CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the theoretical background, review of related literature and studies,

conceptual framework, and the definition of terms used in the study.

Theoretical Background

This study will be anchored on Generative Grammar Theory, as proposed by Noam

Chomsky, which posits that human language acquisition is governed by innate cognitive

structures, known as Universal Grammar, which enable individuals to generate an infinite

number of grammatically correct sentences. According to Chomsky, language learning is not

merely a process of imitation and reinforcement but involves internalizing abstract linguistic

rules and principles. This theory emphasizes the role of syntax and underlying structures in

language comprehension and production, suggesting that linguistic competence precedes

performance. In education, generative grammar theory informs language instruction by

highlighting the importance of exposing learners to grammatical structures and rules in a

meaningful context, facilitating their understanding and production of language (Chomsky, N.

1957).

Generative grammar theory has significant implications for English language learning in

education, particularly in understanding the underlying structures and rules of the language.

Research studies have demonstrated that integrating generative grammar principles into English

language instruction enhances learners' comprehension and production skills. For example, a

study by Johnson (2016) found that incorporating syntactic structures and rules based on

generative grammar theory in English language classrooms improved grammatical accuracy and
fluency among learners. Similarly, Smith et al. (2018) observed that teaching English syntax

through the lens of generative grammar theory facilitated learners' ability to analyze and

construct grammatically correct sentences. These findings highlight the efficacy of applying

generative grammar principles in English language education to foster a deeper understanding of

language structure and enhance language proficiency.

Another theory employed in this study is the VARK Learning Theory, developed by Neil

Fleming, which is a model that categorizes different learning styles based on sensory modalities:

Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, and Kinesthetic. According to this theory, individuals have

preferred learning modes, and understanding one's learning style can enhance educational

experiences by tailoring instruction to match these preferences. Fleming's model suggests that

learners may benefit from approaches that align with their dominant sensory modalities, such as

visual aids for visual learners or hands-on activities for kinesthetic learners. The VARK Theory

provides educators with insights into designing instructional strategies that accommodate diverse

learning preferences, ultimately promoting more effective learning outcomes. (Fleming, N. D.

(1995).

Research studies have further defined these modalities and explored their implications for

teaching and learning. For instance, a study by Duff (2015) examined the characteristics of visual

learners, highlighting their preference for visual aids, diagrams, and images in educational

materials. Similarly, in a study by Christison (2012), auditory learners were described as

benefiting from lectures, discussions, and audio recordings, which cater to their preference for

listening and verbal communication. Additionally, research by Coffield et al. (2004) delved into

the reading/writing modality, identifying learners who excel in text-based learning activities such

as reading textbooks, taking notes, and writing essays. Finally, as Dunn and Dunn (1993)
explored, the kinesthetic modality involves learners who prefer hands-on activities, movement,

and physical experiences to enhance their understanding and retention of information.

Information Processing Theory (IPT), developed by John Anderson (1976), is a cognitive

framework that views the human mind as a processor of information akin to a computer.

Numerous studies have contributed to the understanding and refinement of this theory, offering

various definitions and insights. For instance, Anderson (1995) described IPT as a model that

conceptualizes cognitive processes such as attention, perception, memory, and problem-solving

as sequential stages of information processing.

Furthermore, Jonassen (2006) extended this definition by emphasizing the role of schema

theory within IPT, highlighting how existing knowledge structures influence information

processing and learning outcomes. Sweller (1988) also focused on cognitive load theory as a

component of IPT, elucidating how the cognitive demands imposed by instructional materials

affect learning efficiency and effectiveness. Moreover, Mayer (2005) defined IPT in the context

of multimedia learning, emphasizing the integration of visual and verbal information processing

channels to enhance comprehension and retention. Van Merrienboer and Sweller (2005) offered a

comprehensive definition of IPT that incorporates the principles of cognitive load theory, schema

theory, and instructional design, emphasizing the importance of aligning instructional strategies

with the limitations and capacities of human mental processing.

Multiple Intelligences Theory (MIT), proposed by Howard Gardner, posits that

individuals possess different types of intelligence, which influence how they perceive and

interact with the world. Numerous studies have expanded upon this theory, providing diverse

definitions and exploring its educational implications. For instance, Armstrong (2009) defined

MIT as a framework that recognizes various forms of intelligence beyond traditional measures
such as IQ, including linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical,

interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and existential intelligence. Furthermore, Armstrong

(2011) discussed the application of MIT in education, highlighting the importance of

incorporating diverse instructional strategies and assessments to accommodate students' unique

strengths and learning preferences.

Gardiner (2012) emphasized the role of MIT in promoting student engagement and

motivation, suggesting that educators can enhance learning experiences by tapping into students'

intelligence and interests. Moreover, Gardner (2006) elaborated on the connection between MIT

and curriculum design, advocating for integrating interdisciplinary approaches and project-based

learning to address multiple intelligences within a single lesson or unit. Finally, Kornhaber et al.

(2017) explored the impact of MIT on student achievement and found that personalized

instruction tailored to students' intelligence led to improved academic performance and attitudes

toward learning.

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Grammatical Competence

Grammatical competence is a fundamental linguistic concept that refers to a speaker's

internalized knowledge of a language's rules and structures. Studies like Nassaji & Fotos (2011)

highlight that grammatical competence encompasses understanding the building blocks of

language—vocabulary (lexical knowledge), word formation (morphology), sentence structure

(syntax), and sound system (phonology). This knowledge allows speakers to form grammatically

correct sentences and grasp the nuances of meaning conveyed through grammatical choices.
 In the study of Marzulina et al. (2019), a grammatical awareness test developed by

Schoonmaker (2015) consisted of four types: Metalanguage recognition, Metalanguage

production, Identification and grammatical error, and Grammatical rules explanation. The

findings revealed that Metalanguage recognition had the highest mean score of 21.35 among the

student teachers at a state Islamic University in Indonesia. Followed by identification and

grammatical error correction (8.26), Metalanguage production (6.02), and Grammatical rules

explanation (5.66). The results proved that Metalanguage was the easiest part for the participants,

while grammatical rules were the most challenging task. Therefore, the study also revealed that

the participants' grammatical awareness was moderate.

Chomsky (1965), as cited by Mojabi (2014), emphasizes that grammatical competence

equips speakers to create and comprehend grammatically well-formed sentences. This includes

the ability to identify and avoid ungrammatical structures. Studies like Richards (2022)

demonstrate the link between grammatical competence and language proficiency. Strong

grammatical knowledge empowers speakers to express themselves clearly and effectively in

speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Research by Nordquist (2020) suggests that

grammatical competence is often implicit or unconscious, developed through exposure and

practice. Language learning activities focusing on sentence structures, verb conjugations, and

identifying grammatical errors can enhance grammatical competence.

Studies by Hayes (2004) demonstrate that students with solid grammatical knowledge

produce more grammatically accurate and well-organized writing. This suggests that a solid

foundation in grammar empowers effective written communication. Perfetti et al. (1987) also

suggest that understanding grammatical structures aids reading comprehension. The ability to

decode sentence structure and identify grammatical cues helps readers grasp the intended
meaning of a text. Ellis (2001) highlights the correlation between grammatical competence and

speaking fluency. A firm grasp of grammar allows speakers to string words together and express

themselves smoothly and effortlessly. Moreover, Rost (2002) suggests that grammatical

knowledge facilitates listening comprehension. Understanding sentence structure and

grammatical markers helps listeners process and interpret spoken language effectively.

In a study conducted by Rosales & Ilagan (2019) on the Grammatical Competence of

Grade 11 Learners, it was found that among the three areas of grammar, respondents are highly

competent in morphology and moderately competent in semantics and syntax. The mean overall

result for the respondents is only 59.92, which is interpreted as “moderately competent.” There is

a significant degree of variance in the three areas of grammar. The respondents’ scores on

morphology versus semantics and morphology versus syntax proved substantial. The result for

semantics versus syntax was insignificant. Therefore, the variance lies in morphology, where the

respondents got the highest average among the three areas of grammar. Additionally, Sioco & De

Vera (2018) found that junior high school students must enhance their grammatical competence

in subject-verb agreement.

Syntax

Syntax, how words are arranged to form sentences, plays a crucial role in English

language learning. Studies by Ellis (2006) highlight the importance of developing syntactic

knowledge for learners to move beyond essential communication and express themselves with

greater complexity. Understanding sentence structure allows them to create grammatically

correct and nuanced sentences. Sharwood Smith & Truscott (1998) suggest that mastering syntax

fosters comprehension and fluency. The ability to parse sentence structure aids in understanding
spoken and written language, while fluency benefits from constructing grammatically correct

sentences effortlessly.

Studies by Long & Robinson (1998) highlight learners' challenges with complex sentence

structures, including embedded clauses and verb tense variations. Instructional strategies that

break down complex structures and provide clear explanations can be beneficial. Furthermore,

Spada & Lightbown (2001) explores the debate between explicit grammar instruction and

implicit learning through exposure. A balanced approach that combines both methods may be

most effective.

Morphology

Morphology, the study of word formation, plays a significant role in English language

learning. Nagy & Anderson (1984) suggest that understanding morphemes (meaningful word

parts like prefixes, suffixes, and roots) empowers learners to decode unfamiliar words and

expand their vocabulary. This knowledge allows them to break down complex words into smaller

components and infer their meaning. Carnine et al. (2003) highlight the link between

morphological awareness, spelling, and reading skills. Understanding word structure can help

learners identify morphemes within words, improving their ability to decode and spell words

accurately. Studies by Booij (2012) suggest that morphological knowledge can contribute to a

better understanding of grammar and writing skills. Learners can improve their sentence

construction and writing fluency by recognizing how morphemes are combined to form different

grammatical structures.

Semantics
 Semantics is the study of meaning in language. Laufer & Nation (1995) highlight the

importance of semantics in vocabulary learning. Learners must go beyond memorizing words

and understand their meaning in different contexts. This knowledge allows them to use words

accurately and fluently. Schmitt (2000) suggests that strong semantic knowledge fosters

comprehension and fluency. Understanding word meaning will enable learners to grasp the

nuances of spoken and written language and express themselves with greater clarity and

precision. Furthermore, Byram (1997) emphasizes the link between semantics and cultural

understanding. Words often carry cultural connotations that learners must be aware of to avoid

misunderstandings. Examining the semantics of words can provide insights into the cultural

context in which they are used.

Learning Styles

Research by Watanabe & Ellis (2008) suggests a shift towards teaching effective learning

strategies that benefit all learners, regardless of their preferred style. This approach emphasizes

metacognition (thinking about thinking) and self-regulation in learning. Studies by Graham

(2007) explore how cognitive style (analytical vs. holistic) can influence the learning strategies

chosen by individuals. Instruction can acknowledge these differences and guide the selection of

appropriate methods.

Moreover, Dörnyei (2009) highlights motivation and learner affect (emotions) in

language learning success. Activities and approaches that cater to different learning styles can

enhance learner engagement and motivation. Pintrich & Zusho (2002) suggest that learners with

a strong sense of self-efficacy (belief in their ability to learn) are likelier to persevere and

succeed. Creating a positive learning environment that fosters confidence is essential, regardless

of learning style. Phantharakphong (2012) also found that the majority of the participants in his
study preferred Kinesthetic and Multimodal learning styles followed by Auditory and Visual

learning styles.

Chetty et al. (2022) found a significant relationship between learning styles and teaching

styles because they can increase or decrease students’ academic performances. Lecturers must

prepare a few types of material on the same topic and conduct their classes in various ways to

ensure that they may assist the students in understanding what the lecturers are trying to deliver

in their learning way. A study conducted by Arifin (2015) indicated some differences in the

learning styles used by students with high, middle, and low levels of competence. A little

difference was also found in male and female students' learning styles. Thus, teachers need to be

aware of their student's learning styles. It is clear then that one factor that can lead to the success

of a language teaching-learning process is the match between students` learning styles and the

teaching methods used by the teachers.

VARK Model

Neil Fleming's VARK model categorizes learners into four styles: visual, Auditory,

Read/Write, and Kinesthetic. Studies by Fleming & Mills (1992) suggest incorporating activities

catering to all four VARK preferences can increase learner engagement and motivation. This

variety can keep lessons exciting and accommodate diverse learning styles. Research by Kolb

(1984) highlights the value of learners understanding their preferred learning styles. The VARK

model can raise awareness and encourage learners to select study strategies that align with their

strengths. Studies by Dunn & Dunn (1993) suggest that teachers who consider learning styles

can create more effective lesson plans by incorporating various activities and modalities. This

can lead to better learning outcomes for all students.

 A study by Trianada (2022) found that individuals may have learning preferences that

involve multiple sensory modalities based on the VARK learning theory. The findings revealed

that multimodal learning styles are dominant among students and are characterized by

combinations of reading and kinesthetic learning styles. This suggests that English as a Foreign

Language (ELF) students learn best when reading books and engaging in practical experiences.

Haryana & Astina (2020) also found that most of the students in Islamic high schools are visual

learners, meaning most of them tend to be more active and participative when the teaching and

learning process are taught or delivered using audio learning materials. It was followed by visual

and kinesthetic learning styles, with read/write learning styles being the least preferred. The

result of this study can be used as a guideline for the teachers at other Islamic schools to create a

learning environment that is more appropriate for audio learners.

A review by Tomic (2023) of 40 articles about the VARK model investigated the validity

and reliability of the questionnaire, as well as the relationship between learning style preference

and various outcomes, and found that the VARK questionnaire is a reliable tool for assessing

learning style preferences, especially in fields like medicine, kinesiology, and economics. It

suggests that understanding these preferences can inform educational design, though the

relationship with academic performance is complex and influenced by demographic factors like

age, gender, and culture. Tailoring educational materials to individual needs is crucial,

recognizing that different learning styles require different approaches.

Academic Performance in English

Lin et al. (2022) explore the impact of English proficiency on academic success,

particularly in universities where English isn't the primary language. This study highlights a

positive correlation, though the strength varies depending on the field of study. Rotich & Kimutai
(2013) examine factors influencing performance in English classes, particularly for students

where English isn't their native language. It was found that proficiency in the language of

instruction (LOI) is crucial for academic achievement.

Racca & Lasaten (2016) investigated the correlation between English language

proficiency and academic performance in Science, Mathematics, and English among 216 Grade

8 students from Philippine Science High School campuses in Northern Luzon, Cordillera

Autonomous Region, and Cagayan Valley. It utilized frequency distribution and Pearson’s r

correlation for data analysis. Findings indicate that most students had satisfactory English

language proficiency, with very good performance in Science and Mathematics and good

performance in English. The results also show a significant relationship between English

language proficiency and academic performance in all subjects.

A descriptive study by Urmatan (2020) aimed to identify factors influencing academic

performance in English among struggling Grade 7 readers from secondary mother schools in the

Congressional District of Iloilo Province for the 2018-2019 academic year and revealed that

struggling readers exhibited frustration in reading ability, with no significant correlation found

between reading comprehension, motivation, and academic performance. Similarly, frustration

was observed in reading comprehension, with no significant relationship with academic

performance, reading ability, or motivation levels. Motivation levels were moderately low,

without significant links to academic performance, reading ability, or comprehension. Despite

fairly satisfactory academic performance, no significant relationships were found with reading

ability, comprehension, or motivation. However, when examining reading comprehension by

grouping reading ability, motivation levels, and academic performance, significant relationships

emerged.
Relationship between Grammatical Competence and Academic Performance

A study titled “English Academic Writing Performance Level of KSU Students” (2023)

assesses English proficiency and its correlation with academic achievement among technical

writing students. Purposive sampling was employed. Results indicate proficiency in grammar

and reading but weakness in writing. Grammar proficiency was the only factor influenced by

respondents' gender. Additionally, English proficiency levels significantly correlated with

academic performance. Furthermore, Lee et al. (2017) argue that grammar is fundamental to

forming clear and understandable spoken and written messages. This implies better grammar can

improve overall academic performance in English courses that rely on communication.

Akinjobi (2011) investigated the relationship between academic competence in

Phonetics, English Phonology, and Spoken English and the use of English intonation tunes

among Nigerians. Despite academic proficiency, most Nigerians struggle with intonation, likely

due to learning English in a classroom setting rather than acquiring it naturally. The study

involved thirty subjects with a first degree in English language from the University of Ibadan.

Oral production tests were conducted, and data were analyzed perceptually and acoustically.

Results indicate that academic competence minimally influences the appropriate use of

intonation tunes, particularly in polite requests, complex sentences, and attitudinal functions such

as surprise or uncertainty. Falling and rising tunes were most commonly mastered for polar

questions.

Moreover, a study by Rafael and Cloate (2016) about the relationship between

international students’ English test scores and academic achievements revealed a strong

correlation (r=0.426) between English test scores and academic grades. Wulan et al. (2018)
found that optimizing the five academic skills in the English teaching and learning process

significantly improved students' academic achievement, with a 92.6% increase observed.

Relationship between Learning Styles and Academic Performance

In the study of Kohan, N. (2021), the majority of the participants were unimodal, with

frequencies of 92.9% and 78.5%, and the rest were multimodal. The findings revealed that the

most common learning styles of the participants were kinesthetic (57.1%) and auditory (37.2%).

Based on the results, there is no significant relationship between their learning styles and

academic performances. Munir, N. (2018) examined the relationship between learning styles and

academic achievements among male and female students. Findings revealed no significant

differences in the tactile learning style scores between male and female students. Both genders

had similar mean scores, indicating comparable tendencies towards tactile learning. However,

male students exhibited higher mean scores for visual and auditory learning styles than female

students. These findings suggest that while tactile learning styles may not differ significantly

between genders, disparities exist in visual and auditory learning preferences. The study found

no significant relationship between learning styles and academic achievements, implying that

specific learning preferences may not solely influence academic success. Overall, the study sheds

light on gender differences in learning style preferences and emphasizes the complex relationship

between learning styles and academic performance.

A study conducted by Jayanama (2017) aimed to identify the learning styles of low and

high-proficiency students in Foundation English at Srinakharinwirot University and their

relationship with academic achievement and demographic variables. It was found that both low

and high-proficiency students exhibited similar major learning styles, including auditory, group,

kinesthetic, and visual, in order of preference. The relationship between learning styles and
academic achievement varies. A positive relationship was observed between visual learning style

and academic achievement for low-proficiency students. In contrast, for high-proficiency

students, a positive relationship was found between tactile learning style and academic

achievement. Certain demographic variables, such as gender and faculty, were associated with

specific learning styles. Interviews revealed that low-proficiency students emphasized visual

learning styles, while high-proficiency students preferred tactile and kinesthetic learning styles.

These findings suggest the importance of considering individual learning preferences and

demographic factors in educational approaches to improve academic performance in English

language learning.

Dabaghi, A., & Goharimehr, N. (2011) found that students have their preferences for

learning grammar, which the teacher should address. In this study, two methods were used:

discrete-point and integrative teaching. The findings revealed that the integrative method of

teaching grammar could lead to better grammar learning compared to the discrete-point teaching

method. It emphasizes to the teacher the need to consider students' differences in learning styles

to provide quality education.

 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Generative VARK Learning Information Multiple Intelligences

Grammar Theory Theory by Neil Processing Theory Theory by Howard
by Noam Fleming by John Anderson Gardner
Chomsky

Grammatical Learning Styles Academic

Competence Performance in
English

General
Syntax Visual Read/Write
Average

Auditory Kinesthetic
Morphology

Semantics

FIGURE 2.1 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework of the Study

This study will focus on the relationship between Grammatical Competence, Learning

Styles, and Academic Performance in English of Junior High School students at St. Louise de

Marillac College of Bogo Cebu, Inc. This study will be anchored on the Generative Grammar
Theory by Noam Chomsky, the VARK Learning Theory by Neil Fleming, the Information

Processing Theory by John Anderson, and the Multiple Intelligences Theory by Howard Gardner.

In Grammatical Competence, there are three specific areas that the researchers would like to

focus on Syntax, Morphology, and Semantics. The International English Language Testing

System (IELTS) will test the respondents' grammatical competence, an international standardized

English language proficiency test for non-native English speakers jointly managed by the British

Council. Students’ Learning Styles will be categorized into Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, and

Kinesthetic based on the VARK questionnaire. Their academic performance in English will be

identified through their General Average for Academic Year (BLANK). The collected data will

be the basis for determining if there is a significant relationship between grammatical

competence, learning styles, and academic performance in English.