ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
205
INVESTIGATING THE CHALLENGES IN TEACHING GRAMMAR TO EFL
STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT HERAT UNIVERSITY, AFGHANISTAN
Farida Faqiri
Department of English Literature, College of Education, Herat University, Afghanistan
Email:
Dr. Nasim Tahsildar
Department of English Literature, College of Education, Herat University, Afghanistan
Email:
Sayed Mohsen Qazizada
Department of English Literature, College of Education, Herat University, Afghanistan
Email:
qazizada1989@gemil.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15835185
Abstract. This study investigates the challenges in teaching grammar to English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) students. More specifically, it focuses on grammar challenges caused
by the interference of the students’ native languages, teaching strategies and the classroom
environment. The research includes 100 EFL students at two different English Departments at
Herat University. A questionnaire is adopted to test the challenges in the three different areas.
Statistical tests are applied to check if the challenges are perceived to affect by students’
grammar skill. The findings show that students’ learning is significantly influenced by three key
factors: language interference, teaching strategies, and classroom environment. Most students
reported challenges with understanding English, emphasized the importance of effective
teaching strategis, and noted that classroom conditions impact their focus. Implications on
native language and both instructional and environmental improvements are regarded as crucial
for enhancing learning outcomes.
Keywords: EFL students, grammar instruction, language interference, teaching
strategies.
INTRODUCTION
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students face persistent challenges in acquiring
grammatical competence due to various linguistic, pedagogical, and contextual factors (Ellis,
2006; Richards & Renandya, 2002). Grammar, in this context, refers to the system and structure
of a language, including syntax, morphology, and the rules that govern sentence formation (Ur,
2012). Mastery of grammar is essential for effective communication and overall language
proficiency (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999). However, many learners struggle to
internalize grammatical rules, particularly due to language interference, teaching methodologies,
and the classroom environment (Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
One of the main challenges in English grammar acquisition for EFL students is the
interference from their native language (Odlin, 1989). This phenomenon, also known as negative
transfer, occurs when learners apply grammatical patterns from their first language to English,
often leading to errors (Gass & Selinker, 2008). According to Swan (2005), learners frequently
overgeneralize or misapply English grammar rules because of their familiarity with their L1
structures.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
206
Odlin (1989) supports this view, explaining that significant structural differences between
English and a learner’s first language can result in persistent grammatical errors. For instance,
Chinese learners often struggle with the use of articles (a/an/the) because their native language
lacks equivalents. Similarly, Arabic speakers face challenges with English verb tenses due to
differences in aspectual distinctions (Scott & Tucker, 1974). Lado’s (1957) contrastive analysis
hypothesis suggests that the greater the differences between the two languages, the more difficult
it becomes to acquire the target language. Nevertheless, Cook (2008) argues that bilingual
learners can develop metalinguistic awareness, enabling them to better manage interference and
develop strategies for more accurate language use.
Another significant factor influencing grammar acquisition is the teaching methodology
used in the classroom (Ellis, 2006; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Teaching
methodology refers to the approach and techniques instructors employ to deliver grammar
instruction, which can range from traditional rule-based methods to modern communicative
approaches (Krashen, 1982). Krashen also argues that learners benefit more from meaningful
input rather than rote memorization of grammar rules. Conversely, Thornbury (1999) emphasizes
that explicit instruction is necessary for internalizing complex structures and avoiding
fossilization of errors. Richards and Rodgers (2001) compare the grammar-translation method
with communicative language teaching (CLT), concluding that CLT promotes long-term
retention and meaningful use of grammar. Tahsildar (2014; 2018) highlight the impact of
grammatical cohesive devices on both listening and writing production. However, Ur (2012)
maintains that direct grammar instruction is crucial, especially in academic contexts where
accuracy is important. Celce-Murcia (1991) and Larsen-Freeman (2003) advocate for an
integrated approach that combines rule explanation with practical usage, addressing the grammar
form, meaning, and use.
In addition to language interference and methodology, the classroom environment plays a
vital role in the effectiveness of grammar instruction (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003; Lightbown &
Spada, 2013; Wang, 2010). Classroom environment includes the physical and psychological
setting, teacher expertise, availability of resources, and instructional strategies (Fraser, 2012;
Harmer, 2015; Scrivener, 2011). Harmer (2007) emphasizes the role of engaging materials and
classroom environment in enhancing learners' motivation and facilitating grammar acquisition. A
study by Fraser (2012) found that a supportive and well-structured classroom climate positively
correlates with increased student motivation and engagement in language learning tasks.
Similarly, Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) emphasized the role of a psychologically safe
environment, where learners feel comfortable taking risks, in enhancing communicative
competence. Wang (2010) conducted a mixed-methods study in Chinese EFL classrooms and
reported that factors such as seating arrangement, access to teaching aids, and classroom
aesthetics had measurable effects on students’ attentiveness and grammatical performance.
Moreover, Harmer (2015) highlighted that teacher behavior and the strategic use of group
work and interaction patterns could foster a more inclusive environment conducive to grammar
acquisition. These studies collectively underscore the multifaceted nature of the classroom
environment and its critical role in shaping EFL learners' grammatical development.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
207
Thus, the acquisition of English grammar by EFL learners is seen to get influenced by a
complex interplay of factors, among which native language interference, teaching methodology,
and classroom environment are particularly critical. Negative transfer from the first language
often leads to persistent grammatical errors, especially when learners unconsciously apply L1
structures to English. At the same time, the effectiveness of grammar instruction is heavily
dependent on the pedagogical approaches employed in the classroom, with research highlighting
the value of communicative, form-focused, and learner-centered methods. Equally important is
the classroom environment, encompassing both physical and psychological elements, which can
either support or hinder language learning. A positive environment—characterized by teacher
support, effective resource use, and opportunities for interaction—has been shown to enhance
learner motivation and grammatical development. Understanding and addressing these three
dimensions holistically is essential for improving grammar acquisition and overall proficiency in
EFL contexts.
Despite the growing div of research on the factors influencing EFL grammar
acquisition, there remains a notable gap in the literature concerning systematic studies within the
context of Afghan universities. While international studies have extensively examined the roles
of native language interference, teaching methodologies, and classroom environment, limited
empirical evidence exists that specifically addresses how these variables affect EFL learners in
Afghanistan’s higher education institutions. The unique linguistic, educational, and socio-
cultural context of Afghan universities necessitates focused investigation to determine whether
existing global findings are applicable or if distinct patterns emerge. Therefore, further research
in this setting is essential to enrich the literature and inform more contextually relevant
pedagogical practices.
Research objectives:
To explore EFL students’ native language interference on their grammar skills
To investigate how uses of different teaching strategies affect EFL students’ use of
English grammar
To examine if classroom environment impacts the effectiveness of grammar instruction
to EFL students
Research Questions
How does EFL students’ native language interfere their grammar skills?
How does use of different teaching strategies affect the students’ use of English grammar?
To what extent does classroom environment influence the effectiveness of grammar
instruction to EFL students?
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 100 EFL students enrolled at two
English Departments of Herat University. The participants were selected based on availability
and willingness, representing both public university and private institutes. Their native language
was Persian. A quantitative research design was employed, using structured questionnaires as the
primary data collection tool. The questionnaires were designed to gather data on students’
attitudes toward the three challenges with regards to learning English as a foreign language. It
was adopted from Richards and Schmidt (2010). The questionnaire validity has been certified in
different settings.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
208
The data was analyzed using various statistical techniques to address the study's primary
research questions regarding challenges in teaching English grammar to EFL students.
Analyses: First, a Choronbach’s Alpha was conducted to check the reliability of
the instrument in the current study. The result is shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1
The reliability test
All the aspects
Alpha
.913
Language interference
.798
Teaching strategies
.747
Classroom environment
.812
A descriptive statistic was also clculated to summarize the central tendencies (mean),
variability (standard deviation), and the precision of the sample mean (standard error). This was
done for each of the items related to any of the three aspects (language interference, teaching
strategies and classroom environment) as per the research questions. The results are below in
Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
Table 2 Language Interference Impact (Items 1–6)
Item
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1
3%
7%
20%
45%
25%
2
2%
8%
25%
40%
25%
3
4%
12%
20%
38%
26%
4
5%
10%
15%
45%
25%
5
6%
14%
20%
38%
22%
6
3%
10%
22%
40%
25%
The responses indicate that most participants perceive language interference as a
significant factor affecting their learning. Across all six items, the majority of students selected
"Agree" or "Strongly Agree," suggesting that difficulties such as understanding English
vocabulary, sentence structure, or overall communication in the classroom are common. A
smaller portion of students expressed neutrality or disagreement, indicating some variability, but
overall, language appears to be a prominent barrier for many.
Table 3 Teaching strategies (Items 7–11, 14–15)
Item
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
7
1%
5%
15%
50%
29%
8
2%
8%
20%
45%
25%
9
3%
10%
20%
40%
27%
10
2%
8%
25%
40%
25%
11
1%
5%
20%
49%
25%
14
2%
6%
20%
45%
27%
15
1%
4%
15%
50%
30%
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
209
Most respondents agreed that the teaching strategies used by their instructors significantly
influence their understanding and engagement in the classroom. High percentages of "Agree"
and "Strongly Agree" responses show that students value interactive, clear, and supportive
teaching approaches. Few students selected "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree," which reinforces
that the majority view teaching strategy as a critical component in their learning process.
Table 4 Classroom Environment (Items 12–13)
Item Strongly Disagree Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
12
3%
9%
18%
45%
25%
13
2%
6%
17%
50%
25%
The findings suggest that the physical classroom environment—specifically factors like
noise, temperature, and lighting—has a notable impact on students’ learning. A majority of
students responded with "Agree" or "Strongly Agree," indicating that environmental distractions
and discomforts can hinder their concentration and understanding. This reflects a need for better
classroom conditions to support effective learning.
Another descriptive statistics was applied to summarize the central tendencies (mean),
variability (standard deviation), and the precision of the sample mean (standard error). This was
done for each of the key survey items related to challenges in teaching English grammar to EFL
students. Results are show in Table 5 below:
Table 5
The descriptive statistics for key items in the questionnaire
The aspects
N
Mean
SD
Std. Error M
1: Language interference
100
4.10
0.82
0.082
2: Teaching strategies
100
3.60
0.68
0.068
3: Classroom environment
100
4.05
0.79
0.079
The analysis of the first research question examines the impact of language interference
on English grammar learning among EFL students. The mean score of 4.10 indicates that
language interference is perceived as a major challenge for the majority of learners. A standard
deviation of 0.82 reflects notable variability in responses, suggesting that while many students
are affected, the degree of interference varies across individuals. The standard error of the mean
(SEM), calculated at 0.082, points to a high level of precision and reliability in estimating the
population mean.
The second research question investigates the influence of teaching strategies on student
engagement and understanding of English grammar. The mean score of 3.60 suggests that
learners held mixed views regarding the effectiveness of different instructional approaches. The
standard deviation of 0.68 indicates relatively low variability in responses compared to the first
question, suggesting more consistent experiences among students. The corresponding standard
error of 0.068 reinforces the reliability of the mean, reflecting a precise estimate.
The third research question focuses on factors such as teacher experience, instructional
resources, and classroom environment in shaping the effectiveness of grammar instruction. The
mean score of 4.05 demonstrates that learners perceive these contextual factors as having a
strong influence on grammar learning.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
210
The standard deviation of 0.79 implies moderate variability in learners' responses, and the
standard error of 0.079 indicates a reliable estimation of the mean, lending further credibility to
the findings.
Overall, the study highlights several key factors that shape grammar learning for EFL
students. Language interference emerges as the most significant obstacle, emphasizing the
challenges learners face when their native language structures interfere with English grammar
acquisition. Moreover, classroom-related factors—particularly teacher expertise, resource
availability, and the learning environment—play a critical role in influencing instructional
effectiveness. The variation in perceptions of teaching strategies suggests that different strategies
resonate differently with learners, underscoring the need for adaptive and learner-centered
instruction. The consistently low standard errors across all three questions further support the
statistical reliability of the results. These findings underscore the importance of targeted teaching
strategies and supportive learning conditions to effectively address the diverse needs of EFL
learners.
Findings:
This study provides valuable insights into the challenges encountered by EFL learners in
acquiring English grammar. The descriptive statistical analysis of key survey items identifies
three major influencing factors: language interference, teaching strategies, and classroom-related
conditions. These results are consistent with existing literature on second language acquisition
(Ellis, 2006; Richards & Renandya, 2002).
The analysis of learners' overall challenges in mastering English grammar reveals a mean
score of 3.85, indicating that participants generally perceive grammar acquisition as difficult. A
standard deviation of 0.75 suggests moderate variability in responses, reflecting individual
differences in the level of difficulty experienced. The standard error of 0.075 indicates a
reasonable degree of precision in the mean estimate, lending credibility to the findings. These
results reinforce previous research highlighting the inherent complexity of second language
grammar learning and the importance of individual learner characteristics (Krashen, 1982;
Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
Language interference emerged as the most prominent challenge, with a mean score of
4.10, suggesting that the influence of learners’ native language significantly hinders English
grammar learning. The standard deviation of 0.82 indicates substantial variability in learners'
experiences with language interference, pointing to differences in linguistic background and
cognitive processing. The standard error of 0.082 confirms the reliability of the mean score. This
outcome aligns with studies emphasizing the negative transfer of first-language structures to
second-language acquisition (Odlin, 1989; Lado, 1957).
Regarding teaching strategies, the mean score of 3.60 reflects a moderate and varied
perception among learners about the effectiveness of different instructional strategies.
This suggests that teaching strategies are not uniformly effective and may depend on
learners’ preferences, needs, and learning styles. The standard deviation of 0.68 demonstrates
comparatively lower variability, indicating a relatively consistent pattern in students’ experiences.
The standard error of 0.068 reinforces the precision of the mean, supporting the
trustworthiness of the result.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
211
These findings correspond with research advocating for the integration of both explicit
and implicit grammar instruction to cater to diverse learners (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Ellis, 2009).
Classroom-related factors, including teacher qualifications, resource availability, and the
overall learning environment, were found to significantly influence grammar instruction
outcomes, as reflected in a mean score of 4.05. A standard deviation of 0.79 indicates moderate
variability in learners’ experiences, suggesting that classroom dynamics benefit some students
more than others. The standard error of 0.079 supports the accuracy and reliability of this result.
These findings are supported by prior studies emphasizing the importance of teacher
expertise, interactional quality, and instructional resources in shaping second language learning
outcomes (Harmer, 2007; Brown, 2001).
Discussion:
This study identifies several critical factors influencing English grammar acquisition
among EFL learners, with particular emphasis on the roles of language interference, teaching
strategies, and classroom conditions. The notably high mean score for language interference (M
= 4.10) underscores the persistent and detrimental effect of first-language transfer in second-
language grammar learning. This finding aligns with Ellis (2006), who emphasizes the cognitive
and structural challenges that L1 interference imposes on L2 acquisition. Similarly, Odlin (1989)
and Lado (1957) argue that negative transfer from the native language often results in persistent
grammatical errors, particularly in morphosyntactic structures.
Classroom-related factors were also found to significantly affect grammar learning
outcomes (M = 4.05), highlighting the influence of teacher expertise, access to instructional
resources, and the broader learning environment. This result reinforces the sociocultural
perspective of language learning, which asserts that learning is mediated through interaction and
the quality of instructional input (Vygotsky, 1978; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Prior studies
similarly stress the role of contextual factors in promoting or constraining language development,
particularly in environments with limited pedagogical support (Richards & Rodgers, 2014;
Lightbown & Spada, 2013). In this context, teacher qualifications and instructional scaffolding
are crucial for effective grammar instruction.
In contrast, the lower mean score for teaching strategies (M = 3.60) indicates a more
varied perception among learners regarding instructional effectiveness. This variability may
reflect the diversity of learner preferences, language backgrounds, and cognitive styles. As
Larsen-Freeman (2000) argues, no single strategy or approach guarantees success for all learners;
rather, an eclectic and adaptive pedagogy—one that incorporates both form-focused and
communicative strategies—is more likely to meet diverse learner needs. The findings also
resonate with Nassaji and Fotos (2011), who advocate for an integrated approach that balances
explicit instruction with meaningful interaction.
Moreover, the relatively low standard errors (ranging from 0.068 to 0.082) across the
variables reflect a moderate to high degree of precision, lending credibility and reliability to the
quantitative findings. However, while the descriptive statistics provide useful general trends,
they do not capture the nuanced, subjective experiences of individual learners. As Dörnyei (2005)
notes, mixed-methods or qualitative investigations are essential to understanding the dynamic
interplay of cognitive, emotional, and environmental variables in second language acquisition.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
212
Future studies might benefit from in-depth interviews or classroom observations to
explore how learners internalize grammatical rules and how teachers adapt instruction in
response to learner needs.
Overall, the study contributes to the growing div of research emphasizing the
multifaceted nature of grammar learning in EFL contexts. It highlights the need for learner-
centered, context-responsive instructional strategies, and stresses the importance of mitigating
language interference through contrastive analysis and tailored feedback. In doing so, it
underscores the pedagogical imperative to consider not only what is taught, but how and under
what conditions it is delivered.
Conclusion
This study finds that the main challenges in EFL grammar acquisition stem from first-
language interference, the complexity of English grammar, and inconsistent instructional
methods. Learners struggle with negative L1 transfer, limited exposure to authentic language,
and traditional memorization-based teaching, which often fails to support communicative
competence (Krashen, 1982; Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
In contrast, communicative and context-rich approaches better foster comprehension,
learner autonomy, and active engagement, aligning with sociocultural and interactionist theories
(Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Yet balancing accuracy and fluency remains
difficult in diverse classrooms with varied learner needs and institutional constraints.
Modern strategies such as technology-enhanced instruction, task-based learning, and
interactive exercises show promise for improving grammar acquisition and motivation when
effectively implemented (Ellis, 2009; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011).
However, study limitations—such as participants’ prior grammar exposure, the cross-
sectional design, and a narrow sample—restrict generalizability and call for future research with
more robust methods. Future investigations should use advanced statistics, for example:
Native language interference: Linear regression on Likert-scale interference ratings and
grammar test scores can reveal predictive relationships.
Teaching methods: ANOVA or multiple regression with dummy coding can assess
differences across instructional approaches while controlling for motivation and class dynamics.
Classroom environment: Regression analysis on continuous measures can clarify its
impact on grammar outcomes.
These findings have key educational implications: the strong influence of L1 interference
underscores the need for support programs or bilingual instruction; the role of teaching methods
highlights the value of teacher training in interactive strategies; and the classroom environment’s
impact suggests improving physical conditions can enhance learning.
Future research should adopt mixed-methods and longitudinal designs to better capture
learner experiences and long-term instructional effects, offering actionable insights for
curriculum developers, teachers, and policymakers.
REFERENCES
1.
Borg, S. (2006).
Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice
.
Continuum.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
213
2.
Brown, H. D. (2001).
Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy
(2nd ed.). Longman.
3.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991).
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language
. Heinle &
Heinle.
4.
Cook, V. (2008).
Second language learning and language teaching
. Routledge.
5.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005).
The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition
. Routledge.
6.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003).
Group dynamics in the language classroom
.
Cambridge University Press.
7.
Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching.
Asian EFL Journal, 8
(3), 19–45.
8.
Fraser, B. J. (2012).
Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect
.
In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.),
Second international handbook of
science education
(pp. 1191–1239). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-
7_79
9.
Harmer, J. (2007).
The practice of English language teaching
(4th ed.). Pearson Longman.
10.
Harmer, J. (2015).
The practice of English language teaching
(5th ed.). Pearson Education.
11.
Krashen, S. D. (1982).
Principles and practice in second language acquisition
. Pergamon
Press.
12.
Lado, R. (1957).
Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers
.
University of Michigan Press.
13.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000).
Techniques and principles in language teaching
. Oxford
University Press.
14.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003).
Techniques and principles in language teaching
. Oxford
University Press.
15.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013).
How languages are learned
(4th ed.). Oxford
University Press.
16.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011).
Teaching grammar in second language classrooms:
Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context
. Routledge.
17.
Odlin, T. (1989).
Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning
.
Cambridge University Press.
18.
Odlin, T. (2012).
Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning
.
Cambridge University Press.
19.
Press. Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language Curriculum Design. Routledge.
20.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002).
Methodology in language teaching: An
anthology of current practice
. Cambridge University Press.
21.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001).
Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching
.
Cambridge University Press.
22.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014).
Approaches and methods in language teaching
.
Cambridge University Press.
23.
Scott, M. L., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Error Analysis and English-Language Strategies of
Arab Students.
Language Learning.
24.
Scrivener, J. (2011).
Classroom management techniques
. Cambridge University Press.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MOD
ERN SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 7 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
214
25.
Swan, M. (2005).
Practical English Usage
. Oxford University Press.
26.
Tahsildar, M. N., & Yusoff, Z. S. (2018). Impact of Teaching Cohesive Devices on L2
Students’ Language Accuracy in Written Production.
Academy Journal of Educational
Sciences
, 2(1), 16-28.
https://doi.org/10.31805/acjes.430006
27.
Tahsildar, M. N. and Yusoff, Z. S. (2014). Impact of teaching academic text cohesive
devices on esl undergraduates’ listening comprehension.
International Journal of English
Language Education
, 2(2), 209. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v2i2.6266
28.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Pearson Education.
29.
Wang, Y. (2010). The impact of classroom environment on EFL learners’ grammar
learning: A mixed-methods study in Chinese tertiary institutions.
Asian EFL Journal, 12
(4),
144–165.
