Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

In this paper I have been aiming to thoroughly investigate the implementing of grammar in the Swedish German-as-foreign-language tuition. The main tool for my survey was to use a questionnaire-form directed towards GFL-teachers. The teachers are all teaching in the 6th to 9th grade of primary school (högstadiet) or 1st to 3rd grade in the Swedish gymnasium (an equivalent to the US senior high school). The central Bureau of education in Sweden (Skolverket) has as of now no clear ruleset for neither the method nor the extent of grammar in the GFL-courses and its focus lies primarily on the fluency and clarity of the produced language (both written as well as spoken). What might cause a stir, is the interpretation of the term "clarity" (in Swedish: "tydlighet") and it can also leave a great space for free reading and implementing that overtime could have evolved into a varied quality of tuition that above all depends on the interpretation or the preferences of the tutor. I have not engaged in the task of explaining this term, but rather strived to find out how other teachers do. It all runs down to the question: How do the GFL-teachers in Sweden de facto teach?

My surveys result in regard to the first question: "how do GFL-teachers teach?" ended with a little less than half (43,33%) of the teachers using "traditional" methods whereas the majority (56,66) were to perceive as "modern". The second question "how do GFL-teachers find the Commentary materials?" 33,3% saw the GFL-tuition materials from Skolverket as sufficient, 30% as insufficient and the rest had no opinion. The most mentioned shortcoming of the commentary was undoubtedly the lack of examples.