/her
thoughts and ideas. This is strongly considered as the key to all successful business and academic
communications. Bradshaw (2011) said that most in-depth thinkers, regardless of their national
identity, realize that correct grammar leads to the kind of power in leadership that comes from
superior communication. Thus, to become a proficient and competent writer, speaker and
listener, one must be knowledgeable of the grammar of the language specifically, the SVA.
With all the considerations herein cited, the researchers assessed the level of proficiency of
students in identifying grammatical errors and their level of competence to change the syntactic
errors into its correct form.

2
2.0 Conceptual/Theoretical Framework
This study is anchored on two syntactic theories - the formal theory and the functional theory
of Gillespiea et al., (2002). Formal theory of syntax focuses on linguistic form, relegating
meaning to a peripheral position. In formal syntax, grammar tends to be conceptualized as an
abstract algebraic system specifying the acceptable strings of symbols making up a language.
Here, meaning is irrelevant, and syntax is seen as constituting an autonomous system. By
contrast, functional theory tend to focus on the functions language serves, and the ways that
syntax is organized to serve these functions; meaning plays a central role. Further, it recognizes
only meanings or functions, and denies the existence of structure in syntax.
In an educational context, one is expected to be an adept both in formal and functional
aspects of the grammar of the language. Regardless of the country or the language, Dick (1980)
stressed that the knowledge of the grammar is the foundation for communication. Meaning, the
better the grammar, the clearer the message, and the more likelihood of understanding the
message's intent and meaning.
Moreover, Victoria (2012) stressed that there is a need to consider the interaction of a variety
of factors, of which the underlying competence of the speaker-hearer is only one. Thus, the
competence (the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language) and performance (the actual use of
language in concrete situations) is ventured in this study.

2.0 Research Design and Methods

The study used the descriptive-correlational design. The study collected information on the
demographic profile of the students, the availability of learning materials at their homes and the
frequency of use of these materials. Students’ frequency of exposure to grammar lessons and
their attitude towards grammar were also obtained. In addition, the level of proficiency of
students in identifying grammatical errors and their level of competence in changing these
grammatical errors into its correct form were also evaluated. Furthermore, association between
the level of proficiency, level of competence, demographic profile, and availability and
frequency of learning materials were established.

Research Respondents and Locale of the Study

The study involved sixty (60) Grade 10 students who belong to the Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) program of the Sogod National High School. Sogod
National High School is located at Zone 1, Sogod, Southern Leyte, Philippines. It has a
population of 2,877 students, 77 teachers, and 21 school staff. This institution is the biggest
school in the whole Division of Southern Leyte. The school offers five (5) programs namely; (1)
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) program, (2) Model Class program
(MC), (3) Special Program of the Arts (SPA), (4) Special Program for Sports (SPS) and the
Regular program. The Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education Program
(STEM, formerly Engineering and Science Education Program or ESEP) is a science and
mathematics-oriented curriculum devised for high schools in the Philippines. The STEM
program is offered by specialized high schools, whether public or private, supervised by the
Department of Education. The STEM Program is supported with Republic Act No. 10612.

3
Research Instrument
In gathering the required data, this study used a researcher-made questionnaire. This
researcher-made questionnaire was pilot-tested to other fourth year students who were not under
STEM program. The first part of the questionnaire is about the demographic profile of the
respondents. The second part consisted of four tables with questions about the availability of
learning materials at home, frequency of use of these materials, response of students towards
grammar and the frequency of their exposure towards grammar. The third part contained the
worksheet which has 30 sentences. These sentences were analyzed whether or not the sentence
has errors. Then, students have to change the errors into its correct form after they have
identified the errors.

Data Gathering Procedure

After the permission was granted for the conduct of the study, the researchers personally
administered the questionnaire to the student-respondents. To ensure reliability, validity and
objectivity of the results, students were informed of the objectives of the study.

Statistical Treatment of Data

Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, and measures of central
tendency (mean and mode) were used to summarize and characterize the demographic profile of
the students, the availability of learning materials and the frequency of use of these materials, the
level of proficiency of students in identifying grammatical errors, and their level of competence
in transforming errors into correct form. In addition, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient
was used to establish the association between frequency of use of available materials and
students’ level of proficiency in identifying grammatical errors and their level of competence in
transforming errors into correct form.

4.0 Results and Discussions

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Table 1. Profile of Students in Terms of Age and Sex
Demographic Profile No. of Students %
Age 15 40 66.7
16 15 25.0
17 5 8.3
Sex Female 38 63.3
Male 22 36.7

Majority (66.7%) of the students are 15 years old and are mostly females (63.3%). In the
Philippine educational context, in the public schools, Filipino children generally begin schooling
at the age of 6 or 7, as promulgated by the Department of Education. So, when the child reaches
15 years old, he/she is expected to be in Grade 10. This is the main reason why majority of the
respondents are 15 years old. In addition, there were many females who opted to take STEM
program since these students aspire to become nurses, doctors, and medical technologists.
Presently, these courses are commonly the most attractive course to females.

4
5
Learning Materials Available at Home
Table 2. Availability of Learning Materials
Learning Materials No. of Students %
Books 60 100.00
Journals 47 78.33
TV 55 91.67
PC 40 66.67

Table 2 shows the available reading materials in the respective homes of the respondents. As
shown in Table 2, all the sixty respondents have books at home and about nine in every ten
respondents indicated that they have television sets at home. In addition, about 7 or 8 in every
ten reported that they have personal computers (PC) and/or journals at home. These learning
materials are believed to have an impact on the acquisition of the grammatical aspects of the
language. Students who have any learning materials in the home positively contribute to increase
the level of competence and proficiency of the use of language. This is congruent to the report of
NAEP (1998) that students with higher reading performance were more likely to report four
types of reading materials in their homes - encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers, and at least 25
books, (as cited in Raising Readers, 1999). Thus, it is essential for all the homes to have variety
of reading materials because these facilitate in the learning of the grammar of the language.
However, Needleman et al., (1991) refuted that the biggest obstacle to literacy is the scarcity
of books and appropriate reading materials. In the Philippines, for example, public elementary
and secondary schools lack 95 million books in 2011. Also, in many homes, there simply are not
any books, magazines, or newspapers appropriate for children.

Frequency of Learning Materials’ Use

Table 3. Frequency of Use of Learning Materials
Never Sometimes Always
Learning Weighted
Description
Materials No. of No. of No. of Mean
% % %
students students students
Books 0 0.00 22 36.67 38 63.33 1.63 Always
Journals 13 21.67 25 41.67 22 36.67 1.15 Sometimes
TV 5 8.33 6 10 49 81.67 1.73 Always
PC 20 33.33 18 30 22 36.67 1.03 Sometimes
Legend: Weighted Mean Description
0.00 - 0.66 Never
0.67 - 1.33 Sometimes
1.34 - 2.00 Always

Table 3 presents the frequency of use of the learning materials available in the homes of the
respondents. It is evidently shown in the table that students always use the books and televisions
while they sometimes only use the available journals and computers. Meaning, students are more
likely to develop grammar if they are consistently exposed to book reading. The power to create
interactional contexts that nourish language development is greatly dependent to book reading
(Dickinson et al., 2011). It also offers children the opportunity to encounter new vocabulary
items embedded in varied grammatical sentences. Books which are well-written for children use
6
well-formed, relatively short sentences that are rich in varied vocabulary. Furthermore, books
often use the same words in diverse grammatical constructions, offering implicit lessons in how
words are used. The texts of books tend to have more low-frequency words than does spoken
language (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001) and books encourage the use of a wider range of words
than would occur in everyday conversations (Dickinson et al., 2011).
Moreover, there is a great evidence that attention and comprehension, receptive vocabulary,
some expressive language, letter-sound knowledge, and knowledge of narrative and storytelling
all benefit from high-quality and age-appropriate educational programming. However, literature
has not established whether children develop grammar, phonological awareness, and knowledge
of literacy from viewing such programming (Close, 2004).

Students’ Response to Grammar Exposure

Table 4. Response of Students to Grammar
No. of Weighted
Response to Grammar Percent Description
students Mean
Negative without interest 0 0.00
Negative with interest 1 1.67 Positive with
3.97
Positive without interest 0 0.00 interest
Positive with interest 59 98.33
Legend: Weighted Mean Description
1.00 - 1.74 Negative without interest
1.75 - 2.49 Negative with interest
2.50 - 3.24 Positive without interest
3.25 - 4.00 Positive with interest

Table 4 presents the responses of the students to grammar. Elicitation of their authentic
perception with regard to their interest to the exposure to grammar lesson is shown here. Based
on the result, everybody has a positive response with interest with regard to exposure to the
grammar of the English language. This response shows their willingness to learn the intricacies
of the language. According to Bloom (2000), language learning occurs best when the subject
matter are of immediate interest to children. Thus, through exposure to the grammar of the
language, children would find it easier to regulate their own thoughts, feelings, and actions or
abilities that are essential to social development and school success (Blair, 2002).

Frequency of Exposure to Grammar Lessons

It is revealed that all students are always exposed to grammar lessons in their language
classes. This means that their consistent exposure to grammar lessons would have a positive
effect on their proficiency in identifying grammatical errors in sentences and their competence in
transforming grammatical errors to its correct form. Students’ exposure to the grammar of the
language through language-based interaction and classroom instruction would help them acquire
mastery of the intricacies of the language grammatical structure. Moreover, they will learn to use
the language socially in appropriate ways. Dickinson et al., (2011) stressed that children must
abundantly hear much language from professionals and other individuals who use the language,
regardless of the context, in order to be immersed to broad range of vocabulary and sentence
structures. Through this immersion, both their overall levels of proficiency and specific aspects

7
of their second language competence, such as grammatical development will be developed
(Genesee, 2007).

Proficiency in Identifying Grammatical Errors

Table 5. Level of Proficiency in Identifying Grammatical Errors
No. of Weighted
Proficiency level Percent Description
Students Mean
Beginning 1 1.67
Developing 1 1.67
Approaching
4.12 Proficient
Proficiency 20 33.33
Proficient 6 10.00
Advance 32 53.33
Legend: Weighted Mean Description
1.00 - 1.79 Beginning
1.80 - 2.59 Developing
2.60 - 3.39 Approaching Proficiency
3.40 - 4.19 Proficient
4.20 - 5.00 Advance

Table 5 reveals the students’ proficiency in identifying the grammatical errors embedded in
the sentences they had analyzed. Ostensibly, the students’ over-all level of proficiency in
analyzing grammatical errors in sentences is proficient. It is presumed that students’ frequent
exposure to grammar of the language through classroom instruction and language-based
interactions with their language teachers and other individuals who use the language have
contributed much in the development of their proficiency in identifying the grammatical errors in
sentences.
Though learners’ over-all proficiency in indentifying errors is very high, English teachers
must expose further the learners need not only the explanation of the rules of the grammar of the
language but also the meaningful application of these rules. In English language classes,
grammar should be taught explicitly either by presenting the rules and then giving examples,
which is referred to as deductive reasoning, or by providing examples and then students arrive to
the rule, which is referred to as inductive reasoning (Thornbury, 2000). Then, some
communicative based tasks might be used to practice the rules (Andrews, 2007). In order to help
benefit the most from grammar classes, learners must understand the rules and be able to apply
them.

Competence of Students in Changing the Errors

Table 6. Level of Competence of Students in Changing the Errors into its
Correct Form
Level of Competence No. of Students %

Beginning/Developing 2 3.33
Approaching Proficiency 19 31.67
Proficient 7 11.67
Advance 32 53.33

8
 TOTAL 60 100

It is evidently shown in table 6 that more than 50% of the students have an advance level of
competence in syntax transformation. Meaning, these students can identify the errors and at the
same time change these grammatical errors to its correct form. However, it is sad to note that the
other half of students who have proficient level in identifying the grammatical errors in sentences
only have approaching proficiency level of competence. However, this result does not mean that
students who have this level of competence are incompetent in transforming the grammatical
errors to correct form. Presumably, some underlying factors affect their performance in
transforming the erroneous sentences to grammatically acceptable statements. This means to say
that English teachers who set the tone for learning activities (Allen & Valette, 1997; Quist, 2000)
must have maximum communicative competence. In addition, they must be knowledgeable in
the language so that they can make useful decision regarding what should be taught to whom,
and how the teaching should be done especially the grammar of the language. Researches
demonstrate clearly that among the factors that lead to students’ poor performance are qualities
of teachers (Harmer, 2003; Mosha, 2004). Moreover, empirical studies showed that if early years
at the school fail to provide the right foundation for learning, then no amount of special provision
at later stages will be able to achieve the full potential of the child in terms of how his learning
will proceed, and how beneficial his attitudes are towards his future life and learning (Quist,
2000).

Frequency of Use of Learning Materials, Proficiency in Grammatical Error Analysis, and

Competence in Syntax Transformation

Table 7. Association between Frequency of Use of Learning Materials, Proficiency in

Grammatical Error Analysis, and Competence in Syntax Transformation
Proficiency in
Competence in Syntax
Grammatical Error
Transformation
Learning Materials Analysis
0.1653 0.1471
Books
(0.2070) (0.2621)
0.1798 0.1617
Journals
(0.2265) (0.2775)
0.1138 0.1216
TV
(0.4081) (0.3766)
0.0955 0.0955
PC
(0.5576) (0.5576)

The correlation between the frequency of use of learning materials available at home,
students’ proficiency in identifying grammatical errors and their competence in transforming
grammatical errors to its correct form are presented in Table 7. Evidently, there is no significant
association between the frequency of the availability of learning materials and students’
proficiency to identify grammatical errors. Similarly, there is no significant association between
availability of learning materials and students’ level of competence in changing grammatical
errors into its correct form. This means to say that the frequency of use of these learning
materials at home are not determinants of students’ proficiency and competence to identify and

9
correct grammatical errors. Allwright (1990) argued that learning materials should teach students
to learn. They should be resource books for ideas and activities for instruction/learning and that
they should give teachers rationales for what they do. Littlejohn and Windeatt (1989) argued that
language learning materials have a hidden curriculum that includes attitudes toward knowledge,
attitudes toward teaching and learning, attitudes toward the role and relationship of the teacher
and student, and values and attitudes related to gender, society, etc. Materials have an underlying
instructional philosophy, approach, method, and content, including both linguistic and cultural
information. Therefore, in many cases, materials are the center of instruction and one of the most
important influences on what goes on in the classroom (Kitao & Kitao, 1997).
However, in this result, frequency of use of these learning materials are not indicators for
students’ proficiency and competence in identifying and correcting grammatical errors. There
might be other factors that that have facilitated the students’ proficiency in identifying
grammatical errors and their competence in transforming grammatical errors to its correct form.

5.0 Conclusion
The study has shown that fourth year STEM students have sufficient learning materials
available at home. However, these are not always utilized by the students to improve their
understanding of the grammatical rules of the English language. On the average, the students are
proficient in identifying grammatical errors in sentences; however, a large number of them are
still approaching proficiency. Though more than half of the students have shown advance
(excellent) level of competence in transforming grammatical errors to their correct form, this is a
significant number of students who have not yet achieved the proficient (very satisfactory) level
of competence. In addition, as revealed in this study, availability and frequency of use of learning
materials do not significantly translate to advance level of proficiency of students to identify
grammatical errors in sentences or excellent level of competence in transforming grammatical
errors to their correct form.
These positive results are not an assurance that students will have consistent performance in
these two skills. Thus, there is still a need to improve classroom language instruction and the
quality of language learning of students since these are strong determinants for success.

6.0 References Cited

Allen, E., & Valette, R. (1997) Classroom techniques: Foreign languages and English as a second
language. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Allwright, R. L. (1990). What do we want teaching materials for? In R. Rossner and R. Bolitho,
(Eds.), Currents in language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Andrews, K. L. Z. (2007). The effects of implicit and explicit instruction on simple and complex
grammatical structures for adult English language learners,TESL-EJ, 11(2). Retrieved March
3, 2012, from http://tesl-ej.org/ej42/a5.html

Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological

conceptualization of children's functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, Vol. 57
(2), pp. 111–127.
10
Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass,
USA.

Bradshaw, W. (2011). The big ten of grammar: identifying and fixing the ten most frequent
grammatical errors. Canada: Vine Publication.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2002).Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through

discourse. In E. Hinkel& S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language classrooms (pp. 119–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Close, R. (2004). Television and language development in the early years: A review of the
literature. National Literacy Trust. Retrieved from
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/assets/0000/0429/TV_early_years_2004.pdf

Close, R.A. (1982). English as a foreign language, London: George Allen and Unwin.

Consul. S. M. (2014). The morphological system of Iniskaya. Journal of Educational and

Human Resource Development 2014, pp.48-69.
Di Pietro, R. (1994) Helping people do things with English. In Kral, T. Teacher development:
Making the right moves. Washington, DC: English Language Programmes Division.

Dick, S.C. (1980). Studies in functional grammar. London: Academic Press.

Dickinson, D. et al., (2011). How reading books fosters language development around the world.
Child Development Research, Volume (2012) 2012. Retrieved from
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cdr/2012/602807/
Dickinson, D. K. & Tabors, P.O. (Eds.) (2001). Beginning literacy with language: Young children
learning at home and school. Brookes Publishing: Baltimore, Md, USA.

Genesee, F. (2007). Top ten most consistent findings from research on foreign language
immersion. The ACIE Newsletter, May 2007, Vol. 10, No. 3. Retrieved from
http://carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol10/may2007_researchfindings.html

Gillespiea, M. et al., (2012). Against structural constraints in subject-verb agreement production.

Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

Harmer, J. (2003) The practice of English language teaching. Malaysia: Longman.

Kephart, B. (2005) Notes on Language Retrieved July 1, 2014, from

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-grammar-matter-anymore-lol/

Kitao, K., & Kitao, S. K. (September 16, 1982). College reading textbooks do not meet needs.
The Daily Yomiuri, p. 7.

11
Kitao, K., Kitao, S. K., Yoshida, S., Yoshida, H., Kawamura, K., and Kurata, M. (1995). A study
of trends of college English reading textbooks in Japan: An analysis of college English
reading textbooks for 1985. In K. Kitao and S. K. Kitao, English teaching: Theory, Research
and practice (pp. 205-216). Tokyo: Eichosha.

Littlejohn, A., & Windeatt, S. (1989). Beyond language learning: Perspective on materials
design. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Mackay, W. A. (2011). Grammar: sets of rules. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from

http://your.usc.edu.au/wacana/2/grammar.sla.html
Malekela, G. (2003). English as a medium of instruction in post-primary education in Tanzania:
Is it a fair policy to the learners’? In: Brock-Utne, B., Desai, Z., & Qorro, M. (eds.).
Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa. (LOITASA). Dar es Salaam: E&D
Limited. Retrieved from
http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/viewFile/17455/17714

Mosha, H. (2004). New directions in teacher education for quality improvement in Africa. Papers
in Education and Development, 24, 23-28.

Needleman, N. et al., (1991). Raising readers. the tremendous potential of families. Retrieved
from https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/startearly/ch_1.html

O'Neill, R. (1990). Why use textbooks? In R. Rossner and R. Bolitho, (Eds.), Currents in
language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Quist, D. (2000) Primary teaching methods. London: Macmillan.

Raising readers (July 1999).Start early, finish strong: How to help every child become a reader
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/startearly/ch_1.html

Roy-Campbell, Z. & Qorro, M. (1997) Language crisis in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na
Nyota.

Thornbury, S. (2000). How to teach grammar, London: Pearson ESL.

Victoria, C. (2012). English as a universal language. Cambridge, UK: Robinson College.

12