Article Sidebar

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 6 Download : 1

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Despite continuous pedagogical refinement and extensive use of multimedia resources, grammar learning outcomes among EFL learners often remain below academic expectations, particularly in higher education contexts where grammatical accuracy is essential for academic writing. This study aims to investigate the mismatch between grammar teaching strategies and grammar learning strategies among Gen Z EFL learners, and to examine how such mismatch influences grammar learning effectiveness. Employing an explanatory mixed-method design, quantitative data were collected through a grammar learning strategy questionnaire administered to undergraduate students and a grammar teaching strategy inventory completed by the lecturer, while qualitative data were obtained from semi-structured interviews and analysis of grammar-related writing tasks. The findings indicate that learners employ a range of grammar learning strategies, with a strong reliance on technology-mediated strategies. Grammar instruction is characterized by explicit explanation and intensive multimedia use; however, opportunities for interactive practice and application-oriented assessment remain limited. This condition generates strategy–pedagogy mismatch, manifested in instruction–practice mismatch, assessment–application mismatch, and strategy–cognition mismatch. Qualitative evidence shows that although learners perceive grammar instruction as clear and supportive, many struggle to retain grammatical knowledge and apply it independently in writing tasks. These conditions contribute to fragile grammar retention, limited grammar internalization, and cognitive passivity in grammar learning. The study concludes that persistent grammar learning difficulties are not caused by insufficient instructional effort, but by strategy–pedagogy mismatch. Pedagogically, the findings suggest the need for grammar instruction that integrates practice-intensive learning cycles, application-oriented assessment, and pedagogically guided use of digital tools to strengthen grammar retention and promote independent grammatical control among Gen Z EFL learners.

Keywords

EFL; Gen Z; Grammar Instruction; Learning Strategies; Strategy-Pedagogy Mismatch

Article Details

How to Cite
Afdaliah, N. (2026). Strategy-Pedagogy Mismatch in Teaching Grammar to Gen Z EFL Learners in West Sulawesi. Eduvelop: Journal of English Education and Development , 9(1), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.31605/eduvelop.v9i1.6208

References

  1. Akmal, S., Rasyid, M. N. A., Masna, Y., & Soraya, C. N. (2020). EFL Learners’ Difficulties in the Structure and Written Expression Section of TOEFL Test in an Indonesian University. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities, 7(2), 164. https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v7i2.6472
  2. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  4. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=eTwmDwAAQBAJ
  5. Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512
  6. Godwin-Jones, R. (2020). Building the porous classroom: An expanded model for blended language learning. In Language Learning & Technology ISSN (Vol. 24). http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44731
  7. Griffiths, C. (2013). The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning. Multilingual Matters. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=KBSxtfc-TKQC
  8. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0261444806003399
  9. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. OUP Oxford. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=imwsewtZKSMC
  10. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 48(2), 263–280. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0261444814000408
  11. Lee, J. S., & Drajati, N. A. (2019). Affective variables and informal digital learning of English: Keys to willingness to communicate in a second language. In Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (Number 5).
  12. Listia, R., & Febrianty, E. R. (2020). EFL Learners’ Problems in Using Tenses: An Insight for Grammar Teaching. IJET: International Journal of English Teaching, 9(1), 86–95.
  13. Mustakim, Musfirah Jaya, N., & Jabri, U. (2025). Challenges in Grammar Learning Among EFL Students: A Case Study of an Indonesian University. 8(1), 16–27. https://ejournals.umma.ac.id/index.php/seltics
  14. Nuralima, R., Afdaliah, N., & Uswatunnisa, U. (2025). AN ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDENTS’ DIFFICULTIES AND PREFERENCES IN LEARNING GRAMMAR (A STUDY AT STAIN MAJENE). International Journal of Research on English Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 6, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.30863/ijretal.v6i1.9024
  15. Nurhayati, D. A. W. (2019). Learning Basic Grammar Using Task-Based Learning: A perspective on Analyzing Online Media Text. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 19–34. https://dx.doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v4i1.284
  16. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Heinle & Heinle. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=mOp3SwAACAAJ
  17. Pawlak, M., Derakhshan, A., Mehdizadeh, M., & Kruk, M. (2023). Yet another look at strategies for learning grammar: Validating the Grammar Learning Strategy Inventory in the Iranian EFL context. System, 118, 103139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103139
  18. Pawlak, M., & Kruk, M. (2025). Investigating the effects of grammar learning strategies instruction in CALL. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003494935
  19. Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994
  20. Ranalli, J., & Yamashita, T. (2022). Automated written corrective feedback: Error-correction performance and timing of delivery. In Language Learning & Technology (Vol. 2022, Number 1). http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73465
  21. Rodríguez-Fuentes, R. A., & Swatek, A. M. (2022). Exploring the effect of corpus-informed and conventional homework materials on fostering EFL students’ grammatical construction learning. System, 104, 102676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102676
  22. Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2018). Generation Z: A Century in the Making. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429442476
  23. Sweller, J. (2011). CHAPTER TWO - Cognitive Load Theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
  24. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

DB Error: Unknown column 'Array' in 'WHERE'