The ultimate purpose of foreign language teaching is to develop learners' communicative competence (Hymes, 1972), and to help learners use the language in meaningful, real-life contexts that support their ability to communicate (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Fang, 2010).

Communicative language teaching (CLT) emphasizes learning a language first and foremost for the purpose of communicating with others. It emphasizes student-centered learning and face-to-face speaking activities, which provide learners with the information they need (i.e., a text, a game, pictures, demonstrations, etc.) to construct grammatical rules from instances and examples of language use (Nunan, 1989). Despite the common belief that CLT is organized exclusively according to categories of meaning or functions, it includes a strong grammar basis (Thornbury, 1999; Spada, 2007). Since any language is systematically organized by its grammar, which is inseparably linked to meaning and communication, it is difficult to make meanings clear without shaping grammatical structures (Frodesen & Holten, 2003). Grammar also helps students discover the nature of language so they can say, read, hear, and write intelligibly, and produce an infinite number of sentences (Azar, 2012).

A global challenge EFL teachers face with respect to pedagogical approaches to teaching grammar is how to "bridge the gap between tra­ditional teaching focused on grammar translation and receptive skills, and communicative teaching aimed at well-rounded communication skills" (Stephen, 2012, p. 14). A core of dispute has always revolved around the question of whether grammar should be taught explicitly, or whether teachers should simply create the conditions by which learners "simulate the natural process of L1 acquisition as much as possible". (Ellis, 2006, p. 83, 2012). These pedagogical concerns focus mainly on the dilemma of how grammar should be incorporated in teaching and learning and what educators should do to develop effective and innovative grammar teaching methods. Research suggests that it is essential to consider not only what teachers believe about grammar teaching, but also the extent to which such beliefs are manifested in their classroom teaching activities (Burgess & Etherington, 2002; Farrell & Lim, 2005; Zhen & Murphy, 2007).

This study sets out to examine teachers' opinions regarding teaching grammar, and the practices they use to develop learners' communication skills and social interaction. In view of recent research which focuses on developing learners' communicative competence, the motivation for this study is to examine whether teachers continue teaching grammar traditionally, emphasizing structure over communication in the local Israeli context. Furthermore, this study examines whether there is a gap between teachers' perceptions about teaching grammar and the practices they use in the field. The outcomes of this study may provide useful implications for English teachers, teacher trainers, and policy makers in the field of English Language Teaching (ELT) regarding the way grammar should be integrated in the curriculum as well as in the field.

The following research questions guided this study:

1. What are EFL teachers' perceptions about teaching grammar?

        2. What grammar teaching practices do EFL teachers use?

The participants in this study included 220 teachers of EFL in Israel, teaching in elementary, junior high and high schools between the years 2013-2018 and are graduates of teacher training programs in colleges or universities throughout Israel. The teachers responded to an on-line survey prepared specifically for this study and based on a review of empirical literature pertaining to grammar teaching practices and EFL teachers' perception about the role of grammar in language teaching (Barnard & Scampton, 2008; Farrell & Lim, 2005; Gillham, 2007). The survey contained three closed questions and two open-ended questions. In the first closed question, general information (age, gender, level of English proficiency, number of years teaching) was collected. Participants were also asked to rank five language components (reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary, and speaking) according to importance from (1) = least important to (5) = most important. The second closed question asked teachers about their perceptions regarding teaching grammar (11 items); and the third closed question was about teachers' classroom practices and methodologies (14 items). Questions were presented on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1–strongly disagree to 5–strongly agree. After undergoing a pilot study and making necessary recommended adjustments, the final version of the survey was distributed via Google Forms to all the teachers. With the quantitative data, we performed descriptive statistics that included factor analysis (mean scores, presenting standard deviation). The qualitative part included two open-ended questions: "In your opinion, what is the best way to teach grammar? Give two examples". The second question asked participants to add any relevant factors regarding their views on grammar teaching. The open-ended questions allowed participants opportunity to share personal opinions and aimed to complement the quantitative data. Answers to the open question were coded and categorized by the researchers according to developing themes that emerged from the data (Halliday, 2010).

Results show that most EFL teachers favor CLT conceptually, but their implementation and practices fail to reflect the characteristics of CLT as characterized in the literature (Fang, 2010; Li, 2004). This finding is inconsistent with teachers' declarative views about teaching grammar, and results indicate discrepancies between teachers' beliefs and their actual practices. Although 84% of the teachers think that pupils learn grammar better if it is practiced in context (text, song, etc.), answers to the open-ended questions revealed that, in fact, teachers prefer to explain grammar rules explicitly and frontally at the beginning of their lessons. As a result, the communicative, contextual practice follows the explicit, frontal explanation. This finding is consistent with research in the field whereby teachers declare the importance of teaching grammar communicatively (Sanchez & Borg, 2014), yet find it difficult to integrate it in the language and contextualize the grammar. Consequently, in English classes, grammar is often taught in isolation, as if it is not an integral part of the language. With respect to the language of instruction, most teachers (65%) concede that only first-language should be used to teach grammar rules and more than 80% believe that translation plays an important role when teaching grammar rules. Implications for EFL teacher preparation include the need to concentrate on communicative activities such as role-playing, information gap activities, Qs & As, which entail teaching grammar through a discovery process, allowing students to discover how the rules function in realistic situations. Accordingly, learners are exposed to grammatical structures in the context of meaningful communication or contextualized activities that guide learners to use the language in an effective and communicative way (Larsen-Freeman, 2014).

Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2009). Understanding and using English grammar. White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman. Barnard, R., & Scampton, D. (2008). Teaching grammar: a survey of EAP teachers in New Zealand. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 59-82. Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit? System, 30, 433-458. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage, USA. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching eesearch and language pedagogy. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Fang, F. (2010). A discussion on developing students’ communicative competence in college English teaching in China. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,1(2), 111-116. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.2. Farrell, T., & Lim. P. (2005). Conceptions of grammar teaching: a case study of teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. TESL-EJ, 9, 1-12. Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. Exploring the dynamics of second language writing, 141-161. Gillham, B. (2007). Developing a questionnaire (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Continuum. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In: J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes. (Eds.) Sociolinguistics. Penguin: Harmondsworth, 269-293. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2014). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Routledge.‏ Li, Y. (2004). Chinese teachers’ perceptions of the implementation and effectiveness of communicative language teaching. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.‏ Sanchez, H. S., & Borg S. (2014). Insights into L2 teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: a cognitive perspective on their grammar explanations. System, 44(1), 45-53. Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: current status and future prospects. In, J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.) International handbook of English language teaching, New York: Springer, Vol. I, pp. 271-88. Stephen, C. (2012). Film circles: scaffolding speaking for EFL students. Retrieved from Online Website http://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/50_2_4_stephens-et-al.pdf Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar, London: Longman. Zhen, Z., & Murphy, E. (2007). Tensions in the language learning experiences and beliefs of Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language. TESL-EJ 10 (4), 1-19.