CHUYÊN đề hội THẢO các TRƯỜNG CHUYÊN VÙNG DHĐBBB lần THỨ VIII năm 2015 môn TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG CHUYÊN QUẢNG TRỊ

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING AND THE ISSUE OF INTEGRATING GRAMMAR INTRODUCTION The field of language teaching has undergone many shifts and trends over the last few decades Numerous methods have come and gone (Richards & Rodgers, 2001) In recent decades, to compensate for the limitations of the traditional language teaching methods, the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been encouraged to help develop students’ English abilities appropriately in context (Littlewood, 2007) and communicative competence in authentic contexts (Larsen-Freeman, 2000) This is due to the awareness of English being the most widely spoken language in the world and used in various areas such as technology, science, and business Since the introduction of CLT, there has been a lot of progress in English language teaching all over the world The teaching has moved from the presentation, practice and production to pre-, while- and post-stages, in which four skills (i.e reading, listening, speaking and writing) have been focused on and reflected However, teaching grammar has lagged behind the integration of pre, while and post stages The issues of “whether grammar should be taught or not” and “how to teach grammar” have long been the focus of debate by many linguists and educators worldwide for the last 50 years In the history of language teaching, grammar, as a subsystem in a network of other linguistic sub-systems and sub-skills (Newby, 2003), has been attached different roles in the language classroom and addressed by a number of linguistic theories and methodologies The way grammar has been considered has a direct and decisive influence on pedagogical grammars, learning processes and many other areas involved in foreign language teaching However, it reaches little consensus, not only about the particular items to be taught, but about when, or how, or even where to teach or learn Indeed, one controversial aspect of CLT is the role of grammar instruction Krashen’s (1982, 1985) Monitor Theory suggests that grammar instruction is unnecessary and has a very minimal effect on second language acquisition (SLA) Pica (2000) argues that communicative teaching that focuses mainly on meaning with very little attention to forms are not adequate to prepare learners for attaining native-like proficiency Therefore, the role of grammar in CLT needs to be justified Nowadays, many teachers are still wondering the way to fully integrate teaching grammar when applying CLT Although grammar instruction has recently been associated with contextual teaching, we need to go beyond this movement to bring grammar instruction fully to life and to make it purposeful and communicative The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to CLT and the issue of the implementation of grammar instruction with regard to communicative language teaching ORIGIN OF CLT The communicative approach could be said to be the product of educators who had grown dissatisfied with the audio-lingual and grammar-translation methods of foreign language instruction They felt that students were not learning enough realistic, whole language They did not know how to communicate using appropriate social language, gestures, or expressions; in brief, they were at a loss to communicate in the culture of the language studied (Larsen-Freeman, 2000) CLT emerged in the early 1970s as a result of the work of the Council of Europe experts However, it can be traced to the work of Chomsky in the 1960s, when he advanced the two notions of “competence” and “performance” as a reaction against the prevalent audio-lingual method and its views These two concepts were developed later on by Hymes, into a “communicative competence” which refers to the psychological, cultural and social rules which discipline the use of speech (Hedge, 2000) CLT is best considered as an approach rather than a method Accordance with the communicative theory, communicative approach emphasizes the learning process, emphasizing the interdependence of language and communicative relationship Therefore, the communicative approach is the core of the teaching process, the process of communication (Richards & Rogers, 1986) In Vietnam, CLT has gained approval since it was first implemented in the early 1990s As Le (1999) revealed, two essential factors encouraging the use of CLT in Vietnam are the support from government policy and Vietnamese teachers’ favorable view of this approach A new set of locally-written textbooks was introduced in 2002, and now pilot textbooks since 2013, following the introduction of a new national curriculum which stated that communicative skills should be the goal of teaching of English in secondary schools and that formal knowledge of the language should only be seen as the means to an end (MOET, 2006) CHARACTERISTICS OF CLT AND MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT IT The fundamental principle of CLT is to enable learners to understand and use the target language for communication Two basic assumptions underlying this approach to language learning are that the core of language learning is the development of communicative competence and that the starting point for language learning is not grammatical rules but context, function, meaning and the appropriate use of the language Richards and Rogers identify the distinct characteristics of communicative language teaching as: “Language is a system for the expression of meaning The primary function of language is for interaction and communication function of language The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features, but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.” (1986:71) In other words, the characteristics of CLT can be briefly described as followed: * This approach calls for radically different ideas of language teaching One major shift is that language learning has become student-centred Lessons are planned in such a way that all the students can engage in interactive activities * Authentic and meaningful communication should be goal of classroom activities Group work and pair work are employed to promote communication and getting the meaning across Authentic materials, such as newspaper articles, radio programmes, video-tapes, train-timetables etc., are used to bring the real world elements into the classroom Situations are simulated but interaction and task complete within real-time are genuine Role-plays centre on communicative functions * Fluency is an important dimension of communication The objective of language learning is to communicate; attempts to communicate are encouraged at the very beginning Errors are unavoidable but accuracy is judged in context rather in structures and forms Errors which are concerned with structures are not corrected openly and simultaneously because the main concern is fluency and getting meaning through communication Learning is a process of creative construction and involves errors * Structurally (grammatically) sequenced curricula were a mainstay of language teaching for centuries CLT suggests that grammatical structure might better be subsumed under various functional categories CLT pays considerably less attention to the overt presentation and discussion of grammatical rules than traditionally practiced The theory of language teaching underlying the Communicative Approach is holistic rather than behavioristic (Richards & Rogers, 1986) CLT gives priority to the semantic content of language learning That is, learners learn the grammatical form through meaning not the other way around Thus, “learning activities are selected according to how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authentic language use (rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns)” (Richards & Rogers, 1986:72) Although CLT is accepted and is most widely used by many applied linguists and teachers as the most effective approach among those in general use, there are still a number of misconceptions about what it involves Thompson (1996) listed common misconceptions about CLT They are: (i) CLT means no teaching of grammar (ii) CLT means teaching speaking only (iii) CLT means pair work, which means role play (iv) CLT means expecting too much from teacher As can be seen, one basic misconception (and also the most persistent and most damaging one) is that CLT means no explicit teaching of grammar Thompson (1996) refers to Krashen (1988) that language acquisition cannot take place just by remembering rules of grammar, but language learning takes place unconsciously by exposure to it Without reverting to traditional way of grammar teaching, Thompson suggests that an appropriate time of class should be given to grammar teaching He recommends a “retrospective way” to grammar teaching He says learners first be exposed to a simple understandable language context, it helps learner understand function and meaning of that language context Once the context is understandable, grammatical forms are introduced afterwards Thompson makes it clear CLT does not mean exclusion of grammar teaching completely THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING GRAMMAR The term grammar has been interpreted in different ways, oftentimes causing confusion in the language-teaching field However, as Batstone (1994) claims, grammar is an immensely broad and diverse phenomenon which embodies three interdependent dimensions: form, meaning and use This perspective on grammar, where forms are presented in direct association with meaning, views grammar as an integral part of the language Grammar is a device for constructing and conveying meaning without which, effective communication would be impossible Grammar is essentially about the systems and patterns used to select and combine words… By studying grammar, the structure and regularity which is the foundation of language is recognized and learners gain the tools to talk about the language system (de Silva Joyce & Burns, 1999) Grammar teaching has been subject to as many changes as any other aspect of language It seems that the emphasis has moved from the teachers’ task in teaching grammar to the learner’s task in learning it and putting it into use, shifting the debate from what grammar is to how it can best be taught to help students achieve this goal Teaching grammar has a positive influence on noticing grammatical forms, preventing fossilization, using grammar creatively, and encouraging classroom participation If learners are continuously exposed to a certain grammatical structure in formal instruction, they are more likely to notice the structure and realize the difference between grammatically correct speech and their current speech Thus, the students’ observation will help them to use the structure in communication automatically (Larsen-Freeman, 2000) Another advantage of teaching grammar is to prevent fossilization, which means “a broken, ungrammatical, and pidginized form of a language” (Newby, 1998:2) He asserts that purely meaning-based instruction, which does not focus on grammar, can facilitate this fossilization because some complicated structures cannot be acquired by natural conversation In addition, teaching grammar also helps learners to use language more creatively Littlewood (2007) also asserts that if students who study English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learn grammar, “they can not only use set phrases or insert alternative words into fixed patterns, but also make choices within the grammatical system itself” (p.17) For instance, an EFL learner who is taught how to use a noun phrase could inquire, “Would you like a cup of tea?” or “Would you like a piece of cake” by inserting an alternative Moreover, if the student learns how to use an infinitive verb, the student will be able to inquire, “Would you like to buy these cakes” (p.17) For these reasons, teaching grammar can give students opportunities to use a second language more creatively Lastly, teaching grammar has a positive influence on EFL students’ spontaneous classroom participation For instance, EFL learners who are already familiar with grammar instruction can speak English with confidence only when they are convinced that their speech is grammatically correct Specifically, EFL learners can be strongly motivated when they can “prepare notes before inviting oral responses” (Littlewood, 2007:3) PROBLEMS IN GRAMMAR TEACHING Grammar teaching is an extremely important part of foreign language teaching but there exist two universal problems One is that it is ineffective: during class, teachers explain grammar rules one by one, and students seem to understand and they have done many related exercises, but when they speak and write, they still make many grammatical mistakes The other is that the students feel that grammar teaching is very dull and boring Therefore they have no interest in learning Larsen-Freeman (2000) suggests that teachers and students must change their beliefs in grammar Teachers can not regard grammar as fixed and rigid rules, but should consider it as a skill, and must teach students grammar like the four skills Teachers should cultivate students’ ability to use grammar structures accurately, meaningfully and appropriately If grammar instruction is appropriate for a class, the teacher’s next step is to integrate grammar principles into a communicative framework, since the fundamental purpose of language is communication Unfortunately, grammar is often taught in isolated, unconnected sentences that give a fragmented, unrealistic picture of English and make it difficult for students to apply what they have learned in actual situations (Batstone, 1994) Many teachers only focus on forms and infusing knowledge of grammar by repetitious instruction, but neglect training the students’ ability to communicate and use the English language They often spend most of their time explaining dull, complex grammar rules The practice of attaching great importance to form but underestimating language communication has long been involving in our ELT Whether communication serves language or language serves communication has been the point of issue GRAMMAR TEACHING IN CLT The teaching of grammar in CLT has always stirred controversy among researchers Traditionally, grammar was taught by rules and supported by examples, then presented as a systematic correlation As far as the grammar-based approaches, they are built on the assumption that through teaching grammar exclusively, the learners will be able to fully master the target language The most renowned grammar-based approaches are traditional translation and audiolingual methods Though they differ in many respects, these methods share the assumption that language is best learned through the explicit grammar instruction However, many researchers have attested to the fact that language teaching cannot be limited solely to grammar teaching This is so because the explicit teaching of grammar does not result in fluency Therefore, these approaches have been put into question with the advent of the communicative movement (LarsenFreeman, 2000) There is a widespread belief that CLT does not include any grammar However, Spada (2007) argues that the thought that CLT “means an exclusive focus on meaning” is a myth or a misconception (p.275) In fact, that widespread belief that CLT eclipsed attention to grammar is only partly true, since although CLT syllabuses are organized according to categories of meaning or functions, they still have a strong grammar basis (Thornbury, 1999:23), that is to say, the functions into which CLT syllabuses are organized are connected with their correspondent grammatical points Unlike the grammar-based approaches, the CLT is based on the idea that language is best learned through communication, not via the mechanical presentation of grammatical forms Hymes’ theory of communicative competence (1972) has been very influential in the development of CLT, which puts the development of students’ communicative competence as its primary goal As a result, the CLT has disregarded the explicit use of grammar rules in teaching grammar This has led to a shift from form-focused instruction to meaning-focused instruction (Thompson, 1996) However, this fact is also one of the points of criticism of the CLT that most of scholars worldwide agree with They are afraid that such concentration on language behavior may result in negative consequences in the sense that important structures and rules would be left out (Pekoz, 2008) The exclusive focus on grammar instruction has also been found to be inadequate to develop learners’ ability to perform in oral communication There is a mixture of beliefs regarding grammar instruction Some scholars support the exclusion of grammar learning, while other researchers emphasize the need to include grammar teaching in CLT In Krashen’s (1982, 1985) hypothesis of acquisition versus learning, he believes that acquisition happens naturally, provided that learners receive sufficient comprehensible input, and that only acquired knowledge can lead to fluent communication Also, Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis proposes that explicit form teaching only serves as a tool for monitoring learners’ language That is, learners learn grammatical rules only to monitor the correctness of their language use, which is in addition to what has been acquired However, the advocates of explicit grammar instruction argue that it is inadequate to acquire a second language, if meaning is the only focus Some teachers think that form-focused instruction and communicative activities, where the focus is on meaning, should be separated They believe that drawing students’ attention to grammar, while they are engaging in meaning, may have harmful effects However, some scholars argue that form-focused instruction and communicative activities should be combined Students pay more attention to target forms, and the forms become more memorable, if students learn them in context (Pekoz, 2008) Psycholinguistic experiments show that, regardless of language acquisition of children, or adults in SLA, their awareness of grammar acquisition and understanding of the project is carried out according to a certain order Therefore, communicative grammar teaching practice is often used to focus on teaching how to make the students, in a specific context, achieve specific communicative functions, such as: inquiry, instruction, order, refusal, request, etc The communicative competence asserts that knowledge of a language not only lies in knowing the grammatical forms of that language, but also of knowing how to use them appropriately in different communication contexts Therefore, many educators have argued that communicative approaches should revisit its goals and thus incorporate both form and meaning (Hymes, 1972) Furthermore, Canale and Swain (1980) presented a model of communicative competence which includes four sub-categories, namely grammatical, sociolinguistic discourse and strategic They consider someone competent in English should demonstrate both rules of grammar and use Discussing the role of grammar within any communicative approach can be controversial, due to these misconceptions and also to the influence of Natural Approaches, which ascribed no grammar role in language learning However, when explaining the role of grammar specifically in CLT, some of that controversy may be solved if we not talk about one single type of CLT but about two main types, the shallow-end approach and the deep-end approach to CLT (Thornbury, 1999) The shallow-end approach to CLT is based on the thought that in order to make the learner use language in a communicative situation, it is necessary first to learn the grammatical rules and then apply them in that communicative situation; on the other hand, the deep-end approach to CLT is based on the belief that grammar is acquired unconsciously during the performance on those communicative situations, so it would be useless to teach grammar previously and explicitly (Thornbury, 1999:18-19) In the shallow-end to CLT, grammar is taught in a way that we can define as inductive: learners are not presented with a list of grammatical rules that they have to learn by heart (presentation-practice-production cycle) but rather, the teacher provides them with examples from which the learners will have to infer the rules by themselves By means of this consciousnessraising (as Rutherford (1996) calls), the teacher makes the learners relate the new grammatical concepts to other grammatical information that they already have, both from other grammatical concepts in the target language or even from grammatical information which appears in their first language By provoking a consciousness-raising in the learners they take into account their general framework of knowledge which is already acquired, so the new grammar is as familiar to the learner as possible and it is not presented as something strange or unattached to previous knowledge Contrarily from the shallow-end approach, the deep-end methodology claimed that grammar should be acquired unconsciously The cycle of input-intake-output reflected in this theory assumed no role for grammar, as it would affect the final aim of communication This model has had a great influence on English Language Teaching (ELT), and there is still a belief that the teaching of grammar might be harmful for communicative competence, as it claims that conscious reflection about grammar affects negatively input processing and performance The reaction, in deep-end approaches, was not to teach grammar, as learners would be unable to integrate it within communication processes Indeed, there have been a number of applied linguists who have argued strongly and in theoretically persuasive terms that explicit grammar teaching should be avoided One line of argument is that grammar teaching is impossible because the knowledge that a speaker needs in order to use a language is simply too complex (Prabhu, 1987) Another is that grammar teaching is unnecessary because that knowledge is of a kind which cannot be passed on in the form of stable rules, but can only be acquired unconsciously through exposure to the language (Krashen, 1988) However, the exclusion of explicit attention to grammar was never a necessary part of CLT It is certainly understandable that there was a reaction against the heavy emphasis on structure at the expense of natural communication But there have always been theorists and teachers pointing out that grammar is necessary for communication to take place efficiently (Batstone, 1994) CLT suggests an alternative way of acquiring grammar: through the study of authentic texts It is clear enough that students need a basic understanding of structures which will enable them to generate language Teachers have to adopt a ‘hybrid’ approach on grammar and CLT This implies they need, at least, an outline of ideas about grammatical progression and a selection of texts to support the development One way to present grammar communicatively is through structured input activities which direct learners to pay attention to the target language through arranging input from the instruction The basic notion of these activities is how learners encode grammatical forms through meaningful context The purpose of structured input activities is to raise learners’ awareness of the target structures with meaning (Pekoz, 2008) All in all, language is not only a set of formal systems, but it is a set of systems, and it is perverse not to focus on questions of form when this is desirable Some points of grammar are difficult to learn, and need to be studied in isolation before students can interesting things with them It is no use making meaning tidy if grammar then becomes so untidy that it cannot be learnt properly Brumfit (1978) points out that the teaching of functions and notions cannot replace the teaching of grammar Larsen-Freeman (2000) states that a more satisfactory characterization of teaching grammar, harmonious with the above assumptions, is that teaching grammar means enabling language students to use linguistic forms accurately, meaningfully and appropriately (279-280) Savignon (2002) maintains that learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences For this reason, grammar and communication arenot mutually exclusive, but interdependent Brown (2007) agrees with the indispensable role of grammar in CLT and he presents principles of integrating grammar and communication Grammar should be “embedded in meaningful and communicative context” and it should meet students’ communicative goals In addition, teachers should not “overwhelm students with linguistic terminology” but rather help them improve both fluency and accuracy (p.349) HOW TO INTEGRATE GRAMMAR FOR CLT The question of how to integrate grammar in CLT has received a lot of attention form many scholars, educators and teachers Many examples of this integration have been made Grammar is important in communication With the correct grammar, we can express our ideas clearly and meaningful Therefore, schools not only focus in communication teaching, but also grammar Grammar teaching, like teaching the four skills, should involve pre-, whileand post-stages in an attempt to provide integrated learning environments (Pekoz, 2008) In the pre-grammar stage, the teacher should bring grammar instruction to life, stimulate interest in the topic, and raise awareness by providing a reason for learning The while-grammar stage should facilitate noticing of the new grammar point, and provide meaningful input through contextual examples, pictures, and texts Finally, the post-grammar stage should provide an opportunity to put grammar to use, and relate grammar instruction to real life situations The main distinction between the while- and post-stages is that the while-stage involves the clarification of the meaning, whereas the post-stage focuses on the productive aspects of the new structure (Larsen-Freeman, 2000) In order to teach the simple present passive tense, Sidabutar (2012) clarifies these steps to integrate grammar for CLT as followed: - First, in Pre-grammar stage, the teacher asks the students to tell about their daily activities After telling their daily activities, the teacher asks: “who prepares your breakfast every morning?” (The teacher tries to get responses like breakfast is prepared by my mother every morning) - Second, in While-grammar stage, the teacher asks the students to tell their own daily activities and turns attention to the statements like “the dishes are washed, the floor is swept, the room is cleaned” The teacher asks questions to get the passive voice structure Following this, the teacher asks clarification check questions such as: “What is the difference between she cleans 10 the room and the room is cleaned?”; “When you think we need the second structure?”… The teacher asks the students to make the pattern of the simple present passive voice on the board - Third, in Post-grammar stage, the teacher gives the hand-out to be filled out and asks students to ask the class members to answer the questions: “Who is prepared breakfast?, “What is watched by a child?, “Who is scolded by a teacher?”… After that, the teacher assigns an incomplete writing task and asks them to complete it using the simple present passive tense as in the following: your sleeping time is too much, but you like to it and sometimes you forget to your assignments Write a letter to tell how to manage time well even though you like sleeping too much As can be seen from the above example, the teacher provided meaningful input though context and provided an opportunity to put grammar to use and relate grammar to real life situations The way to integrate grammar for CLT, according to Sidabutar (2012) is by using pregrammar, while-grammar stage, and post-grammar stage In the consensus view of CLT, it is now fully accepted that an appropriate amount of class time should be devoted to grammar However, this has not meant a simple return to a traditional treatment of grammar rules In CLT, the focus has now moved away from the teacher covering grammar to the learners discovering grammar Wherever possible, learners are first exposed to new language in a comprehensible context, so that they are able to understand its function and meaning Only then is their attention turned to examining the grammatical forms that have been used to convey that meaning The discussion of grammar is explicit, but with guidance from the teacher, it is the learners who are doing most of the discussing, working out as much of their new knowledge of the language as can easily and usefully be expressed The learners have an opportunity to talk about what they are learning While looking explicitly at grammar may not lead immediately to learning, it will facilitate learning at a later stage when the learner is ready to internalize the new information about the language (Sidabutar, 2012) The communicative approach to language teaching stresses the importance of communication and interaction among the pupils and between the teacher and the pupils to learn a foreign language Rather than repeating mechanically dialogues or grammar rules learnt by heart, the CLT encourages pupils to use the target language in semi-authentic contexts This approach also values the pupils' personal experiences outside the classroom as a way to facilitate their learning in the lesson Some common tasks in the CLT are pair or group work, discussions about different aspects of students’ lives, games, role-play … (Savignon, 2002) In CLT, students need grammar, not for its own sake, but in order to scaffold them into achieving a particular activity Sidabutar (2012) suggests that grasping the point of need is the most effective way in teaching 11 integrated grammar in CLT such as when students need the grammar in preparation for a particular activity, as they are doing the activity and need brief input from the teacher on a particular form or after the activity in order to refocus their attention on key patterns or vocabulary needed to complete the activity Another example to illustrate the integration of grammar in CLT comes from Pekoz’s (2008) suggestion in teaching the structure: used to - In the Pre-grammar Stage, the teacher discusses the topic "changes in people over the years" Then, the teacher shows two pictures of a woman One picture was taken 20 years ago and the other one is new The old picture shows her playing the guitar while the new one displays her painting pictures The teacher then asks them to compare the two pictures - In the While-grammar Stage, the teacher tells students that they are going to learn a new structure (for the purpose of noticing) but does not mention the name of structure (for motivational purposes) Then, the teacher makes a transition from the context created in Pregrammar Stage to the grammatical point by showing the same pictures and telling the picture differences with “used to” and “simple present tense” (i.e “She used to play the guitar as a hobby, but now she doesn't, she paints pictures as a hobby now”, etc.) After that, the teacher creates other contexts for the teaching of grammatical point through some other picture comparisons, discussions, stories, or reading/listening texts The teacher asks some questions to ensure that the meaning is clear For example: Did she often play the guitar in the past? Does she play the guitar now? Did she often paint pictures in the past? Does she paint pictures now? Did she have long hair in the past? Does she have long hair now? Finally, the teacher asks the students to formulate the rule on the board for the given sentence providing help if needed - In the Post-grammar Stage, the Brainstorming activity is used The teacher asks students to think back to when they were a child and asks the following questions: “What are the differences and similarities between your life then and now? Think about where you lived, your likes/dislikes, your holidays and your family, and fill in the following lines with appropriate sentences” Your life as a child ……… Your present life………………… After that, the teacher forms pairs of students and gives a role play to each student The role playing students are supposed to be old friends meeting after a long time They are supposed to communicate and note the differences in each using either their imagination or the role play cues Finally, the teacher asks students to write a story about the following topic for the school magazine, “Imagine that you have been asleep from 2007 till 2050 You have just woken up to be 12 shocked about everything around you Compare your old and new lives and write your story using ‘used to’.” As can clearly be seen form this example, CLT gives opportunities to the students to construct their knowledge by themselves O’Neill (2000) states that “good communicative teaching is learner-centered, not teacher-centered” (p.13) The teacher only stimulates the students to construct the knowledge by giving example or clue In addition, “the classroom and the behavior of teachers and learners in the classroom should be as similar as possible to the behavior of people in the ‘real world’ outside the classroom” (O’Neill, 2000:14), because what the students learn will be applied in their real life CONCLUSION In conlcusion, in this 21st century, the world has ‘shrunk’ and we are living in a global village where the need to communicate in a common language tongue is ever stronger It can’t be denied the important role that CLT plays in the modern methodological world CLT is no doubt an excellent tool for increasing fluency However, the issue of integrating grammar effectively in Communicative approach is always a thought-provoking question attracting scholars, educators and teachers worldwide In case of Vietnam, there should have an empirical research on the way teachers in English integrate grammar in their lesson plans when implementing CLT and on the effectiveness of this integration However, in my opinion, if the nature of most of the examinations is still grammar-based, it is difficult for teachers to apply this integration effectively and for students to get better results when exams are designed to test only linguistic competence rather than communicative competence As a result, it is difficult to take full advantage of the benefits CLT brings to its learners in the modern world As we know, no single teaching method deals with everything that concerns the form, the use and the content of the target language Despite the advantages of teaching communicatively, having a variety of teaching methods is necessary Therefore, the best solution in this case is that we can’t throw away the traditional teaching method completely but need a combination to create the most suitable method/approach for Vietnamese learners, or use a new grammar teaching approach that combines both perspectives, namely focus-on-form instruction ************** Ngô Quang Minh Hải Trường THPT chuyên Lê Quý Đôn - Quảng Trị 13 REFERENCES Batstone, R (1994) Grammar New York: Oxford University Press Brown, H D (2007) Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.) New York: Pearson Longman Brumfit, C J (1978) Review of D A Wilkins's Notional Syllabuses ELT Journal XXXIII/l: 79-82 Canale, M & Swain, M (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing Applied Linguistics (1): 1–47 de Silva Joyce, H., & Burns, A (1998) Focus on grammar Sydney: NCELTR Hedge, T (2000) Teaching and learning in the language classroom Oxford University Press Hymes, D H (1972) On Communicative Competence In: J.B Pride and J Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics Selected Readings Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269-293 Krashen, S (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition Oxford: Pergamon Krashen, S (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications London: Longman 10 Krashen, S (1988) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications London: Longman 11 Larsen-Freeman, D (2000) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press 12 Le, V C (1999) Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development, “Partnership and Interaction”, Hanoi 13 Littlewood, W (2007) Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms Language Teaching, Vol 40 (3), 243-249 14 Newby, D (1998) ‘Theory and Practice in Communicative Grammar: A Guide for Teachers’ in R de Beaugrande, M Grosman, B Seidlhofer, (eds.) Language Policy and Language Education in Emerging Nations, Series: Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol LXIII, 151-164 15 Newby, D.A (2003) Cognitive and Communicative Theory of Pedagogical Grammar Habilitationsschrift: KarlFrancens Universität Graz 16 O'Neill, R (2000) Communicative Language Teaching New York: Oxford University Press 17 Pekoz, B (2008) Integrating Grammar for Communicative Language Teaching The Internet TESL Journal, 1-5 18 Pica, T (2000) Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology System, 28, 1–18 19 Prabhu, N S (1987) Second Language Pedagogy Oxford: Oxford University Press 20 Richards, J C & Rogers, T S (1986) Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 21 Richards, J., & Rodgers, T (2001) Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.) New York: Cambridge University Press 22 Rutherford, W E (1996) Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching London, New York: Longman 23 Savignon, S J (2002) Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice In Savignon S J (Ed.), Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (p.1– 27) New Haven: Yale University Press 24 Sidabutar, J (2012) Grammar for Communicative Language Teaching Kamis (12), 27-29 25 Spada, Nina (2007), “Communicative Language Teaching: Current Status and Future Prospects.” In: Cummins, Jim & Davison, Chris (Eds.) International Handbook of English Language Teaching Part New York: Springer, 271-288 26 Thompson, G (1996) Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching ELT Journal, Volume 50/1, 9-15 27 Thornbury, S (1999) How to teach grammar Longman: Pearson Education Limited 14 ... perspectives, namely focus-on-form instruction ************** Ngô Quang Minh Hải Trường THPT chuyên Lê Quý Đôn - Quảng Trị 13 REFERENCES Batstone, R (1994) Grammar New York: Oxford University Press