LITERATURE REVIEW
Different approaches to grammar teaching
According to Ellis (2002:167), the two main questions which have been debated in the field of language pedagogy are:
1) Should we teach grammar at all?
2) If we should teach grammar, how should we teach it?
The differences among various approaches to grammar teaching stem from how they address these two above questions
1.1.1 Zero-grammar approach and form-focused approaches
Ellis (1985: 229) introduced three possible explanations for the first question: 1) the non-interface position; 2) the interface position and 3) the variability position
The non-interface position advanced by Krashen (Ellis, 1985: 229) distinguishes two types of knowledge: learnt knowledge and acquired knowledge Krashen (1982) (in Ellis, 2002: 167) maintains that “formal instruction in grammar will not contribute to the development of acquired knowledge -the knowledge needed to participate in authentic communication”; therefore, there is no point in grammar teaching
On the contrary, the interface position lends credence to grammar teaching because these two types of knowledge are not entirely separate (Ellis, 1985: 234) A weak interface position which has been proposed by Seliger (1979) (in Ellis, 1985:234) states that formal instruction facilitates acquisition Seliger believes the learnt knowledge of grammar rule may make the internalization of the rule easier and may facilitate the use of features which are acquired, but still only “shadow” (in Ellis, 1985:
234) A strong interface position states that two types of knowledge can interact, and explicit knowledge (learnt knowledge) can turn into implicit knowledge (acquired knowledge) through practice (Ellis, 1985: 235)
The variability position holds the idea that different kinds of knowledge are used develops the type of knowledge that is required to undertake the kinds of tasks in
“discrete-point” tests (Ellis, 1985: 237) Therefore, Bialystok (1982) (in Ellis R., 1985:
244) suggests “instruction must consider the specific goals of the learner and attempt to provide the appropriate form of knowledge to achieve those goals” As can be inferred from the above discussion, the question of whether or not grammar should be taught depends on learners’ specific needs
The three positions support very different approaches to language teaching (Ellis, 2006: 97) Non-interface position leads to such zero-grammar approaches as: the Natural Approach and Total Physical; while the interface position provides a strong base for form-focused approaches Particularly, the weak interface position supports techniques that induce learners to attend to grammatical feature Examples of those techniques are Content-based Instruction and Task-based Language Learning Whereas, the strong interface position is the ground for Presentation-Practice-Production model (Ellis, 2006:
97) Finally, the variability position supports the combination of various methods appropriate to specific teaching contexts, which serves as the base for Context-based Language Teaching or Post-method pedagogy
The answers for the question of how grammar should be taught are varied in accordance with the various existing approaches to second language teaching However, those approaches can be categorised under two broad terms: inductive approach and deductive approach Then the question can be simplified into whether grammar should be taught deductively or inductively
A deductive approach is “an approach to language teaching in which learners are taught rules and given specific information about a language” (Richard, Platt &
Platt, 1992: 98) Dealing with the teaching of grammar, the deductive approach can also be called rule-driven learning because in such an approach, a grammar rule is explicitly presented to students and followed by practice applying the rule PPP model is a typical example of this approach (Richard, Platt & Platt, 1992: 98)
An inductive approach comes from inductive reasoning in which a reasoning progression proceeds from particulars to generalities (Felder & Henriques, 1995) (in Widodo, 2006: 127) In inductive language teaching, “learners are not taught grammatical rules or other types of rules directly but are left to discover or induce rules from their experience of using the language” (Richard, Platt & Platt, 1992: 99)
Examples of approaches that make use of the principle of inductive learning are Direct Method, Communicative approach, and Counselling Learning (Richards, Platt & Platt, 1992: 99)
Of the two above approaches, which one is better? This question provokes a long-standing debate among theorists and practitioners
Sheen (1992) (in Mohamed, 2004: 228) states that the deductive approach, where the learners are explicitly taught the rules of particular features of the target language, is the more effective mean of teaching grammar Norris and Ortega (2000: 527), after investigating and comparing the effectiveness of second language instruction in publications between 1980 and 1998, conclude that explicit instruction (referring to deductive instruction) is more effective than implicit one (referring to inductive instruction)
However, Brown (1994: 105) states that an inductive approach “comforts more easily to the concept of interlanguage development in which learners progress through possible stages of rule acquisition.” Similarly, Bourke (1996) (in Mohamed, 2004: 228) believes that an inductive approach, whereby learners are encouraged to look for regularities for themselves is more successful than the deductive one
There are a great number of researchers taking a middle ground in the debate between inductive and deductive teaching supporters Ellis (2006: 98), for example, believes that “simple rules may best be taught deductively, while more complex rules may best be taught inductively” and that “learners skilled in grammatical analysis are likely to fare better with an inductive approach than those less skilled” Other empirical studies also show that some learners achieve better in deductive language lessons, while others perform better in inductive classes (Widodo, 2006: 129) The difference may be due to the difference in learners’ cognitive styles which are associated with their different neurological mechanisms (Eisenstein, 1987, in Widodo, 2006: 129) To sum up, both deductive and inductive presentations can successfully be applied depending on the cognitive style of the learner and the language structure presented.
Consciousness-raising
Linguistically, the term consciousness-raising, “consciousness-raising” is understood as “the deliberate attempt to draw the learner's attention specifically to formal properties of the target language” (Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith, 1985: 274)
Ellis (2002: 168) states that “consciousness-raising involves an attempt to equip the learner with an understanding of a specific grammatical feature - to develop declarative rather than procedural knowledge of it.”
Both definitions given by Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith (1985: 274) and Ellis, R
(2002: 168) are brief and broad They just mention the goals at which consciousness- raising aims but do not show how these aims can be achieved In their definition, Richards, Platt & Platt (1992: 78) give more information on how to draw learners’ attention As they put it, consciousness-raising is “an approach to the teaching of grammar in which instruction in grammar (through drills, grammar explanation, and other form-focused activities) is viewed as a way of raising learner’s awareness of grammatical features of the language This is thought to indirectly facilitate second language acquisition A consciousness-raising approach is contrasted with traditional approaches to the teaching of grammar, in which the goal is to instill correct grammatical patterns and habits directly” (Richards, Platt & Platt, 1992: 78)
From the above definitions, it can hardly be figured out how consciousness- raising is different from other traditional grammar-based methods and it is also not clear to indicate the position of consciousness-raising in the swing of language teaching approach pendulum These questions will be discussed further in the following sections
1.2.2 Consciousness-raising in relation to different approaches to grammar teaching
1.2.2.1 The position of consciousness-raising in approaches to grammar teaching
Consciousness-raising is often claimed to hold a “middle-ground position” between two extreme approaches to grammar teaching (Yip V., 1994: 124 and Nunan D., 1991: 151) At one end of the scale is the zero-grammar approach advocated by Krashen, at the other end is traditional grammar based approaches Consciousness-raising stands for the pendulum swinging back but taking into account more recent findings of second language acquisition research as well as benefits of communicative approaches
It has to be pointed out, however, that grammatical consciousness-raising cannot be considered simply as a movement “back to grammar” because it is characterized by several important differences to older approaches: first of all, it does not aim the production of the target structure in the short term but focuses on long-term learning objectives, accepting that at the moment a structure is taught it may not be learnable for the learner (Yip V 1994: 125) Furthermore, grammar does not have to be taught in the form of explicit rules; the learner may also be led to grammatical insights implicitly
Thirdly, the focus on meaning introduced by the communicative movement is not abandoned and texts that have been produced for communication are preferred over concocted examples (Willis D and Willis J., 1996: 64)
1.2.2.2 Inductive and deductive consciousness-raising
According to Ellis (2002: 172), consciousness-raising can be either inductive or deductive In the case of induction, “the learner is provided with data and asked to construct an explicit rule to describe the grammatical feature which the data illustrate”; whereas, in the case of deduction, “the learner is supplied with a rule which is then used to carry out some task.” (Ellis, 2002: 172)
Mohamed (2004: 1) differentiates two types of consciousness-raising tasks He explains that “a deductive task provided explicit explanations of a grammar structure while an inductive task required learners to discover the grammar rules for themselves
If consciousness-raising activities are conducted inductively, they are quite similar to theories of discovery learning According to Hammer (1987: 29), “discovery techniques are those where students are given examples of language and told to find out how they work to discover the grammar rules rather than be told them.” Richard, Platt &
Platt (1992: 112) state that discovery learning based on the following principles: a) Learners develop processes associated with discovery and inquiry by observing, inferring, formulating hypotheses, predicting and communicating b) Teachers use a teaching style which supports the processes of discovery and inquiry c) Textbooks are not the sole resources for learning d) Conclusions are considered tentative not final e) Learners are involved in planning, conducting, and evaluating their own learning with the teacher playing supporting role
Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith (1985: 280) state that “consciousness-raising is considered as a potential facilitator for the acquisition of linguistic competence has nothing directly to do with the use of that competence”
Ellis (2002: 169) also points out that consciousness-raising is only directed at explicit knowledge, with no expectation that learners will use in communicative output a particular feature that has been brought to their attention through formal instruction He contrasts the characteristics of a consciousness-raising task with characteristics of practice and concludes that the main difference between the two is “consciousness- raising does not involve the learner in repeated production” Below are consciousness- raising task characteristics listed in Ellis (2002: 168)
1 There is an attempt to isolate a specific linguistic feature for focused attention
2 The learners are provided with data which illustrate the targeted feature and they may also be supplied with an explicit rule describing or explaining the feature
3 The learners are expected to utilise intellectual effort to understand the targeted feature
4 Misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the grammatical structure by the learners leads to clarification in the form of further data and description or explanation
5 Learners may be required (although this is not obligatory) to, articulate the rule describing the grammatical structure
1.2.4 Consciousness-raising versus practice 1.2.4.1 The role of practice in second language teaching
The role of practice in second language teaching is a controversial topic which has been on the arena for discussion for the past few decades
A strong interface position, which is implicit in traditional grammar-based approaches, recognizes the connection between practice and use and maintains that practice enables learners to use the structure they have been taught in communicative situations (Larsen-Freeman D., 2003: 102)
However, Larsen-Freeman D (2003: 103) argues that “learners require time to integrate new grammatical structures into their interlanguage systems; for instance, learners often produce forms that bear no resemblance to what has been presented to them of practiced.”
Ellis (2002: 170), an advocator of a weak interface position, after reviewing empirical and theoretical studies, also casts doubt on the efficacy of practice for
“practice will not lead to immediate procedural knowledge of grammatical rules, irrespective of its quantity and quality.”
Furthermore, Krashen (in Larsen-Freeman, 2003: 103), who advocates non- interface position state that “there are numerous studies that confirm that we can develop extremely high levels of language competence without any production at all” and “there is no direct evidence that output practice leads to language acquisition.”
1.2.4.2 The role of consciousness-raising in second language learning
There is also no consensus on the role of consciousness in second language learning As Schmidt (1990: 130) puts it, “the most common attitude towards consciousness is one of skepticism” Seligers (1983: 187, in Schmidt, 1990: 129) devalues the role of consciousness and states that “it is at the unconscious level that language learning takes place” Krashen (1981, in Schmidt, 1990: 130) insists on the little use of conscious learning in actual language production and comprehension Gregg (1984: 94), one of Krashen's harshest critics opposing Krashen's opinion that learning can never become “acquisition”, also agrees on the fact that most language learning is unconscious
According to (Schmidt,1990: 131), consideration of the role of consciousness in cognition and learning has been respectable over the recent decades The most prominent supporters of consciousness-raising are Rutherford and Sharwood Rutherford
W & Sharwood-Smith M., (1985) examine the role of consciousness-raising in the light of Universal Grammar They believe that “the sequence of language features as well as the pace they are learned in is given by the learner, not the curriculum or the textbook and the certain language features can only be learned in a fixed sequence” Hence, in their opinion, the function of grammar consciousness-raising is to highlight certain grammatical features for the learner to develop his or her awareness of them, then when he or she is ready to insert these specific features into the developing the second language system, they will acquire them Rutherford (1987: 25), furthermore, insists on the fact that language learners already have a broad knowledge of language of both specific and universal kind to build on and he calls the language learning process “an interaction of the universal with the specific” He consequently sees grammatical consciousness-raising as a means of “illuminating the learner's path from the known to the unknown”, in other words, “a facilitator for the acquisition of linguistic competence”, as it is put in Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith (1985: 280)
Studies on effectiveness of inductive consciousness-raising tasks
2.1 The context and subjects 2.1.1 The teaching context
The research was done in the Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education The Faculty of English is in charge of teaching two types of students:
English-majored students are those who train to be teachers of English and the non- majors are those who learn English as a minor subject in their curriculum The present study involved English non-major students who generally do not have strong motivation to learn English because their future jobs (as a teacher of math, philology, physics, chemistry and the like) have little thing to do with English But rather, they learn English just because it is a compulsory subject in the university curriculum Therefore, they do not have any communicative needs and passing the exam is their first and foremost goal
The course-book series used for English non-major students is Lifeline Students are supposed to finish two books Lifeline Elementary and Lifeline Pre-intermediate in three terms of fifteen weeks In each week students have four class hours of English In total, there are 180 class hours spent on two volumes of Lifeline, each of which consists of 14 units In each unit, there are four main parts, namely grammar, vocabulary, reading, listening and speaking; however, speaking is less stressed in this course book series
Students have to take two mid-term exams and one end-term exam in each school term Each mid-term exam accounts for 25% of the final score; and 50% of the final result is attributed to the end-term exam The first mid-term exam consists of two subtests: a listening test and a writing test (focusing on grammatical structures) The second mid-term exam is a speaking test consisting of 3 parts, namely picture description, topic presentation and free questions and answers The end-term exam consists of 50 multiple choice questions focusing on grammar knowledge
As it is inferred from the text book and the nature of the end-term exam, the importance has been put on grammar knowledge.
METHODOLOGY
The context and subjects
The research was done in the Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education The Faculty of English is in charge of teaching two types of students:
English-majored students are those who train to be teachers of English and the non- majors are those who learn English as a minor subject in their curriculum The present study involved English non-major students who generally do not have strong motivation to learn English because their future jobs (as a teacher of math, philology, physics, chemistry and the like) have little thing to do with English But rather, they learn English just because it is a compulsory subject in the university curriculum Therefore, they do not have any communicative needs and passing the exam is their first and foremost goal
The course-book series used for English non-major students is Lifeline Students are supposed to finish two books Lifeline Elementary and Lifeline Pre-intermediate in three terms of fifteen weeks In each week students have four class hours of English In total, there are 180 class hours spent on two volumes of Lifeline, each of which consists of 14 units In each unit, there are four main parts, namely grammar, vocabulary, reading, listening and speaking; however, speaking is less stressed in this course book series
Students have to take two mid-term exams and one end-term exam in each school term Each mid-term exam accounts for 25% of the final score; and 50% of the final result is attributed to the end-term exam The first mid-term exam consists of two subtests: a listening test and a writing test (focusing on grammatical structures) The second mid-term exam is a speaking test consisting of 3 parts, namely picture description, topic presentation and free questions and answers The end-term exam consists of 50 multiple choice questions focusing on grammar knowledge
As it is inferred from the text book and the nature of the end-term exam, the importance has been put on grammar knowledge
2.1.2 The subjects of the study
The subjects in this study were a group of twenty-nine second-year English non- major students at Hanoi National University of Education They were mathematics major students who are assumed to possess logical minds; therefore, it was expected that hypothesis making and testing might work for them
Furthermore, all of them were about nineteen or twenty year old, the age at which people are usually recognized for their creativity and open-mindedness, which means they were expected to have a more receptive view to new ideas as well as new methods of learning than older people
Their assumed level of proficiency in English was pre-intermediate, but their actual command of English is quite heterogeneous According to their previous end-term test results, three fifths of them are able to attain pre-intermediate and the rest of two fifth are just at elementary or lower levels As it was suggested by Ellis R (2003), their low competence of English might not enable them to talk metalingually about grammatical features However, in the researcher’s opinion, it did not matter if they were allowed to use their mother tongue to verbalise the target grammar rules
As it was revealed from the pre-treatment questionnaire, the most popular model of grammar lessons that the subjects had experienced was the deductive one (with the ranking of 72.4%) while the least frequently seen one was inductive teaching with C-R tasks with 82.7% students rating C-R as the least frequently seen This fact was not to suggest that all of them could be expected to prefer deductive learning when offered a choice because each individual would undoubtedly have a different learning style
However, the frequent experience of deductive learning could affect their expectation about a grammar lesson: they would expect their teachers to explain everything and might feel frustrated with being asked to construct their own rules
All of the above features of the subjects made up a complicated case that is worth insightful investigations With regards to the research questions, some of the features might be positive while the others might contradict the results
For the subjects were all undergraduate students the two terms “subjects” and
“students” is used interchangeably in this study
The researcher played a role of an insider, who had close relationship with the subjects because she had been teaching them for one semester Primarily she was a practitioner rather than a researcher Her research aims were to gain insightful into her teaching contexts and solve problems that she had encountered.
Procedure
The implementation and the data collection took five weeks on the whole In the first week, pre-treatment questionnaire sheets were delivered and collected Data from this first questionnaire was processed before the implementation of the three lessons In case the results showed that the majority of the subjects had already known about the target grammar rules, the contents of the three lessons would be changed The reason was there was no point in asking students to discover the rules that they had already mastered The three treatment lessons were conducted one by one in the three following weeks consecutively The students’ worksheets were handed out at the beginning and collected at the end of each lesson The post-treatment questionnaire was conducted in the fifth week, one week after the last treatment lesson
The pre-treatment questionnaire was consisted of seven questions, with a mixture of self-reporting, attitudinal and testing question types The three first questions inquired students’ past grammar learning experience and their opinions about the way of grammar teaching that they had most frequently experienced In the question number four students were asked to make a choice between the inductive and deductive procedures of grammar teaching The three last questions purposed to test their knowledge about the target grammar rules
According to Ellis R (2002: 172), consciousness-raising itself can be either inductive or deductive The inductive way of implementing consciousness-raising is using C-R tasks, where “the learner is provided with data and asked to construct an explicit rule to describe the grammatical feature which the data illustrate”
Willis D and Willis J (1996: 69) list seven categories of C-R task types: i identify and consolidate patterns or usages; ii classifying items according to their semantic or structural characteristics; iii hypothesis building, based on some language data, and then perhaps checked against more data; iv cross-language exploration; v reconstruction and deconstruction; vi recall; vii reference training
The C-R task type implemented in this study was the third one, the inductive hypothesis building Basing on that idea, the researcher designed three C-R grammar lessons, each of which consisted of six steps
Step 1: setting the scene (learners listen to, or read, a text in order to grasp basic meaning);
Step 2: comprehension questions (learners answer comprehension questions following the listening or reading texts);
Step 3: noticing (learners notice the form, and match form to meaning);
Step 4: making hypothesis (learners generate their own hypotheses);
Step 5: checking hypothesis (learners test their hypotheses with other examples);
Step 6: confirming hypothesis (learners confirm their hypotheses)
All three grammar lessons were adapted from text materials in Lifeline Pre- intermediate by Tom Hutchinson and New Headway Pre-intermediate by Liz and John
Soars Lesson one was about “the present continuous tense with future meaning” (see appendix 3) Lesson two dealt with using “would” to talk about past habits (see appendix
4) And finally the structures of indirect questions were the focus of lesson three
The three above grammar items was chosen for the reason of convenience The materials available for these grammatical features were easier to be adapted into C-R tasks than those for the others
There are six tasks (equivalent to six steps mentioned above) in each lesson The teacher played a role as a guide who helped the students to understand the task instructions Sometimes teachers had to explain the task instructions in Vietnamese so that every student was clear about what to do The students worked in groups or pairs in tasks one, two, three and five; however, they were asked to work alone in tasks four and six, where they had to write down their hypothesis about the rules Individual work was required here to make sure the students themselves discovered the target rules rather than simply copied their classmates’ work
Each of the students’ worksheets consisted of six tasks In task four and task six, students were asked to write down the target rules in both Vietnamese and English; hence, only the answers for tasks four and six were analysed Each student had to hand one piece of worksheet at the end of each lessons (see appendix 3, 4, and 5)
Almost all of the questions in the two questionnaires were close-ended ones with defined answers There was only one question where students were asked to give their own reasons for their choices The nature of the questions is attitudinal, self-reporting and testing
The first questions of the post-treatment questionnaire were to inquire students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising grammar teaching The second question aimed to inform whether students prefer C-R lessons or traditional deductive learning
The fourth question aimed to elicit students’ opinion about learning without practice and the next question was to check whether students had, in fact, found out the rules or not
At the end of the questionnaire, there were some questions to test students’ explicit knowledge of the target grammar rules
Descriptive statistics was employed to describe the data addressing the following main questions:
1) Which types of learning (the inductive consciousness-raising or the deductive approach) did the students prefer before and after the implementation?
2) What are the possible reasons for their preferences?
3) How different were students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising and deductive?
4) What were students’ opinions about learning grammar rules without practice?
5) To what extent did students succeed in discovering the target rules?
6) To what extend, did they remember the rules that they had discovered by themselves?
Data for almost all of the questions were calculated by percentage to compare the frequency of distribution The third question asked students to evaluate how interesting, difficult and useful were the three C-R lessons Each point in the scales of interestingness, difficulty and usefulness was given a number, with number four for the highest degree and number one for the lowest degree All the scores were recorded, then the Mean and Standard Deviation for each lesson or each learning type were calculated for comparison The mean scores were interpreted under the following scheme:
3.26 – 4.00: Very interesting/ difficult/ useful 2.51 – 3.25: Somewhat interesting/ difficult/ useful 1.76 – 2.50: Somewhat boring/ easy/ useless 1.00 – 1.75: Very boring/ easy/ useless
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Which types of learning (the inductive consciousness-raising or the deductive approach) did the students prefer before and after the implementation?
Results from both pre- and post-questionnaires show that the percentage of students favouring traditional deductive learning was higher than that of those supporting C-R tasks Before the implementation, the percentage of students who preferred deductive learning outweighed that of those who liked inductive learning (62.1% as opposed to 37.9%) However, after the three treatment lessons, the rate of students liking C-R increased from 37.9% to 43.8% Though the gap was narrowed, the percentage of students who preferred the traditional deductive approach was still higher than that of those supporting C-R (51.7% as compared to 48.3%)
There was a difference between learners’ preferences of two types of learning grammar However, the difference is not so significant and it can be concluded that learners showed no clear preferences between learning with C-R tasks and the traditional deductive learning This finding was coincident with other research findings on the same question (Ranalli, 2001 and Mohamed, 2004).
What are the possible reasons for their preferences?
Table 1: Reasons for students’ preferences
Note: R1: It is clearer to follow
R2: It is easier to understand the rules
R3: It is easier to remember the rules
R5: It is more helpful for recalling and using the rules correctly
R6: It is more helpful for doing English tests
3.2.1 Reasons for the preference of deductive teaching
Regarding explanations for their preferences, students seemed like deductive learning for all reasons listed The most frequent reason (67.9%) quoted for traditional deductive lesson type was “it is clearer to follow”; whereas, the lowest figures (13.3%) was attributed to the reason of “it is more interesting to learn” These findings were in response to the earlier expectations that grammar rules presented by teacher were clearer to follow but more boring to learn
From the students’ evaluations on two types of learning in terms of difficulty, it is obvious that learning grammar deductively is much easier than working with C-R tasks (see section 3.3) This may be one of the reasons why they still prefer deductive learning while they highly valued consciousness-raising in terms of interestingness and usefulness (see section 3.3)
One student reported another reason rather than the six listed one He/she claimed that “learning in this way (refer to C-R) turns me from ignorant to more ignorant” (học kiểu này khiến em đã dốt lại càng dốt hơn) It can be inferred this student did not like C-R because her limited resource of English did not enable her to work with C-R tasks, thereby gaining nothing from the lessons The reason is “learners need sufficient proficiency to talk metalingually about the target feature, and if they lack this, they may not be able to benefit to the same degree from a C-R task” (Ellis, 2003: 164)
In other words, learners’ level of proficiency affect their preferences in the sense that learners with a low level will not be able to perform C-R tasks; and consequently, they will not like learning with C-R
Another explanation for some students’ unfavourable attitude towards C-R very important role (see section 3.4 for the discussion of practice) Their mind was engraved with the idea that learning and practice were always in parallel; therefore, it is difficult for them to accept the new idea of learning without practice
3.2.2 Reasons for the preference of C-R learning
Those who preferred C-R learning quoted five reasons, among which the two most common ones were “it is easier to remember the rules” (85.7%); and “it is more interesting to learn” (71.4%) None of those questioned thought “it is clearer to follow”
C-R lessons and a very low percentage of them (14.3%) believed learning with C-R tasks is more helpful in doing English tests The actual results completely matched the researcher’s’ expected outcomes that C-R is more motivating and helpful in terms of memory
It is obvious that learning with C-R tasks motivated the students The degree of interestingness of C-R learning ranked by the students was higher than that of deductive learning (see section 3.3.1) One student even wrote “the feeling when I find out the rules myself is very interesting” (cảm giác mình tự tìm ra qui tắc rất thú vị) It can be said that learning with C-R tasks was preferred by some students due to its power of motivating learners
In conclusion, the students who were fond of the traditional deductive approach to grammar teaching gave credence to the fact that it was clearer to follow and easier to understand These students did not like C-R because this way of teaching did not include practice and their low competence in English did not allow them to benefit much from C-R tasks which were thought to be more challenging The most common reasons for the students’ preference of inductive consciousness-raising were attributed to its power in motivating learners and facilitating their memory capacity.
How different were students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising and
Table 2: Subjects’ evaluations on the two types of learning in terms of interestingness
N Frequency of distribution Mean SD
Both types of learning were judged as “somewhat interesting” with reference to the interpretation scheme mentioned in section 2.2.5 However, C-R learning was rated to be more interesting than deductive learning because the mean score for C-R was higher than for deductive learning, with 3.24 as opposed to 2.52 This reflected what had been expected about the motivating power of inductive consciousness-raising tasks
Table 3: Subjects’ evaluations on the two types of learning with regards to difficulty
N Frequency of distribution Mean SD
C-R learning was evaluated as “somewhat difficult” (3.14) while deductive learning was thought to be “somewhat easy” (2.48) This finding confirms the expectation that doing inductive consciousness-raising tasks requires greater cognitive effort
Table 4: Subjects’ evaluations on the two types of learning with regards to usefulness
N Frequency of distribution Mean SD
Referring to the scheme of interpretation, C-R learning (3.52) was rated as “very useful”; whereas, deductive learning (3.24) was thought to be “somewhat useful” only
In conclusion, students showed favourable attitudes towards inductive C-R learning in terms of interestingness; however, deductive learning was thought to overweigh C-R with regards to the degree of easiness.
What were students’ opinions about learning grammar rules without practice? 25 3.5 To what extent did students succeed in discovering the target rules?
Table 5: Students’ opinions about learning without practice
Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly
Opinion A: It is possible to learn new grammar by simply noticing new grammatical structures and forming mental rules about how they work It is not always necessary or helpful to practise new grammar rules in speaking or writing
Opinion B: To learn to use a new grammar rule naturally and correctly in conversation, it is necessary to practice it It is very difficult to learn without practice
It is clearly shown from the table that the majority (totally 68.9%) of those questioned disagreed and strongly disagreed with opinion that it is not always necessary to practice new grammar rules All of the subjects either agree or strongly agree with supported the opinion that it is difficult to learn without practice These findings are completely similar to the initial expectations
3.5 To what extent did students succeed in discovering the target rules?
3.5.1 Success rates from the analysis of worksheets
Table 6: Students’ success rates in discovering rules
Failed Unexpected outcomes English & Vietnamese Vietnamese only
Chart 1: Students’ success rate in discovering rules
Students' success in discovering rules
As it can be shown from the table and the chart, the success rates for the three first rules were quite high, with 82.8%, 72.4% and 69% for “present continuous”,
“would” and “wh-questions” respectively However, the percentage of those succeeding in discovering the rule for “indirect Y/N question” was well below the average, standing at 31% only The reason for that will be discussed in chapter four
In terms of language use, the highest success rate (69%) in producing correct rules in English was attributed to “indirect wh-question”; whereas, only roughly 10% and nearly 14% of the subjects were able to give correct English rules for “present continuous” and “would” respectively The fact that the majority of the students were unable to articulate the rules in English resulted from their insufficient proficiency in English According to Sharwood-Smith M (1981: 162), not all learners have the ability to talk metalingually about the grammar features Similarly, Ellis R (2003: 164) believes low proficiency and less skilled learners will have difficulty in verbalizing the
There were considerably high rates of those producing unexpected rules which were impossible to induce from the input texts in the two first lessons About 38% of the students included other meanings of the present continuous such as “present continuous tense is used to talk about temporary states or actions happening at the time of speaking”
34.5% of them included other meanings of “would” that they had known previously For example, they said “would” is used to talk about imaginary or improbable situations
The reason for that may be attributed to the fact that when constructing the rules, these students referred to their memory rather than the provided input They got lost also because the instructions did not indicate clearly that rules must be drawn from the context given Moreover, their lack of experience in working with C-R tasks was also an important factor leading to such unwanted effects They were not used to making their own grammar rules; hence, when asked to write rules they jotted down all things that they knew about the target forms This phenomenon was noted at the end of the lesson two, so in the third lesson the students were reminded to just induce grammar rules from the texts given only
3.5.2 Success rates from the analysis of students’ self-reflection
Chart 2: Students’ self-reflection on their rules discovering
In general, most of the students admitted that they had worked out the target grammar rules either with help from their classmates or by themselves, with 72.5%, 79.3% and 79.3% for “present continuous”, “would” and “indirect question” lessons respectively
In the two lessons of “the present continuous” and “indirect questions”, the majority of the students were able to discover the rule for themselves, with the former accounting for 41.4% and the latter 48.3% However, the rate of those who conferred with their classmates was the highest in “would” lesson, standing at 58.6%
The percentage of students having known the target rules in advance was highest for “present continuous tense” lesson and lowest for “indirect question” lesson (20.6% as opposed to 0%)
Table 7: Rule discovering failure rates in comparison
Lessons Students’ self-reflection Analysis of students’ worksheets
As it can be shown from the table, the failure rates reflected by students themselves through the post-treatment questionnaire were always more modest than those induced from students’ worksheets in all lessons That might be explained that some students misjudged their success in working out the rules: they thought they had found out the correct rules, in fact, they had not
The reasons for failure vary according to different lessons
In “present continuous” lesson, what caused some students’ failure in discovering the rule might result from a number of strange words encountered As they later reported, the students had difficulty in understanding new terms and confusing concepts such as “future intention”, “future arrangement”, “future plan” and
The lesson of “would” involved a dictation task, in which students were required to note down a story dictated by the teacher Not many of the students could make a good performance with this task and lot of them gave up because they were bad at listening and had limited vocabulary Though the dictation task fulfillment did not affect the process of hypothesis making for the students would later be given the script to have a look at, this might discouraged them from doing the rest tasks, thereby failing to discover the target rule
The reason why the failure rates in “indirect question” lesson were much higher than in the others was attributed to its design This lesson required students to construct the forms of indirect question while the first two lessons involved finding the meanings of the target forms As a result of this, the students expected to do the similar tasks in the third lesson Instead of working out the structures of indirect question, they discussed its usage’; for example, they wrote “indirect questions were more polite than direct questions” or “indirect questions were used in formal situations.”
The percentage of those failing to work out the structure of indirect Y/N question was the highest of all, accounting for 69% This might be caused by the insufficient input of Y/N questions in the listening text There was only one example of Y/N question, in comparison with five examples of wh- question
3.5.5 Success rates and the difficulty degrees in comparison
Table 8: Success rates of rule discovering and the difficulty degrees in comparison
Lessons Success rates in rule discovering
Difficulty degree rated by students
(*) It was the average of the success rates for the two rules
The most difficult lesson was “indirect question”; hence, it is easy to understand why its success rate was the lowest of all However, “present continuous” was ranked to be more difficult than “would” though more students succeeded in the former lesson than the latter The difficulty in “present continuous” lesson might be caused by listening task, at which the students were not normally good, while the rule itself was quite easy and about half of the students had already known the rule in advance This explains for the coexistence of the high success rate and high difficulty degree in
To what extend, did they remember the rules that they had discovered by themselves?
One week after the implementation students were tested if they remembered the rules learnt in the three lessons In general the percentages of those who could remember the target rules were considerably high, with 93.1% for “the present continuous tense”, 86.2% for “would” and 79.3% for “indirect wh-question” The low rate for indirect yes/no question (31.0%) matched with its high failure rate in finding the rule.It can be inferred that, once they themselves managed to work out the rules, they could surely recall them latter
There are some good grounds for the claim that consciousness-raising enhances retention Firstly, because of their “problem-solving" quality, C-R activities are very motivating and can capture learners attention More intense attention ensures a better understanding and more durable memory Furthermore, when doing C-R tasks, learners have to make greater mental effort which entails cognitive depth, thus allowing them to gain greater insight into the target forms and finally facilitating their retention power
3.6.2 Test results and success rates in comparison
Table 9: Test results and success rates in comparison
Rules Success rates in rule discovering
Success rates in explicit knowledge test
For the first three rules, the rates of students gave correct answers in the explicit knowledge test were slightly higher than the rates of those who succeeded in rule discovering It might be inferred that there were some students who were unable to word out the rules though they could recognize stated rules However, students who did not work out the rule of Y/N indirect questions also failed to transform the direct Y/N question into the indirect one because the question type did not involve rule recognition like the others
A Summary of the main findings A.1 Preferences
The percentage of students preferring traditional deductive approaches to grammar teaching was not so significantly higher than C-R Those supporting deductive learning thought that this way of learning was clearer to follow and easier to understand
However, most of the students recognised that learning grammar with C-R tasks is more interesting to learn and it is also easier to remember the rules When students’ evaluations of two types of learning are compared, the results showed that C-R was more interesting, difficult and useful than the traditional deductive method
The students who were fond of the traditional deductive approach to grammar teaching gave credence to the fact that it was clearer to follow and easier to understand
These students did not like C-R because this way of teaching did not include practice and their low competence in English did not allow them to benefit much from C-R tasks which were thought to be more challenging The most common reasons for the students’ preference of inductive consciousness-raising were attributed to its power in motivating learners and facilitating their memory capacity
A.3 Students’ opinions about learning grammar without practice
All of the subjects opposed the idea of learning grammar without practice The majority of them thought that it is necessary to practice new grammar rules
A.4 Success rates in grammar rule discovering
The rates of those successful in discovering rules were quite high, with an exception to the rule of Y/N indirection question where there was not enough repetition of the target structure
The test results showed that there were high percentages of students who could give the correct answers to questions about the taught rules, proving that students’ the retention of the knowledge acquired was significant
B.1 Learners may like learning with C-R tasks if they get more exposed to C-R learning
Though the percentages of students favouring C-R were slightly less than 50% both before and after the implementation there was an increase of 10% from about 38% to roughly 48% This fact showed that some students had changed their opinion after trying with C-R As it can be inferred from this, if learners are more exposed to C-R, they may take to C-R and find it more beneficial Therefore, teachers who support C-R teaching should be more persistent and provide students with more opportunities working with C-R tasks
B.2 Learners should get used to working with C-R tasks
If learners get used to making and testing their own hypotheses, they will benefit more from C-R activities After being getting enough experience with discovery learning, they will acquire necessary skills to work effective with C-R tasks Once equipped with proper skills, learners will avoid getting lost in their way to find the target rule; and difficulties in understanding and using technical terms will also be minimized
B.3 Input texts should be rich of information about the target rules
The texts from which the target rules emerge should be rich of context information basing on which rules can be induced The target features should also appear several times in the texts or several examples of the features should be provided so that learner could have more exposure, thus enabling them to capture the rules introduced
B.4 Scaffolding questions should be helpful
The scaffolding questions should be thoughtfully composed so that they can be more helpful for learners They should be simple, clear and logical, thereby step by step guiding learners to come to a sensible induction about the target rules
B.5 Language used by learners should be either English or their mother tongue
Learners of low proficiency should be allowed to use their mother tongues because struggling with terminological expressions in the target language might deter learners from enjoying benefits of C-R tasks However, once they become familiar with C-R teaching and equipped with enough grammatical terminologies, they should be encouraged to use English as a mean of doing C-R tasks The reason is using English to perform C-R tasks promotes negotiated interactions, hence enhancing learners’ communicative competence Fotos (1993: 92)
B.6 Rule composing tasks should be simplified
Learners who are less experienced with making rules find in difficult to word out grammar rules though they have already captured them because they are not equipped with sufficient grammatical terminologies For this reason, rule composing tasks should be simplified in the way that learners might not be asked to write the full rules by themselves, but instead there might be written rules with a few gaps for them to fill in
Such way of doing saves learners effort in struggling with wording
B.7 Practice activities may be combined with C-R activities
As has already been discussed, practice is thought to be of little use in language learning The question is whether language teachers should exclude practice out of their lessons and try to persuade their learners that practice is less important than they think
Implications
B.1 Learners may like learning with C-R tasks if they get more exposed to C-R learning
Though the percentages of students favouring C-R were slightly less than 50% both before and after the implementation there was an increase of 10% from about 38% to roughly 48% This fact showed that some students had changed their opinion after trying with C-R As it can be inferred from this, if learners are more exposed to C-R, they may take to C-R and find it more beneficial Therefore, teachers who support C-R teaching should be more persistent and provide students with more opportunities working with C-R tasks
B.2 Learners should get used to working with C-R tasks
If learners get used to making and testing their own hypotheses, they will benefit more from C-R activities After being getting enough experience with discovery learning, they will acquire necessary skills to work effective with C-R tasks Once equipped with proper skills, learners will avoid getting lost in their way to find the target rule; and difficulties in understanding and using technical terms will also be minimized
B.3 Input texts should be rich of information about the target rules
The texts from which the target rules emerge should be rich of context information basing on which rules can be induced The target features should also appear several times in the texts or several examples of the features should be provided so that learner could have more exposure, thus enabling them to capture the rules introduced
B.4 Scaffolding questions should be helpful
The scaffolding questions should be thoughtfully composed so that they can be more helpful for learners They should be simple, clear and logical, thereby step by step guiding learners to come to a sensible induction about the target rules
B.5 Language used by learners should be either English or their mother tongue
Learners of low proficiency should be allowed to use their mother tongues because struggling with terminological expressions in the target language might deter learners from enjoying benefits of C-R tasks However, once they become familiar with C-R teaching and equipped with enough grammatical terminologies, they should be encouraged to use English as a mean of doing C-R tasks The reason is using English to perform C-R tasks promotes negotiated interactions, hence enhancing learners’ communicative competence Fotos (1993: 92)
B.6 Rule composing tasks should be simplified
Learners who are less experienced with making rules find in difficult to word out grammar rules though they have already captured them because they are not equipped with sufficient grammatical terminologies For this reason, rule composing tasks should be simplified in the way that learners might not be asked to write the full rules by themselves, but instead there might be written rules with a few gaps for them to fill in
Such way of doing saves learners effort in struggling with wording
B.7 Practice activities may be combined with C-R activities
As has already been discussed, practice is thought to be of little use in language learning The question is whether language teachers should exclude practice out of their lessons and try to persuade their learners that practice is less important than they think
The answer is they should not for both humane and educational reasons In terms of humanism, individual beliefs and preferences should be respected Moreover, on educational ground, that way of doing also benefits learners Obviously, learners will not learn what they do not like and believe To be more specific, learners are more motivated when the teaching suits their liking and they also feel safer when things go in accordance with their thinking Motivation and the sense of safety are important psychological factors in learners’ success in acquiring new knowledge and skills For these reasons it is suggested that practice activities should be combined with C-R activities to ensure optimal effectiveness.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
This study inevitably has limitations due to its narrow scale Firstly, the relationship between gender and preference has not been investigated for there are few male students in the researcher’s teaching context Secondly, reasons for preferences discussed here are superficial, basing on the students’ self-reflection only Another limitation comes from the narrow sense of effectiveness discussed in the study The effectiveness of C-R tasks was measured by two parameters, i.e learners’ success in discovering the target grammar rules and the retention of their knowledge How C-R tasks promote implicit knowledge and learners’ communicative competence has not been looked into
The limitations of this study have opened up some possibilities for further research The question of how male and female learners prefer and benefit from C-R tasks is worth considering because there is apparently a link between gender and preference Besides, reasons for learning preferences need investigating from more insightful perspectives, counting various parameters such as learning style, learner’s needs and motivation In addition, how effective C-R tasks are need to be studied from different angles, such as learners’ gains in implicit knowledge and communicative competence
Bolitho R & Tomlinson B (1980), Discover English: A Language Awareness
Bourke J (1996), “In praise of linguistic problem solving”, RELC Journal, Vol.27 (2), pp 12- 29
Brown, H D (1994), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Prentice Hall
Bialystok (1982), “On the Relationship between Knowing and Using Linguistic Forms”,
Einstein M (1987), “Grammatical Explanations in ESL: Teach the Student, Not the method”, in Long M & Richards J (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL, pp 282- 292, Heinle & Heinle Plublishers, New Jersey
Ellis R (1985), Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press,
Ellis R & Fotos S (1991), “Communicating about grammar: a task-based approach”,
Ellis R (1993), “SLA and the Structural Syllabus”, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.27, pp 91-
Ellis R (1994), The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press,
Ellis R (1997), SLA Research and Language Teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ellis R (2002), “Grammar Teaching – Practice or Consciousness-raising?”, in Richard J and Rennandya W (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of
Current Practice, pp 167 – 174, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ellis R (2003), Task-based Language Learning and Teaching, Oxford University Press,
Ellis R (2006), “Current issues in the Teaching of Grammar: an SLA Perspective”,
Felder R & Henriques E (1995), “Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign Second
Language Education”, Foreign Language Annals, Vol 28 (1), pp 21- 31
Fotos S (1994), “Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar Consciousness-raising tasks”, TESOL Quarterly, Vol 28 (2), pp 323- 350
Fotos S (1995), “Communicative tasks for grammar consciousness raising”, in
Pennington M (Ed) New Ways in Teaching Grammar, VA: TESOL, pp 181-
187 Hermann, G (1969), “Learning by discovery: a critical review of studies”, Journal of
Krashen, S (1982), Principles and Practice in Second Acquisition Language, Pergamon
Mohamed, N (2001), “Teaching Grammar through Consciousness-raising Tasks”, MA
Thesis, University of Aukland, New Zealand
Mohamed, N (2004), “Consciousness-raising Tasks: a learner perspective”, ELT
Journal, Vol.58 (3), pp 228- 237, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Norris J M., & Ortega L (2000), “Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: a Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-analysis”, Language Learning, Vol.5 (3), pp 417-528
Nunan D (1991), Language Teaching Methodology, Prentice Hall, London
Ranalli M J (2001), “Consciousness-raising versus deductive approaches to language instruction: a study of learners’ preference” (retrieved from http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/Ranalli1.pdf) Richards, J C and Rodgers T S (1986), Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Richards, J C., Platt, J and Platt, H (Eds.) (1992), Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow
Rutherford W E (1987) Second Language Grammar: Teaching and Learning, Pearson
Rutherford, W E & Sharwood-Smith M (1988) Grammar and Second Language
Teaching, Newbury House, New York
Schmidt R (1990), “The role of consciousness in second language learning”, Applied
Seliger H (1979), “On the Nature and Function of Language Rules in Language
Teaching”, TESOL Quarterly, Vol 13, pp 359- 369
Sharwood-Smith M (1981), “Consciousness-raising and the second language learner”,
Sheen R (1992), “Problem Solving Brought to Task”, RELC Journal, Vol 23 (2), pp
Thornbury, S (1999), How to teach grammar, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow
Widodo H., “Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar English teaching”,
Practice and Critique, May 2006, Vol.5 (1), pp 122- 141, (retrieved from http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/2006v5n1nar1.pdf pp 122-141) Willis D and Willis J (1996), “Consciousness-raising activities”, in Willis D and Willis
J (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching, pp 63-76, Heinemann, Oxford
Yip V (1994), “Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability”, in Odlin T (Ed.),
Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
APPENDIX 1: PRE-TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRE BẢNG CÂU HỎI ĐIỀU TRA VIỆC HỌC NGỮ PHÁP TIẾNG ANH
Bảng câu hỏi điều tra này phục vụ cho một luận văn thạc sỹ Các câu hỏi được biên soạn nhằm điều tra việc học ngữ pháp của bạn trước đây, đánh giá của bạn về phương pháp giảng dạy ngữ pháp mà bạn thường xuyên được tiếp xúc nhất, và hỏi xem trong hai qui trình dạy ngữ pháp là diễn dịch và qui nạp bạn thích cách nào hơn Ngoài ra, trong bản điều tra này, còn có một số cầu hỏi kiểm tra một số kiến thức ngữ pháp của bạn Mọi thông tin cá nhân của bạn sẽ được giữ bí mật
1.Các giáo viên Tiếng Anh của bạn trước đây thường tiến hành một bài dạy ngữ pháp như thế nào? Các lựa chon dưới đây đưa ra ba cách tiến hành một bài dạy ngữ pháp Hãy đánh giá các lựa chọn đó trên cơ sở mức độ bạn thường xuyên tiếp xúc, đánh số 1 cho phương án bạn thường được tiếp xúc nhất, và đánh số 3 cho phương án bạn ít được tiếp xúc nhất, và 2 cho phương án ở giữa
A Giáo viên viết cấu trúc câu, giải thích ý nghĩa và cách sử dụng của nó, đưa ví dụ, rồi yêu cầu học sinh làm bài luyện tập, sau đó tổ chức một số hoạt động giúp học sinh sử dụng cấu trúc vừa học
B Giáo viên cho học sinh nghe hoặc đọc bài khóa, trích ra một số ví dụ từ bài khóa, xây dựng qui tắc ngữ pháp từ các ví dụ đó, giải thích qui tắc ngữ pháp và đưa thêm một số ví dụ khác, sau đó cho học sinh làm bài luyện tập
C Giáo viên cho học sinh làm một số hoạt động (nói, nghe hoặc đọc) nhằm gợi ý hướng dẫn học sinh tự tìm ra qui tắc ngữ pháp, sau đó giúp học sinh tự chỉnh sửa các qui tắc ngữ pháp đó (Không có thời gian dành cho luyện tập)
2 Bạn hãy đánh giá về cách học ngữ pháp mà bạn thường xuyên tiếp xúc nhất như bạn đã lựa chọn ở trên trên ba phương diện sau: Độ thú vị Độ khó Độ hữu dụng
rất thú vị rất khó rất hữu ích
khá thú vị khá khó khá hữu ích
khá tẻ nhạt khá dễ không hữu ích lắm
rất tẻ nhạt rất dễ hoàn toàn vô ích
3 Cách học nào bạn thích hơn?
tôi thích nghe giáo viên giảng giải về qui tắc ngữ pháp sau đó luyện tập sử dụng qui tắc vừa học
tôi thích thực hiện các hoạt động đọc hoặc nghe trước, sau đó tự mình tìm ra qui tắc ngữ pháp dựa trên phân tích các câu mẫu trích ra từ bài đọc
4 Hãy tích vào tất cả các đáp án hợp lý:
Chúng ta sử dụng thời hiện tại tiếp diễn để:
nói về những việc đang xảy ra ở thời điểm hiện tại diễn tả một quyết định
miêu tả một hành động lặp đi lặp lại miêu tả một trạng thái tạm thời miêu tả một kế hoạch, sắp đặt cho tương lai đưa ra một phỏng đoán
6 Hãy tích vào tất cả các đáp án hợp lý:
Chúng ta dùng “would” để:
đưa ra một đề nghị lịch sự nói về kế hoạch tương lai nói về thói quen trong quá khứ nói về những tình huống trong tưởng tượng hoặc không thể xảy nói về những dự định, sắp đặt trong tương lai
7 Hãy viết hai ví dụ về “câu hỏi gián tiếp”:
BẢN CÂU HỎI ĐIỂU TRA HIỆU QUẢ CỦA CÁC BÀI HỌC NGỨ PHÁP
Bản điều tra này được biên soạn nhằm lấy ý kiến của bạn về ba bài ngữ pháp mà trong đó bạn được yêu cầu tìm ra qui tắc ngữ pháp dựa trên các hoạt động khơi gợi nhận thức Bạn sẽ được hỏi ý kiến về việc thích học ngữ pháp theo cách mới hay cách dạy truyền thống hơn Ngoài ra trong bản điều tra còn có một số câu hỏi nhằm kiểm tra xem bạn có nhớ các qui tắc ngữ pháp mà bạn đã học trong ba bài vừa qua
Hãy đọc kỹ câu hỏi và thông tin hướng dẫn rồi đưa ra câu trả lời Mọi thông tin về danh tính của bạn sẽ không được tiết lộ
1.Trong ba bài học vừa qua, bạn được làm một số hoạt động đọc, nghe và nói, sau đó thử tự tìm ra các qui tắc ngữ pháp dựa vào các câu hỏi gợi ý
Bạn hãy đánh giá cách học ngữ pháp đó trên 3 phương diện sau: Độ thú vị Độ khó Độ hữu ích
rất thú vị rất khó rất hữu ích
khá thú vị khá khó khá hữu ích khá tẻ nhạt khá dễ không hữu ích lắm rất tẻ nhạt rất dễ hoàn toàn vô ích
2 Cách học nào bạn thích hơn?
Tích vào một trong hai phương án sau:
tôi thích nghe giáo viên giảng giải về qui tắc ngữ pháp sau đó luyện tập sử dụng qui tắc vừa học
tôi thích thực hiện các hoạt động đọc, nghe hoặc nói trước, sau đó tự mình tìm ra qui tắc ngữ pháp dựa trên phân tích bài đọc hoặc bài nghe đó
