JEELS
(Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies)
P-ISSN: 2407-2575 E-ISSN: 2503-2194
https://jurnalfaktarbiyah.iainkediri.ac.id/index.php/jeels
STUDENTS’ VOICES ON EFFECTIVE TEACHING METHODS
FOR GRAMMAR LEARNING IN PEER TUTORING PROGRAM
Maria Indah Paskarena 1; * Thomas Wahyu Prabowo Mukti2;
1,2English Language Education Study Program, Sanata
Dharma University, Indonesia
mariaindahpaskarena@gmail.com; *thomaswpm@usd.ac.id;
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract: This research investigated students’
perceptions of tutors’ teaching methods applied in
one of grammar tutoring classes in an English
Education study program at one of the universities
in Yogyakarta.
The students’ preferences on
grammar teaching methods were also discovered.
This research employed a quantitative approach.
Fifty-seven students participated in this study and
filled out the questionnaire. Their activities during
tutoring program were observed. Then, the
interview was used to gather further information.
The result of the questionnaire revealed a mean score
of four point twenty-nine. It showed that the
participants of this study shared their positive
perceptions of tutors’ teaching methods in grammar
tutoring classes. They felt that the tutors were able to
build a comfortable learning experience and
1Citation in APA style:

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.
DOI: 10.30762/jeels.v11i2.2904
Submission: May 2024, Revision: October 2024, Publication: November 2024

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

motivate them to have a language exposure.
Additionally, the students desired to learn grammar
by using the audio-lingual method and
communicative language teaching (CLT) method.
This study implies the need for a well-prepared peer
tutoring program to help students effectively.
Additionally, the administrators can address
individual learning differences and provide insights
for improving grammar instructions.
Keywords: grammar teaching method,
tutoring program, students’ perceptions

grammar

INTRODUCTION
Peer tutoring programs have been proven to be one of the
effective ways to help students learn (Ali et al., 2015). Their study
showed that tutoring programs positively impact students’ learning
process. Additionally, peer tutoring has a major positive impact on
developing self-concept in learning English which could boost
students’ motivation in learning, encourage them to persevere when
facing challenging tasks, and lessen students’ test anxiety (Alrajhi &
Aldhafri, 2015). Peer tutoring could help students with difficulty
following the course nurture study habits and learning style, reinforce
and strengthen personal learning and understanding of topics (Tan &
Genevera, 2020), improve students' academic performance and clarify
confusion, gain confidence, and improve their writing skills (Zhang,
2021). More importantly, peer tutoring is a sustainable and effective
solution to help Higher Education (HE) solve issues in productivity,
especially those impacting first-year students (Arco-Tirado et al., 2020).
Therefore, to provide the best learning experience, selection and
training for tutors are necessary (Weigle & Nelson, 2004; Zhang &
Bayley, 2019). Moreover, by identifying suitable teaching methods for
students in peer tutoring programs, organizers and tutors can create an
effective learning process that meets learning objectives (Paragae,
2023).
At one of the private universities in Yogyakarta, the English
Language Education Study Program (ELESP) provides a grammar

850

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

tutoring program to help first-year students better understand
grammar. Mastering grammar is crucial in assisting students to
understand and produce the language and urged educators to solve
the issue (Murtini, 2021; Refat, et al., 2020). This issue is becoming more
concerning since ELESP students had problems mastering some basic
knowledge of grammar, i.e. participle -ed and -ing (Bintoro, 2016). To
solve this issue, the department proposed Cross-Age Peer Tutoring
(CAPT), where the senior students become tutors of junior students
(Ali et al., 2015). The senior students assigned as tutors are usually the
third-semester or fifth-semester students who have passed grammar
classes in the previous semester well.
Nevertheless, creating effective peer tutoring to help the students
achieve their learning goals is such a challenging thing. Based on some
students’ comments on this program, this program was run
ineffectively in three aspects: unprepared materials, unclear
explanations by the tutor, and the tension in their relationship that
made them unable to enjoy the learning process with the tutor. The
students’ comments on the grammar tutoring program became one of
the underlying reasons why the researchers decided to investigate how
this program is conducted, especially the effectiveness of teaching
methods used in class, and investigate suitable teaching methods for
students. In addition, the researchers also acknowledge the complexity
of grammar teaching involving how teachers choose approaches,
methods, and techniques of teaching grammar (Ellis, 2006) that
eventually determine the success of teaching and learning.
The researchers used Six Principles for Exemplary Teaching of
English Learners (TESOL International Association, 2018) and
principles of teaching grammar methods (Larsen-Freeman &
Anderson, 2011; Setiyadi, 2006) as the guidelines for analyzing
methods used by tutors. The Six Principles for Exemplary Teaching of
English Learners are to know your learners, create conditions for
language learning, design high-quality lessons for language
development, adapt lesson delivery as needed, monitor and assess
student language development, and engage and collaborate within a
community of practice. These six principles are believed to help

851

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

English teachers provide a more effective learning process, and these
principles can be used in this research to examine whether tutors’
teaching methods used in the grammar tutoring program have resulted
in an effective learning process (TESOL International Association,
2018).

Figure 1. The 6 Principles for Exemplary Teaching of English
Learners (TESOL International Association, 2018)
Some teaching methods can be used to teach grammar to English
as foreign language learners. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011)
and Setiyadi (2006) explained that these methods are the grammartranslation method (GTM), direct method, audio-lingual method, total
physical response method, and communicative language teaching
method. Grammar tutors can use some methods to teach their students
and make the grammar tutoring programs run more effectively.
There are some studies researching tutoring programs in
different contexts. Ali et al. (2015) showed that peer tutoring helps
student-to-student learning more effectively. Alrajhi and Aldhafri
(2015) showed students had developed self-concept in English
language learning which enhanced their motivation, perseverance, and
reduced test anxiety and especially helpful for for first-year students
Arco et al. (2020). Wang et al. (2023) conducted a large-scale study to
investigate the effectiveness of different tutoring approaches within a
larger Intensive English Program context, emphasizing the benefits of
multimodal instruction and mentor support for students’ progress.
Lastly, in the Indonesian context, Sembiring (2021) found that peer

852

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

tutoring could enhance students’ understanding of conditional
sentences and motivate students to learn more of the topic. In the larger
scale, Mulatsih’s (2018) study showed students agreed that grammar
peer tutoring programs could help them improve their competence,
study more intensively, and increase their understanding.
While peer tutoring programs have been recognized as one of the
effective learning strategies to support students’ language learning,
comprehensive research focusing on the specific teaching approaches,
methods, and techniques used by tutors is still limited. Therefore, the
researchers addressed two research questions:
1. What are the perceptions of tutees regarding tutors’ teaching
methods in the Grammar Tutoring Program at ELESP? and,
2. What teaching methods are preferable for grammar tutoring
program tutees to teach grammar?
Exploring the approaches, methods, and techniques used could
potentially give valuable insights into the instructional strategies and
practices that could effectively support students’ grammar mastery,
address students’ different needs, and contribute practical insights to
the ongoing debate on optimal grammar instruction in various EFL
settings. Additionally, the researchers hope the department/study
program could equip the tutors with evidence-based pedagogical
approaches tailored to the context of grammar learning and peer
tutoring.
METHOD
This study used quantitative research to inquire about the data.
According to Goertzen (2017), quantitative research is a very effective
method to answer research questions of “what” or “how”. The
quantitative method was selected to investigate the patterns and
behaviors shown in the class and generalize tutees’ perceptions related
to the teaching method used in grammar tutoring classes. Specifically,
the researchers distributed questionnaires, observed how grammar
tutoring classes ran, and interviewed some tutees representing each
tutoring class.

853

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

Research Setting and Participants
This research was conducted at one of the private universities in
Yogyakarta. The participants of this research were first-semester
students from ELESP batch 2023 who joined the grammar tutoring
program from December 2023 to January 2024. They were selected
based on their pre-test score and their willingness to join this program.
This tutoring program was designed by the university to help students
who were considered to have problems with their grammar
(considering CEFR level, they were mostly A1+ and A2+).
Fourteen male students and forty-three female students ranging
from 19-20 years became the participants of this research. Forty-two
students were from Java Island; the rest were from Kalimantan,
Sulawesi, and Sumatra. Four grammar tutoring groups or classes
consisting of eighty-six students were chosen. By using Cochran’s
(1977) formula, fifty-seven students were selected to participate in this
research. The calculation of this sample size was available in this site
https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/samplesize/default.aspx.
Data Collection
The close-ended questionnaire using Likert scale was
administered to the students. The questionnaire of this research
adapted six principles for exemplary teaching of English learners
(TESOL International Association, 2018) and principles of teaching
grammar methods (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Setiyadi, 2006).
The first section of nine closed-ended questions investigated the
students’ perceptions on the effectiveness of tutors’ teaching methods
in helping them master grammar i.e. “The tutor considers the possible
reasons and adjusts the lessons when we are struggling or not
challenged enough.” The second section comprised 18 closed-ended
questions revealed students’ preferred grammar teaching methods i.e.
“I like it when the tutor teaches grammar by giving conversation drills
using simple dialogue.”
Additionally, the observation in one session for each tutoring
class was done to confirm participants’ questionnaire answers. It could
show how four different tutors taught their students. The next

854

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

observations were conducted in the last two sessions of the grammar
tutoring program. Six principles for exemplary teaching of English
learners (TESOL International Association, 2018) and principles of
teaching grammar methods (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011;
Setiyadi, 2006) became the guidelines for observing the classes. The
observation checklist consisted of statements extracted from the
blueprint i.e. “The tutor monitors students; understanding and
responses to determine whether they are reaching the learning
objectives.”, accompanied by two columns for marking either “Yes” or
“No” during the observation, i.e. “The tutor knows students’
backgrounds (academic goals, interests, learning preferences, etc.) and
can engage them in the classroom and prepare and deliver lessons
effectively”.
The last step of the research procedure was interviews to
strengthen the gathered data. Eight students who accepted the request
of being the participants were chosen as the participants. Four students
were categorized into A1-A4” for active students and the rest were
“PS1-PS4” for passive students. These codes did not refer them to the
classes they belonged to maintain the participants’ anonymity.
Data Analysis
The mean score of each statement in the questionnaire was
calculated by using the Jamovi and categorized them based on themes.
Table 1 establishes the benchmarks for interpreting perception levels
through mean values.
Table 1. Positive and Negative Criteria (Field, 2024)
Mean score
x" ≤ 3
x" > 3

Class
Negative
Positive

Cronbach’s Alpha result in Table 2 shows that the data of this
research are good, consistent, and reliable since it measured the same
characteristics (Miller, 1995; Zeller, 2005).

855

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

Table 2. Reliability Analysis
Scale Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s α
Scale
0.893

Besides the reliability analysis, the data from the interviews and
observations were employed to support the results of the questionnaire
and enhance the credibility and validity of the findings. The interviews
were transcribed. The transcription was coded and categorized based
on the themes namely the principles used by the tutors, route of
learning, teaching methods, and language of instructions. Then, the
results were rechecked to ensure the validity of the analysis. The results
of the analysis were validated to the participants. When they approved
the results of interview analysis, all data from the questionnaire,
interview, and observation were displayed.
FINDINGS
The Perceptions of Students Regarding Tutors’ Teaching Methods in
the Grammar Tutoring Program
Students’ perceptions of tutors’ teaching methods were
examined by integrating and comparing the data. Table 3 presents the
result of the students’ perceptions of tutors’ teaching methods in the
grammar tutoring program.
Table 3. Statements in the First Section of the Questionnaire
No.
1.

2.

3.
4.

Statement
The tutor wants to know our background
(academic goals, interests, learning preferences,
etc.) to engage us in the classroom and prepare and
deliver lessons more effectively.
The tutor creates a classroom culture to ensure we
feel comfortable in the class by creating the
teaching setting, a place where we are motivated to
learn, practice, and take risks with language.
The tutor plans meaningful lessons that promote
language learning and help us develop learning
strategies and critical thinking skills.
The tutor develops the lessons based on the
learning objectives.

856

Mean
4.3

4.54

4.39
4.53

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

5.

6.
7.

8.
9.

The tutor monitors our understanding and
responses to determine whether we are reaching
the learning objectives, for example, by asking
what we have learned today at the end of the
lesson.
The tutor considers the possible reasons and
adjusts the lessons when we are struggling or not
challenged enough.
The tutor assesses our progress, notes and
evaluates the types of errors that we make, and
offers strategic feedback (e.g. gives the feedback in
front of others or personally).
The tutor uses a variety of assessment types to
measure our outcomes, like observations, tests,
exercises, quizzes, etc.
The tutor collaborates with other tutors to provide
the best support (e.g. learning materials) for us.

4.58

4.37
4.19

4.12
3.67

Table 3. shows that all students gave positive responses to all of
those questionnaire statements (x̄ > 3). It indicates that the students
considered their tutors had a desire to understand their background,
created suitable conditions for language learning, designed highquality lessons for language development, adapted lesson delivery as
needed, monitored and assessed students’ language development, and
collaborated within a community of practice.
Additionally, most students appreciated their tutors’ efforts in
monitoring their progress. Two participants told that the tutors
monitored their understanding by asking questions related to the
materials. That statement is shown in the interview results below:
[…], “we kept being asked, "Do you understand or not?" If we didn't
understand, it could be repeated. At the beginning and the end of the
tutoring session, we were always asked about the previous week's material,
like a review. Then, at the end of the tutoring session, we briefly discussed
and reviewed what was learned that day. We were also given important
notes and highlights that we should take note of in each session.”(AS3)
[…], “after each lesson or exam, we were given a review of the material.
The tutor also provided us with questions and sometimes asked us to
answer them one by one. Sometimes, we were called upon to answer
directly. So, indirectly, it also served as a test. The tutor also reviewed the
learning material at the end of the session.”(AS2)

857

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

The interview results proved that the tutors monitored students’
understanding and responses to recognize whether they had reached
the learning objective. One of the students stated that the tutor kept
asking whether they understood or not and would repeat the material
if they had not understood yet. Another student declared that the tutor
provided some questions to be solved by them to check their
understanding. Based on the observation result, all tutors showed that
they monitored students’ understanding during the lesson by
approaching the students to check their work and asking questions
related to the material.
Then, the second highest result is achieved by the second
statement (x̅: 4.544). The students believed that tutors had successfully
created a classroom culture to ensure students felt comfortable and
motivated to learn and practice. One of the interview participants who
was categorized as an active student said that the tutor often motivated
the student to learn and made the student feel comfortable. Another
interview participant who was categorized as a passive student also
said that the tutoring program made her more interested in delving
deeper into grammar courses. The interview answers from both
participants are described below:
[…] "The tutor is a realistic person, you know. She often says that we have
to be able to do it because we need to, and all that stuff. So, honestly, for
me, it boosts my motivation to realize that I need to know (learn), not just
because I’m taking PBI (English Language Education). And (she) creates
a comfortable environment because when I'm with the tutor, it feels like
being with a friend" (AS1)
“With the presence of this tutoring program, we become more (…)
interested in delving deeper into the subject” (PS3)

Those interview data strengthened the result of the second
questionnaire statement and showed that the tutors had succeeded in
creating conditions for language learning for the students. The
observation results also showed that all of the tutors created classroom
conditions where the students could engage with the tutor and the
lesson. The tutors also cared about students’ condition and struggles.

858

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

This result aligned with Blok et al.'s (2020) principles that stated
effective teachers are those who can create a learning environment
where students are comfortable interacting with one another, want to
develop their skills and be honest about their needs.
Then, the statement that received the lowest mean score was
statement number nine (x̅: 3.667). Most students agreed that their tutors
had collaborated with other tutors to provide the best support. Even
though that statement received the lowest score, the students gave
positive responses for that in the interview. One of the students said
that the tutor had collaborated with the other tutors. It was shown that
when one of the tutors had to go abroad to do a campus activity, the
other tutors helped that tutor teach the tutoring class. The participant
stated that,
“Yes, actually you can see it from our grammar tutoring class, (…). The
tutor has been changed multiple times. But the material they provide
remains the same. Even though I don't see it myself, I feel like the tutors
can support each other to deliver the best material.” (AS2)

The interview result shows that the tutors in the grammar
tutoring program collaborated to give meaningful lessons to the
students. They collaborated in teaching the students. Ultimately, the
interview result strengthened the result of the questionnaire.
From the findings, it can be seen that the majority of students had
positive perceptions toward tutors’ teaching methods used in the
grammar tutoring program. The salient findings showed that tutors
monitored students’ understanding and responses to determine
whether students were reaching the learning objectives, and tutors
created a classroom culture to ensure students felt comfortable in the
class by creating a teaching setting a place where students were
motivated to learn, practice, and take risks with language. Further,
students also gave positive responses for how collaborative the tutors
in the grammar tutoring program were in providing the best learning
experience for students even though this statement received the lowest
mean score.

859

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

Students’ Perceptions of Suitable Teaching Methods for Teaching
Grammar in Grammar Tutoring Program
From the second section of closed-ended questions, the
researchers were able to collect data on students’ preferred teaching
methods based on their perceptions. In this section, the researchers
present the histogram of the data from the four criteria for defining
suitable teaching methods and preferred teaching. There are some
considerations to determining teaching methods to teach grammar
namely, the route of learning, defining the language of instruction, and
considering the skill that needs to be emphasized in the learning
process (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Setiyadi, 2006).
Route of Learning
According to Takala (2016), investigating the chosen route of
learning, whether the tutors teach grammar rules inductively or
deductively, helps identify the grammar teaching method. The
researchers allowed students to share their perceptions of the two
learning approaches, deductive and inductive. Figure 3 displays the
result of students’ perceptions on the route of learning.

Figure 3. Students’ Preferred Route of Learning
Figure 3 presents the questionnaire results that the students
gave positive responses for both deductive and inductive routes of
learning. The students agreed that it was easy to follow the lesson when
the tutor started with the introduction, possibly including explicit rules

860

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

of the topic, followed by examples and practice. However, they also
agreed that it was easy to follow the lesson when the tutor started the
lesson by giving many examples and expected the students to find out
the topic by themselves and later give confirmation about the
knowledge that they found. The interview results from both passive
and active students below support those statements:
“(…) If we were given an introduction, we got to know what the basic
Grammar is like, so we didn't directly jump into the material or given
exercises. (…) we were given the basics. We didn't understand what it was
in the basics and it's like we were introduced to it as well. It's the same as
what is taught in class. We were just taught the basics first, and then, if
we understood, we were given more difficult questions. Later, we were
given various exercises.” (PS3)

The interview result aligns with Takala's (2016) study which
found the deductive approach is related to explicit teaching, which has
significant evidence in leading to successful learning results. However,
AS1 said that the inductive approach also helped them to understand
the material more.
“Firstly, because at that time, it was about revisiting the simple past,
present, future, continuous tenses, and all that. Honestly, I (…) only
understood like two out of ten, (…). Then, coincidentally, when Kak G was
making a sentence, she asked us to guess the formula or which tense it
belonged to. Secondly, we were also asked to create random sentences.
Then, we had to identify them ourselves. And also, Kak G would create
formulas, and we had to make the sentences. Through exercises like that, I
felt like my understanding increased a lot. I became more knowledgeable
and understood better.” […] (AS1)

That interview result proves that the inductive approach, which
is related to implicit teaching (Takala, 2016), is also successful in
providing effective grammar lessons. The students said that their
understanding increased a lot when the tutor used the inductive
approach as the inductive teaching approach fosters’ students’ critical
thinking by analyzing real-life examples and students’ active
engagement (Raxmonovna, 2023). Additionally, some studies show
students taught grammar using inductive approaches outperformed

861

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

significantly the students taught using deductive approaches (BenitezCorrea et al., 2019; Obeidat & Alomari, 2020; Shirav & Nagai, 2022).
Apart from the positive perception of the inductive approach,
AS2 said,
“(…), I’m being neutral because, for me, whether the tutor starts with
explicit grammar rules or starts with examples first, it's the same. What
matters is the overall content of the tutor.” (AS2)

The interview result shows that deductive and inductive routes
benefit different students. The other said that the route of learning
chosen by the tutor does not matter because what matters is the content
of the lesson. From all of that evidence, it can be concluded that both
deductive and inductive learning routes could lead to successful
learning results. According to the observation result, three out of four
tutors applied the deductive approach to teach the students. They
introduced the material, and then they asked students some questions
related to the materials. On the other hand, the other tutor applied the
inductive approach by giving students exercises for final test
preparation, and after that, they discussed it together.
Language of Instruction
Two language options that can be used to teach grammar in the
grammar tutoring program for Indonesian students are students’ first
language, Indonesian, or English. Figure 4 presents the result of the
students’ preferred language of instruction.
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
English

Indonesia

Language of instruction

Figure 4. Students’ Preferred Language of Instruction

862

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

Figure 4 shows that students gave positive responses to
Indonesian and English as the languages of instruction. According to
the gathered data, the participants gave three different responses when
choosing the preferred language of instruction.
The student who preferred Indonesian as the language of
instruction stated that the Indonesian language would help students to
understand the material and tutors’ words better (PS2).
“Okay. First, using the Indonesian language is easier to grasp. It's easier
to understand. And I can also understand what Ka I means.”(PS2)

On the other hand, a student who preferred English as the
language of instruction said that using English would make them
accustomed to listening to new English vocabulary and pronunciations
and would help those who were taking the English Language
Education Study Program (AS4).
“Yes, of course, because we are in the English study program, I believe it's
better to stick with English. As you mentioned, it helps us practice and
exposes us to new vocabulary and pronunciation. By using English more
often, we can better understand English words and enhance our ability to
communicate in English as well.” (AS4)

There was also one participant who said that it would be better if
the tutor combined English and Indonesian to teach grammar (PS4).
“Actually, I like it when the tutor explains in English, but it's also helpful
when they combine it with Indonesian. This is because, as I mentioned
earlier, my English language proficiency is not very strong. So, having a
combination of English and Indonesian explanations is beneficial for me.”
(PS4)

The interview results above give more in-depth information on
how students’ preferred language instructions. Using Indonesian
language as the language of instruction would help the students who
still have difficulty in English understand the material, and using
English as the language of instruction would help other students learn
and practice their listening and speaking skills. Another student also

863

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

shared her opinion that combining Indonesian and English as the
language of instruction was beneficial for her. Additionally, the result
of class observations showed that all of the tutors used a combination
of Indonesian and English as the language of instruction to teach the
students. Most tutors used English as the dominant language but
sometimes used Indonesian to re-explain complex ideas or rules.
Preferred Emphasized Skills
To identify suitable teaching methods, investigating the
preferred emphasized skill is necessary as different skills would impact
the approach tutors/teachers would use. Takala (2016) stated that
determining the primary important skill(s) can reveal the underlying
teaching method. Figure 5 presents the result of students’ preference
on the emphasized skill.
4
3.95
3.9
3.85
3.8
3.75
3.7
Writing

Speaking

Listening

Reading

Figure 5. Students’ Preferred Emphasized Skill
Figure 5 shows that students responded positively to all
statements regarding their preferred emphasized English skills. The
sequence of English skills ranked from the highest to the lowest score
is reading (x̄ = 3.982), speaking (x̄ = 3.912), listening (x̄ = 3.877), and
writing. (x̄ = 3.807).
One of the students who preferred reading skills told that the
tutoring program helped her analyze sentences with correct grammar
in reading class.

864

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

“It also helps me not only in the grammar class but also in other courses
like Basic Writing and Reading. There were times when we practiced
analyzing sentences that had errors, whether it was a grammar mistake
or an error within the sentence structure. With the presence of a
grammar tutor, I can analyze those sentences and transform them into
grammatically correct ones. (PT3)

Students who preferred listening and speaking skills said that,
they could receive feedback when she used incorrect pronunciation.
“Because of that, we can see that the tutor is also able to provide feedback.
For example, if we make a mistake in our pronunciation, the tutor will
correct it for us.” (PT4)

Another student who preferred writing skills said that grammar
has a relation with writing, and doing writing tasks helps the student
to understand grammar concepts more effectively.
“Yes, that's right. It might be related to grammar because grammar is
more about written expression. So, when the tutor assigns us writing
tasks, I believe it further enhances our understanding of grammar. It helps
the students grasp the concepts of grammar more effectively.” (AT4)

Then, there was a statement from one of the tutees that said her
tutor taught her that English consists of not only one aspect, so by
mastering grammar, the other skills will be mastered more easily.
“That's true. In tutoring, we were taught that English encompasses not
just one aspect like speaking or writing alone. It all comes together as a
whole. It's like they are interconnected. If we have a good understanding
of grammar, it will make it easier for us to learn writing, listening, and
reading as well.” (AT3)

The interview results above strengthened the questionnaire
result presented in Figure 4. The interview results show that the four
English skills chosen by students had their benefits for the students.
Emphasizing reading skills helped them in reading class, emphasizing
listening and speaking skills helped them use correct pronunciation,
and emphasizing writing skills helped them understand grammar
concepts more effectively. In reality, based on the class observation, all

865

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

tutors trained students’ writing, speaking, and reading skills and used
quite different approaches for teaching those skills i.e. when the focus
in on writing, the tutor spent more time discussing the grammar rules
and error analysis. However, none of them emphasized students’
listening skills during the learning process.
Preferred Teaching Techniques
The researchers also investigated tutees’ perceptions of certain
grammar teaching techniques drawn from some grammar teaching
methods, such as grammar translation method, direct method, audiolingual method, total physical method, and communicative language
teaching method. Here is the result of tutees’ perceptions of certain
grammar teaching techniques.
Table 4. Students’ Preferred Techniques from Grammar Teaching
Methods
No.
Statement
1.
I like it when the tutor explains the materials by
translating the content.
2.
I like it when the tutor teaches grammar highly focusing
on grammar rules and patterns (form-focused).
3.
I like it when the tutor provides listening and imitating
sound activities to teach grammar so that I can
automatically produce the sounds.
4.
I like it when the tutor explains materials (sentences) by
presenting physical objects or abstract ones through
some ideas or thoughts instead of translating the
sentences.
5.
I like it when the tutor teaches grammar using repetition
and drilling.
6.
I like it when the tutor teaches grammar by giving
conversation drills using simple dialogue.
7.
I like it when the tutor teaches grammar through
commands and physical actions.
8.
I like it when the tutor teaches grammar while learning
vocabulary items, especially verbs.
9.
I like it when the tutor teaches grammar focusing clearly
on meaning.
10. I like it when the tutor teaches grammar by giving reallife situations practice in the classroom (e.g. giving
authentic problem-solving tasks).

866

Mean
4.28
4.18
3.91
4.05

4.3
4.25
3.61
4.49
4.3
4.28

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

Table 4 shows the result of questionnaire data on students’
perceptions of certain techniques of grammar teaching methods, i.e.
grammar translation method (1-2), direct method (3-4), audio-lingual
method (5-6), total physical response (7-8), and communicative
language teaching (9-10). The figure shows that the eighth statement
received the highest mean score (x̅: 4.49). One of the students said that
learning vocabulary can help them understand part of speech, which is
learning about verbs and adjectives. That statement is shown in this
interview result. The teacher said that,
"The thing is, when it comes to the part of speech, I sometimes still get
confused about which ones are verbs. And there are various types of verbs,
right? I'm still confused about distinguishing them. Whether it's an
adjective or a verb like that." (PT4)

The interview result supports the questionnaire result where
students mostly agreed that they like it when the tutor teaches
grammar while learning vocabulary items, especially verbs and
directly practicing those verbs. According to the observation results,
three out of four tutors had taught vocabulary implicitly through
reading books and working on exercises.
The statements that received the second-highest mean score were
statements number five and nine (x̅: 4.298). The statements “I like it
when the tutor teaches grammar using repetition and drilling” and “I
like it when the tutor teaches grammar focusing clearly on meaning”.
One of the students said that drilling helps them understand the
material more deeply and master it. Another student said that by
focusing on meaning, the student can immediately learn the essence of
the material. Those statements are shown in the interview results
below:
"Because with drilling, we can understand the material more, go deeper,
and through drilling exercises, the material will be ingrained in our minds.
With more practice like that, it becomes more ingrained, and eventually, it
will be memorized." (AS4)

867

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

"I agree more because it can be more, (…) direct to the point, like that. Not
too much running around (…). If there's too much running around, I'll
end up getting confused." (AS2)

The interview results show that using drilling and repetition and
focusing on meaning when learning grammar help students
understand the material. Those techniques helped students master the
material and focus on the essence of the material. However, the
observation result shows that only one of the three tutors used drilling
and repetition techniques. For the technique of teaching grammar by
focusing on meaning, all tutors applied that technique in class. The
tutors emphasized the importance of understanding the meaning of the
sentences they presented in the lesson.
Then, the statement that received the lowest mean score was
statement seven (x̅: 3.614), “I like it when the tutor teaches grammar
through commands and physical actions.” It turned out that students
did not like learning grammar through command and physical actions.
One of the students said it because it feels like they are being forced to
do that. That statement is supported by the interview result below.
[…] “I don't really like it, it feels like it's too forced. But Kak M rarely
gives commands like that.” (AS3)

The interview results show that teaching grammar through
commands and physical actions, which is one of the techniques in the
total physical response method, has low interest. In addition, the
observation results show that tutors rarely used the aforementioned
technique to teach grammar in the tutoring class.
DISCUSSION
The findings show two major themes. First, the majority of the
students considered tutors’ teaching methods had succeeded in
producing effective learning which is in line with Ali et al.’s (2015)
study. As in Tan and Genevera’s (2020) and Sembiring’s (2021) studies,
students could understand the materials better on account of tutors’
explanation. In addition, students appreciated their tutors who always

868

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

monitored their comprehension, one of the crucial aspects of TESOL
International Association's (2018) principles. It aligns with Hattie and
Timperley's (2007) study which highlights the importance of formative
and/or ongoing assessments and feedback to support students’
learning as what the tutors did by monitoring students’ understanding
and responses, assessing students’ progress, evaluating the types of
errors students made, offering strategic feedback (i.e. gives the
feedback in front of others or personally), and using various
assessment types to measure students’ outcomes. Additionally, the
researchers noted classroom culture created by the tutors also made
students feel comfortable and motivated to learn (Blok, et al., 2020) as
some students mentioned that their tutor was their friend in
understanding grammar principles and clarify some confusion (Zhang,
2019 & Zhang, 2021). A positive learning environment could positively
enhance students' psychological factors which later could influence
students’ language acquisition (Dörnyei, 2005) and enhances learning
effort and the perception of peer tutor scaffolding which contributes to
students' willingness to continue learning English (Wang, et al., 2023).
Second, grammar tutoring students had some preferences in
terms of learning approaches, methods, and techniques. Participants of
this study shared that both deductive and inductive approaches were
helpful. It is in line with the suggestion in Ellis (2006) research and the
research finding by Norris and Ortega (2000), with a slight preference
for the deductive approach. The preference for deductive approaches
among Indonesian students may be attributed to their familiarity with
this method in their previous educational experiences (Ajisuksmo &
Vermunt, 1999; Nur, 2020) ) as it happened to other countries like Japan
(Shirav & Nagai, 2022), Ecuador (Benitez-Correa et al., 2019) and
Jordan (Obeidat & Alomari, 2020).
However, giving students some challenges by changing the
approach can give them more meaningful experiences and better
understanding and eventually result in better test scores as some
studies suggest (Male, 2016; Tanihardjo, 2016; Wardani & Kusuma,
2020). This suggests that while students might prefer a more familiar
method, giving exposure to varied approaches can enhance their

869

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

learning outcomes. Then, the combination of English and Indonesian
languages as a language of instruction with more emphasis on English
was considered by the grammar tutoring program more helpful than
solely utilizing one language of instruction. This preference reflects the
importance of comprehensible input and scaffolding in secondlanguage learning (Krashen, 1985; Vygotsky, 1978) as students need to
understand basic principles first which was normally taught in simple
English and reemphasized using Indonesian. Further, students desired
to learn the four English skills in the grammar tutoring program to
accommodate various contexts of language usage (Hinkel, 2006) and
did not wish to learn solely the principles without contexts. Students
seemed to be aware of the tutors’ approaches when they were dealing
with different topics or skills. This aligns with Widodo’s (2006) study
that suggests EFL teachers integrate grammar or structure into other
language skills in such a way that the goal of learning language is
achieved.
Lastly, students favored learning grammar using the audiolingual specifically the repetition and drilling techniques as it helps
students learn materials in a tangible context, and building speaking
and listening habits is one of the techniques to improve writing and
listening abilities especially related to their accuracy (Keo & Lan, 2024;
Suhartini, 2022). Learning grammatical patterns using repetition can
boost students' confidence in using these structures as they have
recognized the patterns in different settings (Richards & Rodger, 2014;
Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). In addition, students also prefer
communicative language teaching methods. Communicative language
teaching (CLT) methods provide situation-oriented language teaching
(Dos Santos, 2020) where students can find grammatical items that are
naturally introduced via realistic topics such as school life, home life,
etc. and at the same time could improve students’ grammar-paper test
and oral test (Ho & Binh, 2014).
CONCLUSION
The findings of this research showed that despite previous
comments regarding the ineffectiveness of the tutoring program,

870

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

participants in this study showed positive perceptions toward tutors’
teaching methods. The students felt that the tutors were able to create
a classroom culture that made them feel comfortable in the class and
motivated to learn, practice, and take risks with language.
Additionally, the findings showed students desired to learn grammar
by using the audio-lingual and CLT methods. Second, indeed, students
had positive perceptions of the two routes of learning, however, they
expressed a greater preference for the deductive approach. Then,
students preferred English but wanted the tutors to still use Indonesian
in the grammar tutoring class. They also had positive perceptions of
the four English skills, which means they would like the tutors to
emphasize them in the grammar tutoring class. Therefore, the findings
of this study encouraged the administrators to prepare the tutors
(Weigle & Nelson, 2004) and recognize the diverse students’ learning
preferences, and be able to adopt flexible learning approaches in
grammar learning tutoring programs.
Finally, this research still has some limitations in collecting the
data. First, the observation was only done in the final meeting of the
tutoring classes which may have impacted the data’s
representativeness. Then, the purposive sampling for the interview
was only based on one observation. It is necessary to consider these
limitations in interpreting this research’s findings and conducting
future research.
REFERENCES
Ajisuksmo, C. R., & Vermunt, J. D. (1999). Learning styles and selfregulation of learning at university: An Indonesian study. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 19(2), 45-59.
Albaum, G. (1997). The Likert scale revisited: An alternate version
(product preference testing). International Journal of Market
Research, 39(2), 1–21.
Ali, N., Anwer, M., & Abbas, J. (2015). Impact of peer tutoring on
learning of students. Journal for Studies in Management and
Planning, 1(2), 61–66.
Allen, G. D., & Ross, A. (Eds.). (2017). Pedagogy and content in middle and
high
school
mathematics.
SensePublishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-137-7.

871

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

Alrajhi, M. N., & Aldhafri, S. S. (2015). Peer tutoring effects on Omani
students’ English self-concept. International Education Studies,
8(6), 184-193. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n6p184.
Arco-Tirado, J. L., Fernández-Martín, F. D., & Hervás-Torres, M. (2019).
Evidence-based peer-tutoring program to improve students’
performance at the university. Studies in Higher Education,
45(11),
2190–2202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1597038.
Benitez-Correa, C., Gonzalez-Torres, P., Ochoa-Cueva, C., & VargasSaritama, A. (2019). A comparison between deductive and
inductive approaches for teaching EFL Grammar to high school
students. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 225–236.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12115a.
Bintoro, S. R. (2016). Students’ understanding of –ing and –ed participial
adjective in English Language Education Study Program Sanata
Dharma. Sanata Dharma University.
Blok, S., Lockwood, R. B., & Frendo, E. (2020). The 6 principles for
exemplary teaching of English learners: Academic and other specific
purposes. TESOL International Association.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in
education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual
differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Dos Santos, L. M. (2020). The discussion of communicative language
teaching approach in language classrooms. Journal of Education
and e-Learning Research, 7(2), 104-109.
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.
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage
Publications Limited.
Goertzen, M. J. (2017). Introduction to quantitative research and data.
Library Technology Reports, 53(4), 12-18.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of
Educational
Research,
77(1),
81–112.
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

872

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills.
TESOL
Quarterly,
40(1),
109-131.
https://doi.org/10.2307/40264513.
Ho, P. V. P., & Binh, N. T. (2014). The effects of communicative
grammar teaching on students' achievement of grammatical
knowledge and oral production. English Language Teaching, 7(6),
74-86.
Keo, V., & Lan, B. (2024). Exploring language teaching methods: An indepth analysis of grammar translation, direct method, and
audiolingual method: A Literature Review. International Journal
of Advance Social Sciences and Education (IJASSE), 2(2), 151–168.
https://doi.org/10.59890/ijasse.v2i2.1766.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications.
Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in
language teaching (Third edition). Oxford University Press.
Male, H. (2016). Understanding inductive and deductive approaches in
teaching grammar in EFL context. Jurnal Dinamika Pendidikan,
9(1), 19-24.
Miller, M. B. (1995). Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the
perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation
modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 2(3), 255-273.
Murtini, N. M. W. (2021). English grammar mastery of the first
semester students. JOSELT (Journal on Studies in English
Language Teaching), 2(2), 20–24.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A
research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language
Learning, 50(3), 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/00238333.00136.
Nur, S. (2020). Students’ perception toward the use of deductive and
inductive approaches in teaching English grammar. TESOL
International Journal, 15(1), 6-19.
Obeidat, M. M., & Alomari, M. A. (2020). The effect of inductive and
deductive teaching on EFL undergraduates’ achievement in
grammar at the Hashemite University in Jordan. International
Journal
of
Higher
Education,
9(2),
280–288.
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n2p280.
Paragae, I. G. A. P. N. S. (2023). Innovative teaching strategies in
teaching English as a foreign language. English Teaching and

873

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

Linguistics
Journal
(ETLiJ),
4(1),
1-9.
https://doi.org/10.30596/etlij.v4i1.12990.
Raxmonovna, T. M. (2023). Using inductive and deductive approach in
teaching grammar. Modern Science and Research, 2, 11–17.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10076310.
Refat, N., Kassim, H., Rahman, M. A., & Razali, R. B. (2020). Measuring
student motivation on the use of a mobile-assisted grammar
learning
tool.
PLOS
ONE,
15(8),
1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236862.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in
language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Sembiring, N. (2021). Applying peer teaching technique to improve
students’grammar achievement. KAIROS, 5(2), 89-98.
Setiyadi, A. B. (2006). Teaching English as a foreign language. Graha Ilmu.
Shirav, A., & Nagai, E. (2022). The Effects of Deductive and Inductive
Grammar Instructions in Communicative Teaching. English
Language
Teaching,
15(6),
102-123.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n6p102.
Suhartini, T. (2022). Learning English grammar through audio-lingual
method (a case study in Kumon EFL Ranggong, Makassar).
JoELS: Journal of English Language Studies, 1(1), 45–55.
http://ojs.unsamakassar.ac.id/jel.
Takala, A. (2016). Grammar teaching methods in EFL lessons: Factors to
consider when making instructional decisions [Master Thesis].
University of Jyväskylä.
Tan, J. B., & Gevera, E. B. (2020). Peer tutorial: Championing students
at risk. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 19(5), 352-378.
Tanihardjo, J. (2017). A comparative study of deductive and inductive
teaching of participial phrase: A case study. Journal of English
Language and Culture, 6(2), 123-144.
TESOL International Association. (2018). The 6 principles for
exemplary teaching of English learners. TESOL International
Association.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, S. P., Chen, Y. L., & Tseng, W. T. (2023). Multimodal instruction
and mentor-tutoring in an intensive English program. SAGE
Open, 13(4), 1-26.

874

Paskarena, M. I., & Mukti, T. W. P. (2024). Students’ voices on effective teaching methods for
grammar learning in peer tutoring program. JEELS, 11(2), 849-875.

Weigle, S. C., & Nelson, G. L. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees:
Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial
success. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 203–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.011
Widodo, H. P. (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching
grammar. English teaching: Practice and critique, 5(1), 122-141.
Zeller, R. A. (2005). Measurement error, issues and solutions. in
Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 665-676.
Zhang, X. (2021). After-class academic support: does course-embedded
faculty tutoring matter to student writers? Teaching in Higher
Education, 26(1), 129-144.
Zhang, Z., & Bayley, J. G. (2019). Peer learning for university students’
learning enrichment: Perspectives of undergraduate students.
Journal of Peer Learning, 12(1), 61–74.

875