Search

A Comparative Study of Grammar Exercises in PEP and FLTRP Junior High English Textbooks

Author(s)

Mengyao Qi

Affiliation(s)

School of Foreign Languages, Liaocheng University, Liaocheng, Shandong, China

Abstract

The English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education (2022 Edition) emphasize that grammar knowledge is an integrated whole of form, meaning, and use. Students need to notice, understand and experience grammar forms and their meanings in context. They should also use what they have learned to read and convey ideas. The design of grammar practice activities directly influences the realization of this goal. This study draws on Larsen-Freeman’s three-dimensional grammar framework and Paulston’s threetier classification of practice types. It adopts text analysis, comparative analysis and data analysis to investigate grammar practice activities in two sets of junior high school English textbooks. The textbooks are published by People's Education Press and Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press respectively. Three coders statistically analyzed the grammar exercises in both editions according to coding standards. The Kappa values reached 0.950 for three-dimensional coding and 0.878 for practice type coding. These values demonstrate high inter-coder reliability. Findings show that both textbook versions attach greatest importance to exercises combining form and meaning in their three-dimensional distribution. This type of exercise accounts for 46.5% of activities in the People’s Education Press textbook and 42.0% in the Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press textbook. Form-only exercises rank second, accounting for 28.9% (PEP) and 26.1% (FLTRP). Exercises integrating form, meaning, and use are the least frequent, with shares of 24.5% and 31.9%. The chi-square test indicates no significant difference in three-dimensional distribution between the two editions (χ² = 1.985, p = 0.371). In terms of practice types, meaningful practice dominates the PEP textbook at 50.9% of total grammar-practice activities. The FLTRP edition displays a different pattern, with meaningful practice (39.9%) and mechanical practice (34.1%) as its main exercise types. Communicative practice is the least represented in both textbooks, at 12.0% and 26.0%. A significant difference is found in practice-type distribution across the two editions (χ² = 10.150, p = 0.006). While neither textbook contains grammar exercises fully detached from form, both show room for improvement in applying the three-dimensional grammar approach. This paper offers recommendations for textbook developers and teachers to optimize the design and application of grammar practice activities.

Keywords

Three-Dimensional Grammar Framework; Three-Level Drill Classification Theory; Grammar Practice Activities；PEP Textbook; FLTRP Textbook; Junior High School English Textbooks; Textbook Comparison

References

[1]Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Compulsory Education English Curriculum Standards (2022 Edition). Beijing Normal University Press, 2022, 24–26. [2]Cheng, X. T., & Xie, S. Y. A Comparative Study of Grammar Sections in Chinese and Foreign English Textbooks. English Language Learning, 2023(6): 4–10. [3]Larsen-Freeman, Diane. Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Heinle, 2003. [4]Paulston, Christina Bratt. "The Sequencing of Structural Pattern Drills." TESOL Quarterly, 1971, 5(3): 197-208 [5]Larsen-Freeman, Diane. "Teaching grammar." Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 2001, 3, 251-266. [6]De Vries, Mark. "Three-dimensional grammar." Linguistics in the Netherlands, 2003, 20(1): 201-212. [7]Macías, Diego Fernando. "An Exploration of a Three-Dimensional Grammar Framework in Foreign Language Teaching: The Case of the English Passive Voice." Lenguaje, 2010, 38(2): 331-370. [8]Purpura, James E. Assessing Grammar. Cambridge University Press, 2004. [9]Paulston, Christina Bratt, and Mary Newton Bruder. "From Substitution to Substance: A Handbook of Structural Pattern Drills.", 1975. [10] Littlewood, William. Communicative language teaching. Cambridge university press, 1981. [11] Lin, X. L., & He, A. P. A Comparison of Grammar Sections in Old and New Senior High School English Textbooks. Foreign Language Teaching in Schools (Middle Version), 2006, 29(1): 12–15. [12] Qin, M. F. A Study on the Application of the Three-dimensional Grammar Framework in Junior High School English Grammar Teaching. Qinghai Normal University, 2018. MA thesis. [13] Liu, W. On Three-dimensional Grammar Teaching Theory of English from the Perspective of Linguistics and Language Teaching Development. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 2011, 19(4): 70–74. [14] Li, X. C. A Comparative Analysis of Grammar Exercises in Old and New PEP Grade 7 Volume 1 Junior High School English Textbooks: A Case Study of the 2012 and 2024 Editions. Overseas English, 2025(19): 147–149. [15] Jia, F., Feng, Y. H., & Lu, S. A Study on the Compilation of Grammar Content in English Major Textbooks Based on Mixed Methods. Foreign Language Teaching, 2024, 45(2): 65–70. [16] Lü, G. Z., & Lu, F. Current Situation and Improvement Strategies of Grammar Exercise Design in Junior High School English. Foreign Language Teaching in Schools (Middle Version), 2017, 40(6): 28–33