Teaching Grammar: Do our activities fulfill our goals? For centuries learning a new language was equated with learning its grammar since it was regarded as the only way to have students produce language accurately. This was especially true of AFL classes which depended for decades on grammar-based curricula and teaching material (Ryding, 2006)). However, with the increased adoption of communicative approaches in AFL classes it became clear that knowing the rules does not necessarily mean being able to communicate in the language. As focus shifted from teaching grammar to teaching communicative skills, fears arouse of what Brumfit (1979 in Richards 2003) calls 'fluency first' pedagogy, which would ultimately lead to accuracy problems in our students' production. Taha (1995) therefore argues that AFL programs should be "aiming at accuracy and communicative ability at the same time" (p. 176). Researchers like Taha (1995) however, point out that despite our declared allegiance to communicative accuracy, there is clear discrepancy between our goals (communicative accuracy) and the means we use to fulfill such goals. In attempt to detect whether such discrepancy actually exists and means of dealing with it, this paper conducts a study that looks into how AFL teachers' goals of teaching grammar relate to the activities they use to fulfill such goals. By using a survey the paper will: 1- Detect the kind of goals teachers set for teaching grammar: As Swan (2003) suggests there are good reasons for teaching grammar and bad ones. It is therefore necessary to reflect on our goals of teaching grammar and whether such goals are in line with "sound pedagogical principles" (Richards & Renandya 2003:146). 2- Detect type of activities that teachers use to put such goals into practice and whether -in light of current research about teaching grammar - such activities are actually expected to fulfill teachers' goals (namely communicative accuracy). 3- Present alternatives to practices that are not expected to help teachers fulfill class goals. Such alternatives will include how to present new grammatical structures and how to practice them in a manner that would fulfill teachers' declared goals of teaching grammar . Highlighting discrepancies between teachers' declared goals and their teaching practices, is expected to make easier helping teachers increase effectiveness of their teaching and so increase the chances of enhancing AFL learners' communicative accuracy. Furthermore, it makes clear the need to review our goals and activities in all aspects of our teaching.

Many research studies were interested in vocabulary acquisition in the field of second language vocabulary learning (SLVA) for the past twenty years (Bates and Goodman, 1999; McKoon and Ratcliff, 1999, as cited in Alan and David, 2005). Aside from that, it was found that foreign language learners are keen to acquire as many words as they can because they believe that without this knowledge they will not be able to communicate properly in real life situations (Leki & Carson, 1994; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 1993). Moreover, it was mentioned in a research study done by Alan and David (2005) that foreign language learners have a deficiency in developing their lexicons to an adequate level which would enable them to function properly in different language contexts (Barrow, Nakanishi, and Ishino, 1999, as cited in Alan and David, 2005). Verhallen & Schoonen (1993) also found through their study that second-language learners have problems in acquiring a deep knowledge of vocabulary even with high frequency words (as cited in Diane and Maria, 2001). Michael West, in his thesis done at Oxford (1927), demonstrated that the most primary aspect in learning a new language is acquiring its vocabulary (as cited in Coady and Huckin, 1997). Naiman, et al. (1978) were interested in identifying many efficient techniques for language learning like: vocabulary, sound acquisition, listening comprehension, grammar, speaking, writing, and reading. Among all skills, they found that focusing on vocabulary learning was the most important. (As cited in Tran, 2009) This increased prominence on the lexicon is crucially important due to its effect on different language aspects such as: Aural language processing (Miller and Eimas, 1995), speech production (de Bot, 1992), reading (Paribakht, and Wesche, 1997), and writing (Laufer and Nation, 1995) (as cited in Alan and David, 2005). Therefore, teachers and researchers have come to understand the chief role of vocabulary in language learning and communication. Consequently, the increased attention to vocabulary teaching has become more important (Alan and David, 2005). Accordingly, I intended through this study to inspect the following: o Will the chosen framework enhance AFL learners' recognition and usage of vocabularyr o Will the chosen framework enhance AFL learners' vocabulary retentiont o Will Arabic CAVL software using the chosen framework enhance AFL learners' recognition and usage of vocabulary in a blended learning environmento o Will Arabic CAVL software using the chosen framework enhance AFL learner's autonomous learning in a blended learning environmenti

The field of error analysis is not new to foreign language teaching and learning. Studies in SLA that have focused on error analysis have always investigated the parametric and linguistic competence of learners in terms of the systematic errors that language learners make while learning a language. This paper examines the types of syntactic errors produced by 111 Students of Modern Standard Arabic (SMSA) in the Department of African Languages and Literature (ALL) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The goals of this paper were: (1) to document and categorize the written errors made by Students of Modern Standard Arabic (SMSA), (2) to identify the frequency of the given types of errors in correlation to class level, (3) to seek to determine the underlying reasons of their errors. The study addresses the following research questions: a) What are the common errors that native speakers of English commit in learning Arabici b) Are there any differences in the students' errors which can be attributed to class levele c) What are the potential sources of the errors students makem The results of the analysis of 111 writing samples used for this study yielded a total of 1084 syntactic errors: 75 writing samples for first year in this study yielded a total of 699 syntactic errors, with an average number of 9.89 errors in each composition. The data collected from 36 writing samples of second year yielded a total of 340 syntactic errors, with an average number of 9.4 errors in each composition. The errors were identified, and their frequency computed and then compared across the two levels. First year errors were classified into 16 common types of errors while the second year, were only in 14 types. Interestingly, the structure of Noun - adjective agreement is the most problematic one for both first and second year students with the percentages of 13.20% and 19.11% respectively. Certain types of errors that first year learners make disappeared completely in the case of second year. The sources of errors were attributed to sources other than the parametric variations between Arabic and English. This study has shed light on the way in which AFL students internalize the rules of the target language, which is Arabic. By identifying the students' errors and possible sources, the paper will be useful to teachers because it provides information on common trouble-some structures that learners have.