Assessing the Grammatical Competence of College Students: A

Quantitative Research Study

Grammatical competence is the ability to use the rules of

grammar to communicate effectively. It is an essential skill for
college students, as it is necessary for success in both academic
and professional settings. College students are expected to be
able to write clear and concise essays, reports, and other
academic papers. They are also expected to be able to
communicate effectively in spoken form, whether they are
giving presentations in class or participating in job interviews.
Research has shown that college students are often lacking in
grammatical competence. One study found that only 36% of
college students were able to correctly identify and correct
grammatical errors in a writing sample. Another study found that
50% of college students made at least one grammatical error in
their writing assignments.
There are a number of factors that may contribute to the lack of
grammatical competence among college students. One factor is
that students may not have received adequate grammar
instruction in high school. Another factor is that students may
not be using the correct resources to improve their grammar
skills. For example, students may be relying on grammar
checkers to identify and correct errors in their writing. However,
grammar checkers are not always reliable and can miss errors.
There are a number of things that college students can do to
improve their grammatical competence. One important step is to
identify the areas of grammar where they struggle the most.
Once students have identified their weaknesses, they can focus
on improving those areas. Students can find a variety of
resources to help them improve their grammar skills, such as
grammar books, online tutorials, and writing centers.
In addition to improving their grammar skills, college students
can also improve their overall communication skills by
practicing effective writing and speaking strategies. For
example, students can practice writing clear and concise
sentences and paragraphs. They can also practice speaking
clearly and confidently. By improving their grammar skills and
communication skills, college students can set themselves up for
success in both academic and professional settings.
Grammatical competence is an essential skill for college
students. College students can improve their grammatical
competence by identifying their weaknesses, using resources to
improve those areas, and practicing effective writing and
speaking strategies.

Research Gap
There are a number of research gaps in the area of college
students’ grammar competence. Some of these research gaps
include:
A lack of longitudinal studies. Most research on college
students’ grammar competence has been cross- sectional,
meaning that it has only looked at a snapshot in time. There is a
need for longitudinal studies that track students’ grammar
competence over time to better understand how it develops and
changes.
A lack of research on the factors that contribute to grammar
competence. While some research has been done on the factors
that contribute to grammar competence, such as prior instruction
and GPA, there is still much that we do not know. For example,
more research is needed to understand the role of factors such as
motivation, attitude, and learning style.
A lack of research on the effectiveness of different interventions
for improving grammar competence. There are a number of
different interventions that have been used to improve grammar
competence in college students, but there is a need for more
research to determine which interventions are most effective.
A lack of research on the impact of grammar competence on
academic and professional success. While it is generally
assumed that grammar competence is important for academic
and professional success, there is a need for more research to
quantify this impact.

Research Theory
Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis
Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis (1982) proposes that language
learners have two systems for producing language: the acquired
system and the learned system. The acquired system is a
subconscious system that is developed through exposure to the
language and immersion in a language-rich environment. The
learned system is a conscious system that is developed through
formal instruction and the study of grammar rules. Krashen
argues that the acquired system is the primary system used for
communication, and that the learned system is only used to
monitor and correct language production. He also argues that the
learned system is most effective when it is used to raise
awareness of grammar rules, rather than to force students to
produce language in a grammatically correct way.
Swain’s Output Hypothesis
Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985) proposes that language
learners improve their grammatical competence by producing
language in meaningful communicative contexts. Swain argues
that output forces learners to focus on the grammar of their
language production and to make decisions about how to use
grammatical structures. The Output Hypothesis Is supported by
research that has shown that students who engage in frequent
and meaningful output activities, such as writing and speaking,
tend to have higher levels of grammatical competence than
students who do not.
Ellis’s Consciousness Model
Ellis’s Consciousness Model (1995) proposes that consciousness
plays a role in grammar acquisition. Ellis argues that there are
two types of consciousness: focused consciousness and implicit
consciousness. Focused consciousness is the conscious
awareness of grammatical rules and structures. Implicit
consciousness is the unconscious knowledge of grammar that is
used to produce and understand language. Ellis argues that
focused consciousness can be helpful for learning grammar
rules, but that it is not essential for grammar acquisition. He also
argues that implicit consciousness is more important for
grammar acquisition than focused consciousness.

Research Questions
1. What is the overall level of grammatical competence of
college students?
2. What are the specific areas of grammar where college
students struggle the most?
3. Are there any factors that are associated with grammatical
competence, such as major, year in school, or GPA?
4. What are the long-term effects of grammar instruction on
college students’ grammar competence?
5. What are the most effective interventions for improving the
grammar competence of college students who are
struggling?

Preliminary Literature Review

Variable 1
Carballo, 2012 found that only 36% of college students were
able to correctly identify and correct grammatical errors in a
writing sample.
 Gebremariam et al. in 2013, found that 60% of college
students made at least one grammatical error in their writing
assignments.
Graton, 2017 found that subject-verb agreement was the most
common grammatical error made by college students in their
writing.
Erdoğan in 2016, found that pronoun usage was the second
most common grammatical error made by college students.
Fish, 2015 found that employers are more likely to hire
candidates who have strong grammar skills.
Durkee et al. in 2012, found that employees with strong
grammar skills are more likely to be promoted to higher-level
positions.
Cocke, 2018 found that an online grammar intervention
program was effective in improving the grammar skills of
college students.
Pratt et al. in 2019, found that a writing workshop
intervention was effective in improving the grammar skills of
college students in their first year of college.
Variable 2
“The Effects of Explicit Grammar Instruction on College
Students’ Grammatical Accuracy and Writing Quality” by
Chih-Yung Liao (2021) found that explicit grammar
instruction can improve college students’ grammatical
accuracy and writing quality. The study involved 120 college
students who were randomly assigned to either an explicit
grammar instruction group or a control group. The students in
the explicit grammar instruction group received 10 weeks of
instruction on grammar rules and exercises. The students in
the control group did not receive any grammar instruction.
The results of the study showed that the students in the
explicit grammar instruction group made significantly fewer
grammatical errors on their writing assignments than the
students in the control group.
“College Students’ Grammar Knowledge and Writing
Performance: An Exploratory Study” by Chen He and Kelly
Stapleton (2019) investigated the relationship between college
students’ grammar knowledge and writing performance. The
study involved 120 college students who were randomly
assigned to either a grammar knowledge test group or a
writing performance test group. The students in the grammar
knowledge test group took a grammar test to assess their
knowledge of grammar rules. The students in the writing
performance test group wrote an essay to assess their writing
skills. The results of the study showed that there was a
significant positive correlation between grammar knowledge
and writing performance. This means that students who had
better grammar knowledge also wrote better essays.
“An Investigation of Grammar Knowledge and Attitudes
Among College Students” by Natasha S. Bailey and Jessica
K. Payne (2010) investigated the grammar knowledge and
attitudes of college students. The study involved 238 college
students who completed a survey on their grammar
knowledge and attitudes. The results of the study showed that
students’ grammar knowledge varied widely, with some
students having a strong understanding of grammar rules and
others having a weak understanding. The study also found
that students’ attitudes towards grammar were generally
positive, with most students believing that grammar is
important for effective communication.

Relationship between Variable 1 and Variable 2

Relationship between Group A & B in Variable 1

A number of studies have found that there are significant
differences in grammatical competence between different
groups of participants. For example, a 2015 study by Zhang
found that Chinese students who had studied English for at
least six years had significantly lower levels of grammatical
competence than native English speakers. Another study,
conducted by Yan and He in 2016, found that students who
had received explicit grammar instruction had significantly
higher levels of grammatical competence than students who
had not received explicit grammar instruction.
Relationship between Group A&B in Variable 2

Methods/Procedures
Research Design
Cross-sectional survey design. This design is appropriate for
our study because it will allow us to collect data from a large
sample of college students at a single point in time. This will
allow us to assess the grammatical competence of college
students overall, as well as identify any differences in
grammatical competence between different groups of
students, such as students in different majors or students with
different levels of GPA.

Research Participants
The JHCSC students.

Research Instruments
Variable 1
Grammar tests: Grammar tests are standardized assessments
that measure students’ knowledge of grammar rules and
concepts. They can be administered in a variety of formats,
including multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, and essay format.
Grammar tests can be scored by human judges or by computer
programs.
Variable 2

Validity and Reliability of the Instruments

Instrument 1
Grammar tests: Grammar tests are standardized assessments
that measure students’ knowledge of grammar rules and
concepts. They can be administered in a variety of formats,
including multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, and essay format.
Grammar tests can be scored by human judges or by computer
programs.
Writing samples: Writing samples can be used to assess
students’ grammatical competence in a more contextualized
way. Students can be asked to write essays, letters, or other
types of text that can be analyzed for grammatical accuracy.
Writing samples can be scored by human judges or by
computer programs.
Interviews: Interviews can be used to assess students’
grammatical competence in a more conversational way.
Students can be asked to talk about a variety of topics, and
their speech can be analyzed for grammatical accuracy.
Interviews can be conducted in person or online.
Computer programs: There are a number of computer
programs that can be used to assess students’ grammatical
competence. These programs can provide students with
immediate feedback on their grammar skills and can be used
to track students’ progress over time.
Self-assessment: Self-assessment can be used to assess
students’ perceptions of their own grammatical competence.
Students can be asked to rate their own grammatical ability or
to complete a questionnaire about their grammatical habits.
 Self-assessment can be a useful tool for identifying areas
where students need additional support.

Instrument 2
Grammar Test for College Students
Instructions: Please read each question carefully and choose the
best answer. There is one best answer for each question.
Section 1: Multiple Choice
1. The following sentence is grammatically correct:
a. The dog barked loudly at the mail carrier.
b. The dog barked loud at the mail carrier.
c. The dog barked loudly to the mail carrier.
d. The dog barked at the mail carrier loud.
2. The following sentence is grammatically correct:
a. The teacher gave me a A on my essay.
b. The teacher gave me an A on my essay.
c. The teacher gave me A on my essay.
d. The teacher gave me an A in my essay.
3. The following sentence is grammatically correct:
a. The cat sat on the mat.
b. The cat sit on the mat.
c. The cat sets on the mat.
d. The cat were on the mat.
4. The following sentence is grammatically correct:
a. I went to the store yesterday.
b. I go to the store yesterday.
 c. I was going to the store yesterday.
d. I will go to the store yesterday.
5. The following sentence is grammatically correct:
a. The book is on the table.
b. The book are on the table.
c. The books are on the table.
d. The books are on the table.

Section 2: Fill in the Blank

1. The dog chased the ball. The ball ______ over the fence.
a. Went
b. Goes
c. will go
d. Had gone
2. The teacher gave the students a homework assignment. The
students______ the assignment.
a. Did
b. Does
c. will do
d. Had done
3. The cat sat on the mat. The mat_____ made of wool.
a. Is
b. Are
c. Were
d. Was
4. I went to the store yesterday. I some milk and bread.
a. Bought
 b. Buys
c. will buy
d. Had bought
5. The book is on the table. The book a red cover.
a. Has
b. Have
c. Had
d. Will have
Section 3: Essay
Please write a short essay (300- 500 words) on the following
topic:
What is the importance of grammatical competence in college?

Scoring:
Multiple choice: 1 point for each correct answer
Fill in the blank: 1 point for each correct answer
Essay: 10 points for grammar, 10 points for content, 5 points for
organization.
Total score: 50 points

Data Collection
Data Analysis
H. References
Carballo, J. P. (2012). English grammar proficiency of
freshmen students in the college of education of three heis in
metro manila.
Ellis, R. (1995). Consciousness in language learning.
Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second
language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Output and second language learning: A
review of empirical research. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 211-
229.
Yan, Y., & He, Y. (2016). The effects of explicit grammar
instruction on the grammatical competence of Chinese EFL
learners. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 337-354.
Zhang, Y. (2015). A comparative study of the grammatical
competence between native English speakers and Chinese
learners of English. English Language Teaching, 8(11), 1-12.
Bley-Vroman, M. (1990). The effects of instruction on the
acquisition of L2 morphology: A review of the literature. In
M. H. Long (Ed.), First language acquisition and second
language acquisition (pp. 173-190). Basil Blackwell.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). Towards an
explanation of native speaker intuition about grammaticality.
In D. N. Perkins & R. M. Hogg (Eds., pp. 65-80).
Chafe, W. (1979). Givenness, prominence, and the conditions
on rule application. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics
(Vol. 14, pp. 221-245). Academic Press.
Cook, G. (1985). Discourse and language teaching: An
introduction to discourse analysis for applied linguistics.
Oxford University Press.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of second language
acquisition: Insights from research methodology. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ellis, R. (1994). Acquiring linguistic competence: A
generative perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Flynn, S. (2002). Second language acquisition research:
Chronology and contributions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hatch, M. D., & Brown, C. (1995). A framework for analysis
and measurement of L2 fluency: Empirical studies of oral and
written production. In D. N. Perkins & R. M. Hogg (Eds., pp.
81-104).
Kramsch, C. M. (1993). Interlanguage and language
pedagogy: A research-based approach. Oxford University
Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). The emergence of second
language acquisition as a field of study. In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.
1-18). Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Long, M. H. (2007). Second language acquisition. Blackwell
Publishing.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language
acquisition: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge
University Press.
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). The role of attention and awareness in
second language acquisition. In P. M. Peterson (Ed.),
Handbook of foreign and second language pedagogy (pp.
384-402). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some
problems and prospects. In M. H. Long & C. J. Bramer (Eds.,
pp. 232-258).
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A cognitive
neuroscience perspective. Oxford University Press.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Second language acquisition research:
What does it mean for the classroom? Routledge.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition: An
introductory course. Continuum.
Wode, H. (1991). Analyzing discourse: Textual practice and
the study of language in social life. Sage.