Effects of communicative grammar teaching on students achievement of knowledge of grammar and oral production

Trang 1

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

is

EFFECTS OF COMMUNICATIVE GRAMMAR TEACHING ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF

GRAMMAR AND ORAL PRODUCTION gt a TRUONG DAI HOC MQ TP.HCM THU VIEN A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (TESOL)

Submitted by NGUYEN THE BINH

Supervisor

PHAM VU PHI HO, Ph.D

Trang 2

ABSTRACT

So far the students of Le Hong Phong Junior High School, Phan Rang City, Ninh Thuan province have been taught grammar with GTM (Grammar-Translation Method), which just prepares learners for conventional grammar-paper tests Therefore, despite their considerable knowledge of grammar, the students fail to use the language they have learnt to communicate in real-life situations Stimulated by this reality, the current study was carried out to investigate the effects of communicative grammar teaching on students’ achievement of knowledge of grammar and oral communication

To obtain the above target, a conceptual framework of communicative grammar teaching was developed This framework was based on the theories of grammar teaching and the implementation of Communicative Grammar Teaching (CLT) in grammar instruction Following the shaped conceptual framework, a training program with six grammar lessons within the prescribed curriculum of “Tiéng Anh 7” by the MOET (Ministry of Education and Training) was conducted The treatment lasted nearly four months from the middle of August 2012 to the end of November 2012 at Le Hong Phong Junior High School, Phan Rang City, Ninh Thuan province

A quasi-experimental study design including pre- and post-test administrations with a control group was applied Seventy-four students of grade 7 which were located in two classes 7° and 7* were chosen based on their equivalence in English capability to take part in the experiment Two types of quantitative and qualitative data were collected via three instruments: pre- and post-tests, student questionnaire, and student interviews These statistically descriptive and textual data were then analyzed and interpreted for the research findings

Trang 3

The results of the current study have showed that after the treatment of communicative grammar teaching, the students’ achievement was proved to be significant in terms of knowledge of grammar and oral communication In addition, communicative grammar teaching got positive attitudes from the students Accordingly, the two major conclusions could be withdrawn from the findings that communicative grammar teaching was effective in (1) improving students’ knowledge of grammar and oral production, and (2) enhancing their interest in grammar lessons

Trang 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certificate of originality <-s< Error! Bookmark not defined

AcknowledgemenfS s5 sec sen se Error! Bookmark not defined

Abstract Error! Bookmark not defined

Table of confenfs S998 969609908060 9e V

List of figures x

List of tables -<ce<csecesssssesesssseee ° speasaseees se XỈ

Abbreviations ove “ — xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Error! Bookmark not defined 1.1 Backgound of the sfUdy .- HH HH ng ng nc 2

1.2 Problem sfaf€Im€TIT G9 nh tr 2

1.3 Purpose of the sfudy LH HH ghe 4

1.4 Research quesfiO'S - - - - 3 TH ng gen ve 5

1.5 Sigmificance of the StUỦYy - TH HH ng HH ch He 5 1.6 Assumptlons of the SfUdy - G2 ng nhưn Hee 6 IWVAP 2ì Tồ 1 6 1.8 Outline of the on 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW no HH HH ngY H40 8x6 8 2.1 TheoreticaÌ COTIC€DDE - Án TY HT Tu Hước 8 2.1.1 Issue of prammar and grammar teaching + sss << se 8 2.1.1.1 Definitions of prammaTr - ôc3 1 vn cay Đ 2.1.1.2 Why to teach øgrammar- - - Ăn ng key 9 2.1.1.3 Basic principles for prammar teaching .- ««s««s< + 10 2.1.1.4 Three dimensions of grammar InstrucfiOn .- - «<< ++<+ H

"` an 12

Trang 5

2.1.3 Two different trends of grammar teaching: CLUT vs GTM 15 2.1.4 The model of P — P — P for grammar teaching in the light of CLT 16 2.2 Conceptual framework for the currenf study' . - - + sxsses 23 2.3 Emperical sfUies - -< + 1H HH HH HH gu ng 26 2.4 Chapf€T SUImTHATY Gv 32 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY -sccSs se rsese 34 3.1 Research SIÍ€ LH ng 34 3.1.1 Pedagoglical sefting Ăn ngư pieteesseceneee dO 3.1.2 PTEICIDATIES Q00 0 36 3.1.3 Description of the textbook “Tiếng Anh 7” s-++x+cxecxerxeree 38

3.2 Design of the sfUdy - - G9 ng ng vết 41

3.3 Procedure of the 0008 43

3.3.1 Pre-training Phase .cccccssccssssceesseceseseccesseeceesessessseseeeencessnnscesseeens 43 3.3.2 While- and posf-training phase - - Ái, 45

3.3.3 Traiming DFOC€SS HH ng ng 48

3.4 InsfTUIn€TIẨS - - HH ng HH kg 49

E6 oan oan 50 3.4.2 Student In†€TVICWS LH HH ngờ 52

3.4.3 Pre-and DOSf-†€S{S QG ng HH ng ggưy 53

3.4.3.1 Grammar-paper f€SfS - - Ăn ngư 54

3.4.3.2 Oral f€SS LH HH ng ng ngưng 59 35 Data 0.57 64 3.5.1 Student quesfionnaire data coÌleCfIOT 5 5s £ + ssvsseresee 64 3.5.2 Student interview data colÏection ket 65 3.5.3 Grammar-paper test data collecfion 5525 s<vsssees 66 3.5.4 Oral test data cOlÏ€CfiOT - - G55 0 KH HH ng nưệp 67 3.6 Methods of data analysis .cccscccsssccesscccesseeccesneecescaecesseeeecsacessneesseeeens 68

3.6.1 Research quesfion Ì c6 1111111111611 5181111 1118 11 1 1g re 68

Trang 6

3.6.1.1 Questionnaire data analySiS_ - c5 55 S25 c2 cccccs 70 3.6.1.2 Interview data anaÌyS1S HH HH Hy Hy gưện 71 ky» Nuơi 2i 72 3.7.1 Teaching pilot 22-©2se+2+2ESEEkEE211117111971110111112111 12111 xe 72 3.7.2 Instrument pIÏOt - G- Ăn ng ngư 73 3.7.2.1 Questionnalr€ pDIÏOf - -< G G599 1g 9 0 1 811v gy 73 3.7.2.2 Interview pIÏOf - - SH ng Ho ng Hy 75 3.7.2.3 Grammar-paper f€st piÏOt - Ăn seeeeeeeces TƠ

3.7.2.4 Oral test DIÏOf .- LH SH HH ng g1 ty tệ 78

3.8 Reliability and vaÌidity isSU€S - HH ng mg ng, 79 3.8.1 Instrument reliablÌIfy - -Ă Ăn HH HH 79 3.8.2 Instrument vaÌIdÌity GG 5< 9H ng ng ng 80 3.8.3 Additional factors of study reliability and validity 81 3.0 Chapf€r SUImrAFY Gọi ve §2 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDING DISCUSSION -.- 84 4.1 Before the treatmerit - - HH HH ng vn 84 4.2 After the treafImerif - - cu nu TH HH TH 86 4.2.1 Research question 1 eeeseeeesscesscecseeeseecssceecaeeesscessseceseenseeeneesaes 81

4.2.1.1 Grammar-paper f€SfS - SH ngư §7

9c 89 4.2.1.3 Summary of the findings on research question l - 91 4.2.2 Research quesf1Or\ 2 - << x1 11H ng re 91 4.2.2.1 Quantitative analyS1s Ăn HH HH 1 xe, 92

4.2.2.1.1 Theme 1: Lesson connf€nI - - <5 s9 v9 xe 92

4.2.2.1.2 Theme 2: Task design: .- SG S S13 nh ng ng 94 4.2.2.1.3 Theme 3: Instructlon effects . - cà sex 99

4.2.2.2 Qualitative anaÌyS1S Lc LH Hg HH ng ng rên 102

4.2.2.2.1 Theme 1: Lesson con€TtL «5s sex sư, 103 4.2.2.2.2 Theme 2: Task design - c1 199 1 1 11281115512 x5, 104

Trang 7

4.2.2.2.3 Theme 3: Instruction effects 2.0.0.0 cece ceessescceessccccceesseseeeeeees 106

4.2.2.3 Summary of the findings on research question 2 - 107

4.3) Chapf€T SUITTTAATV - Gv rre 107

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION -22i.-22sr.cettrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 108

5.1 Main concÏUSIOTNS, - - cọ ng kế 108 5.2 Limitalons of the stUdy G- s H Hn HH nnHgngkc 109 5.3 Contributions of the sfUd\y .- - cọ ng ng pH my 110

5.4 Suggestions of the study HH se, AM

5.4.1 To teachers of English - - G5 5S HH ng re 111 3.4.2 To adminiiSfTAfOTS LH HH KH kg 112 5.4.3 To textbook €SIBTI€TS G5 HH ng 113 5.4.4 To là ố 113 5.5 Reccomendations for further studies .- - 5 - 5< s s2 veseeexee 114 3.6 Chapf€T SUIINATY G0 9 KH ng 114 REFERENCPES c0 HỌC n0 TH G009080908060010 090 115 APPENDICES co 0G G5 HH 00 900900004 100099000090 009.0004506090 04.0880 124 Appendix 1 (A): Summary of six GTM prammar lesson pDÏATS s .<5«<<s=« 124 Appendix 1 (B): Summary of six CLT grammar lesson plans | 126 Appendix 2 (A): A typical GTM grammar lesson pÏaT\ .- e o5 e5 55s << sssss se 128 Appendix 2 (B): A typical CLT grammar lesson pÌan -e-<<<<<s<<s<<se 132 Appendix 3: Texts and follow-up tasks for six CLT grammar lesson plans 137 Appendix 4 (A): Student questionnaire (English version), - =- 141 Appendix 4 (B): Student questionnaire (Vietnamese version) .-.- 145 Appendix 5: Questions for student ITIfCTVICWS ‹ cc co Ăn 90 0193606 s5” 149 Appendix 6: A typical student interview with E Ế es-sscsscssesessssssessersee 151 Appendix 7 (A): Pre-grammar pDap€T f€SẲ -cco co HH 1191 18866686668666 155 Appendix 7 (B): Key answers to pre-grammar DAp€T f€SẲ ‹ -ecessseessseeesseee 157 Appendix 8 (A): Post-grammiar paper test .ccscsocsccsesccecscccesccsesssessscessessccseese 158

Trang 8

Appendix § (B): Key answers to post-pgrammar paper f€S{ «.<«s<s< 160 Appendix 9: Pre-and DOSf-OrÏ f€S( «G5 G0 HH 0 00880860996 161 Appendix 10 (A): Test scores of the controÏ ØTOUD co s5 196561166656 166 Appendix 10 (B): Test scores of the experimental group "_ 167

Trang 9

Figure 2.1 Figure 2,2 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 LIST OF FIGURES

: Dimensions of grammar instruction (Larsen-Freeman, 1991)

: Conceptual framework for communicative grammar teaching : Design of the study

: Framework of test-data analysis

Page 11

Trang 10

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 (A) Table 3.9 (B) Table 3.9 (C) Table 3.10 Table 3.11 (A) Table 3.11 (B) Table 3.12 (A) Table 3.12 (B) Table 3.13 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 LIST OF TABLES : Assignment of grade 7" students at the beginning of the school-year 2012-2015 : Summary of participants’ characteristics at the beginning of the treatment : Summary of the 1*-semester syllabus for the textbook “Tiéng Anh 7"

: Schedule of the study procedure : Matrix of grammar paper-tests

: Scoring rubric for grammar-paper tests : Matrix of oral production tests

: Scoring rubric for oral production tests

: Reliability statistics for the first theme of the questionnaire

: Reliability statistics for the second theme of the questionnaire : Reliability statistics for the last theme of the questionnaire : Correlations between two questionnaire administrations

: Reliability statistics for the first ten items of the pre-paper test : Reliability statistics for the last fifteen items of the pre-paper test : Reliability statistics for the first ten items of the post-paper test : Reliability statistics for the final fifteen items of the post-paper test

: Correlations between the pre- and the post-grammar paper test : Summary of the pre-test results

: Summary of the pre- and the post-grammar paper test results : Summary of the post-grammar paper test results

: Summary of the pre- and post-oral test results : Students’ attitudes towards lesson content

: Students’ attitudes towards task design in presentation stage

Trang 11

Adjs Advs CLT ELT GTM IEGI Ll MOET NDOET P-P-P S.D SPSS VUS IEGI ABBREVIATIONS : Adjectives : Authentic Use, Restricted Use, Clarification and Focus : Adverbs

: Communicative Language Teaching : English Language Teaching

: Grammar — Translation Method : Indirectly Explicit Grammar Teaching : Mother Language

: Mean

: Ministry of Education and Training : Number

: Ninh Thuan Department of Education and Training : Presentation — Practice — Production

: Standard deviation

: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences : Teach — Test —- Teach

: Vietnam — United States

: Indirectly Explicit Grammar Instruction

Trang 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Grammar is one of the major components of language which refers to correctness in language It is a common idea that “without grammar, words hang together without any real meaning or sense” and that “without good knowledge of grammar, learners’ language development will be severely constrained” (Cotter, 2005, p.12) This results in the fact that grammar teaching plays a significant role in language teaching and learning By teaching grammar, Cotter argues that, we not only give learners the means to express themselves but we also fulfill their expectations of what learning a foreign language involves

Trang 13

1.1 Background of the study

English has become a compulsory subject in all Vietnamese high schools with the aim to well prepare young generation for the current trend of globalization It provides them with a new tool of communication to absorb scientific knowledge, advanced technology and diversified cultures in the world (Le-Canh, 2008) To achieve a good command of English, grammar becomes one of the major components that help to develop the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing); and thus the value of grammar teaching has been debated very recently (ibid.)

In reality, English grammar teaching in Vietnamese high schools is problematic (Khuong-Cam, 2010) Normally, grammar teaching goes in the following sequence First, students are passively exposed to grammar rules Then, students silently copy down all the formations and usage of the rules Next, the mechanical drills with isolated sentences are acted out in the practice stage Such communicative activities as role-plays, discussions, problem-solving tasks, or information-gaps are completely strange to most grammar periods (Le-Canh, 1999) As a consequence, classroom interaction is largely one-way, either between the teacher and an individual student or between the teacher and the whole class Interruption, argument, and clarification seeking rarely happen during the class time Students’ making mistakes is immediately intervened by the teacher; students are hence afraid of making mistakes and they rarely volunteer to perform in front of class (Khuong-Cam, 2010)

Trang 14

majority of Vietnamese students learn English just to cope with written tests which are also called grammar-based tests” (p.4) As a result, students cannot apply their grammatical knowledge in real-life communications after many years of learning English at school

1.2 Statement of the problem -

With reference to the current trend of language teaching, CLT is supposed to primarily aim at developing learner’s communicative competence Therefore, the design of most textbooks developed by the MOET (Ministry of Education and Training) is somehow based on CLT However, after many years of studying English at school with these textbooks, Vietnamese students cannot apply their linguistic ability to real-life situations This reality originates from the fact that most teachers apply the traditional method namely GTM in training grammar, in which grammar rules are taught deductively (Nguyen-Giao & Nguyen-Hoa, 2004) In other words, Khuong-Cam (2010) argues that teachers keep teaching grammar in GTM and thus students keep learning grammar reluctantly in order to deal with conventional paper-tests There are several possible explanations for this preference First, teachers always feel more comfortable and confident when using GTM to teach grammar since this method of teaching is quite familiar to them (Nguyen- Giao & Nguyen-Hoa) Second, the school facilities cannot meet the demand of CLT application Particularly, large-size classes are not ideal environment for a communicative lesson; and schools are deprived of equipment (e.g audiovisual teaching aids) (ibid.) Last but not least, according to Khuong-Cam, this problem of English grammar teaching derives from such constraints as grammar-based examinations and textbook-based syllabi other than those mentioned by Nguyen- Giao and Nguyen-Hoa

Trang 15

researcher’s seventeen-year experience in teaching English at this school, through his hundreds of class observations and daily personal communications with practitioners and students With teachers, they all feel confident and comfortable in their current teaching, and thus totally satisfied with the way they have been applying to teach English grammar regardless of knowing that their students cannot use the language learnt to communicate Sadly, most of them are quite vague about the CLT implementation Even a few scarce teachers who have an understanding of CLT express their negative view on it They assert that applying CLT in grammar teaching faces a lot of difficulties due to certain constraints of school facilities; besides, it requires much endeavor from the teacher; they hence do not often implement it For students, when being asked about the reality of grammar instruction they have been experiencing, most of them state that what they learn from grammar classes is a series of grammatical structure provision followed by mechanical practice in the form of isolated sentences, which only serves conventional grammar-paper tests Consequently, though they have considerable knowledge of grammar, they cannot use English to communicate, even in simple situations like personal introduction

Stimulated by the basis of this reality, a decision to conduct a study to help students get improved in English grammatical knowledge and communicative performance at least in the form of oral production is made

1.3 Purpose of the study

Trang 16

the effects of communicative grammar teaching on students’ achievement of grammatical knowledge and oral production, and (2) to ascertain students’ attitude towards communicative grammar lessons As the whole, this study will examine the feasibility of CLT implementation in grammar teaching and its educational merits towards Vietnamese junior high school students in Vietnam, particularly in Ninh Thuan province, or at least in Le Hong Phong Junior High School

1.4 Research questions

To obtain the above purposes, the study addresses the following research questions:

1 Does communicative grammar teaching affect students’ achievement of knowledge of grammar and oral production?

2 What are the students’ attitudes towards the communicatve grammar lessons?

1.5 Significance of the study

Trang 17

1.6 Assumptions of the study

Being taught grammar with CLT, students will get improvement in both grammatical knowledge and oral communication due to the merits this approach brings about Furthermore, students will be more interested in the grammar lessons thanks to the interesting, meaningful, and communicative activities utilized to conduct the lessons Conclusively, CLT produces certain profound effects and can be implemented in grammar teaching in Vietnamese junior high schools despite several constraints

1.7 Definitions of the term “communicative grammar teaching”

In this dissertation, the term “communicative grammar” is used to refer to teaching grammar communicatively According to “Grammar Practice: Mechanical and Communicative (n.d.), this method of grammar teaching is based on the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to the teaching of second/ foreign languages In the light of this method, language structures must not be taught in isolation but integrated to the four skills of language A structure is practiced both orally and in written form Grammar patterns must not only learned at the utterance level but at the discourse level; the main objective focuses on the development of communicative grammatical competence, which is understood as the ability to use and understand a structure in a variety of situations spontaneously

1.8 Outline of the study

Trang 18

themes that correspond to the two research questions The last chapter — Chapter 5 — gives a brief summary of the findings and includes several recommendations for

Trang 19

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

There are three main sections in this chapter: (1) theoretical concepts, (2) conceptual framework for the current study, and (3) a review of prior empirical studies The first section reviews theories that relate the issue of grammar and grammar teaching, and that of the CLT implementation in grammar teaching The second section illustrates the conceptual framework for the present study which is shaped on the basis of the reviewed theories The third section discusses the prior empirical studies on the same topic, which helps to link the current study to the previous ones

2.1 Theoretical concepts

In order to shape a conceptual framework for the present study, a theoretical framework needs to be discussed based on the concepts related to such issues as (1) grammar and grammar teaching, (2) CLT, (3) two different trends of grammar teaching, and (4) the conventional model of P — P — P for grammar teaching in the light of CLT

2.1.1 Issue of grammar and grammar teaching

Regarding this issue, four aspects are in turn reviewed: definitions of grammar, why to teach grammar, basic principles for grammar teaching, and three dimensions of grammar instruction

2.1.1.1 Definitions of grammar

Trang 20

morphology and syntax, in which morphology deals with forms of words while syntax deals with the ordering of the words to form sentences More specifically, Ur defines “grammar” simply as the way words are put together to make correct sentences or grammar is a set of rules that define how words (or parts of words) are combined or changed to form acceptable units of meaning within a language However, of the three views, Richards and Platt’s seems to be the most definite and sufficient “Grammar”, according to them, is a description of the structure of a language and the way in which linguistic units such as words and phrases are combined to produce sentences in the language It usually takes into account the meanings and functions these sentences have in the overall system of the language 2.1.1.2 Why to teach grammar

There are a large number of opinions describing the role of grammar and grammar instruction Lightbrown and Spada (1990) points out that grammar instruction may act as an advanced organizer that helps learners to notice features of language when they are ready Generally, grammar instruction is very much important not only in enabling learners to have very sound knowledge of the language they are learning but allowing more creative applications of language This view is supported by Thornbury (1999), who writes that knowledge of grammatical rules is essential for a mastery of a language, and learners’ inter- language often fossilizes without explicit instruction of grammar

Trang 21

willingness of participants to cooperate in the negotiation of meaning Having the same position, Littlewood (n.d.) states that the more thoroughly a learner masters the grammatical system of the language, the more effectively he or she can use this language for communication; the more learners focus on meanings they want to communicate, the more these meanings become personal and unpredictable Briefly,

“grammar exists not for its own sake but in order to serve communication” (ibid.,

p.2), and thus grammar and communication must be integrated with the aim of developing communicative competence, enabling students to use language for communicative purposes (Doughty & Varela, 1998; Ellis, 1994, 2003) —

2.1.1.3 Two basic principles for grammar teaching

Irrespective of how grammar is taught, two basic principles for grammar teaching suggested by Thornbury (1999) are primarily taken into consideration These principles are E — factor (efficiency) and A — factor (appropriateness) With respect to E — factor, Thornbury defines it as the optimal setting of three related aspects: economy, ease, and efficacy Simply, these three aspects are what relate the time and resources spent on preparing and executing a grammar task justified in terms of its probable learning outcome Regarding preparation, Thornbury argues that it requires a real painstaking job from teachers It needs great investment of time and energy in the preparation of materials and is often accompanied by a commitment on the part of the teacher On presenting grammar, according to Thornbury, a sound rule of thumb is that the shorter the better, and the easier the better Furthermore, he indicates that tasks and materials employed in grammar teaching have to satisfy learners’ attention, understanding, memory, and motivation

In terms of A — factor, according to Thornbury (1999), since learners are not the same in their needs, interests, levels, goals, beliefs, attitudes and values, a classroom activity must be designed in accordance with the factor of appropriateness He particularly mentions such aspects involved in this factor as

Trang 22

learners’ age, level, group size, group constitutions (monolingual or multilingual), learners’ needs (to communicate with foreigners or to pass a public examination) and interests, the available materials and resources, the learners’ previous learning experience and hence present expectations, any cultural factors that might affect attitudes (their perception of the role and status of the teacher), the educational context (private school or state school, at home or abroad)

2.1.1.4 Three dimensions of grammar instruction: form, meaning, and use Larsen-Freeman (1991) suggests that three dimensions of grammar instruction (i.e form or structures, semantics or meaning, and pragmatics or use) should be interconnected Regarding — FORM MEANING/ STRUCTURE SEMANTICS Morphemes Lexical meaning Phonemic/graphemic Grammatical patterns meaning Syntactic patterns this suggestion, Brown (n.d.) is quite

right to state that grammar gives the forms, but these forms are literally meaningless without meaning and use PRAGMATICS Social context Linguistic discourse context

Presuppositions about context

As can be seen in Figure 2.1, Larsen-Freeman (1991) particularly indicates that form or structure

includes morphemes, phonemic Figure 2.1: Dimensions of grammar instruction

patterns, and syntactic patterns; (Larsen-Freeman, 1991)

meaning or semantics includes lexical meaning and grammatical meaning; and pragmatics includes social context, linguistic discourse context, and presuppositions about context In brief, overt forms tell how a particular grammar structure is constructed; meaning indicates what a grammar structure means; and pragmatics shows when or why the grammar point is used

Trang 23

2.1.2 Issue of CLT

Involved in this issue are three aspects of definitions of CLT, features of CLT, and pros and cons of CLT The three aspects are going to be reviewed as

follows

2.1.2.1 Definitions of CLT

In this dissertation, the acronym “CLT” is used to refer to Communicative

Language Teaching According to Richards and Platt (1993), CLT is “an approach to foreign or second language teaching which emphasizes that the goal of language learning is communicative competence” (p.65) This definition is close to that of Thornbury (2006), who defines CLT as “an umbrella term used to describe a major shift in emphasis in language teaching that is away from teaching language systems in isolation to teaching people how these systems are used in real communication”

(p.36)

2.1.2.2 Features of CLT

Among a variety of features of CLT, such major characteristics as theory of language and language learning, classroom goal, the teachers and students’ roles, models of interaction, materials, classroom techniques, emphasized language areas, and teacher’s response to students’ errors are in need of review

In terms of theory of language and language learning, Nunan (1989, as cited in Brown, n.d.) views that language is a system for expression of meaning and hence its primary function is interaction and communication; and that language learning is promoted by activities involving real communication, carrying out meaningful tasks, and using language which is meaningful to the learner

With classroom goal, Brown (2000) asserts that CLT classroom goals are “focus on all of the components of communicative competence” (p.244) This view

Trang 24

ported by Mangbhai, Marland, Dashwood and Son (2007), who indicate that e goal of CLT is to promote or lead to the teaching and learning of language use communication Briefly, CLT aims to make use of real-life situations that ssitate communication; thus, in the light of CLT, teachers should teach English bor communicative purposes

For the roles of teachers and students, both teachers and students are yommunication facilitators in a communicative classroom Particularly, the eacher’s goal is to enable students to communicate in the target language (Larsen- *reeman, 1986) To do this, teachers need to set up tasks and activities in which the earners play the major role and the teacher is a facilitator and guide, not an all- mowing best owner of knowledge (Maley, n.d.) During the activities, the teacher its as an adviser, answering students’ questions and monitoring their performance At other times he might be a co-communicator engaging in the communicative ictivity along with students (Littlewood, 1981, as cited in Larsen-Freeman, 1986) n contrast, students are, all above, communicators engaging actively in negotiating neaning They are encouraged to construct meaning through genuine linguistic nteraction with others (Brown, 2000) They are given opportunities to focus on heir own learning process through an understanding of their own learning styles ind through the appropriate strategy development for autonomous learning That neans they are seen as more responsible managers of their own learning (ibid.)

As regards to models of interaction in communicative classrooms, Larsen- ‘reeman (1986) argues that the teacher does not always himself interact with tudents He may present some parts of the lesson such as when working with inguistic accuracy At other times, he is the facilitator of the activities, establishing ituations that prompt communication between and among students During the ‘lass, students interact a great deal with one another in various configurations: pairs, rials, small groups, and whole group (ibid.) This view is backed by the argument

Trang 25

that learners in communicative classrooms are given opportunity for collaborating with other students and comparing their efforts (Celce-Murcia & Hilles, 1988)

Towards materials, in order to help student be able to transfer what they learn in the classroom to the outside world and to expose students to natural language in a variety of situations, Larsen-Freeman (1986) advocates the use of authentic materials such as real articles, live radio or TV broadcast, weather forecast, menus, timetables, announcement, conservations, discussions, etc Especially, Richards (2001, as cited in “Principles of Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction”, 2007) mentions the use of texts as an >ffective language exposure to learners

Over techniques, Brown (2000) proposes that techniques are designed to sngage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for neaningful purposes Specifically, Celce-Murcia (1991), Larsen-Freeman (1986), ind Littlewood (1981) offer some techniques that can be used effectively in xrammar teaching such as scrambled sentences, language games, picture strip story, ‘ole-plays, simulations, dramas, projects, etc

With reference to emphasized areas of language, according to Brown (1994, 000), language forms are not the central focus but rather aspect of language that mables learners to accomplish communicative purposes Concretely, Larsen- “reeman (1986) suggests that language functions might be emphasized over forms, :ohesion, coherence, and four skills from the beginning Definitely, in CLT, “there s a tendency to favor fluency-based rather than simply accuracy-focused activities” Maley, 1982, as cited in Maley, n.d., p.43) That is, CLT concentrates on use and ippropriateness rather than simply on language form

With respect to teacher’s response to students’ errors, since “language is seated by the individual often through trial and error” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, ).68), teachers should not always correct errors In communicative classrooms,

Trang 26

fluency and appropriateness should take precedence over structural correctness since students who have limited linguistic knowledge still be successful communicators Learners are thus let to revise and compare their final efforts with the language in the original text (Celce-Murcia & Hilles, 1988) Remarkably, errors of forms are tolerated during fluency-based activities and seen as a natural outcome of the communication skill development (Larsen-Freeman, 1986) Therefore, it is advisable that the teacher may note the errors during the fluency-based activities and return to them with an accuracy-based activity

2.1.3 Two different trends of grammar teaching: CLT vs GTM

Chronologically, various trends of grammar teaching have been discussed by Celce-Murcia (1991), Terrell (1991), and Thornbury (1999) Of them, the two typical approaches will be taken for review: Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

With Grammar-Translation Method, this method concentrates on grammar skills, in particular, the ability to use grammatical terminology to describe the various morphological and syntactic principles of the target language In the light of this trend, a grammar lesson “often begins with an explicit statement of the rule, followed by exercises along with translation into mother tongue” (Singh, 2011, p.58) Regarding the implementation of GTM in grammar instruction, in his article, Pham-Hiep (n.d.) indicates that in Grammar-Translation Method, grammar rules are explained deductively; then students are asked to do drills and exercises in the textbooks Often, grammar explanations are presented in formulas and memorization of these formulas is the main part of learning Follow-up exercises are written tests in the form of putting the words in the brackets of sentences into the correct forms Knowing more grammar rules and memorizing more vocabulary are the aim to achieve This results in the fact that despite perfect knowledge of

Trang 27

grammar, which works wonderfully for reading and writing, students speak with great difficulty (ibid.)

For Communicative Language Teaching, unlike Grammar-Translation Method, this trend views language as an instrument of communication It bases on a notional-functional syllabus It emphasizes functional labels such as asking for permission, making suggestions, requesting, describing events, talking about oneself, etc (Singh, 2011) In the light of communicative approach, explicit attention to grammar rules along with communicative practice co-existed together (ibid.) Mentioning the application of CLT in grammar training, Gardner (2008) states that grammar presentation usually includes a focus on meaning and use as well as form More clearly, Pham-Hiep (n.d.) argues that in communicative approach, grammar is taught in a living, context-embedded way Students are encouraged to communicate in the target language as much as possible Both forms of oral and written tests are exploited during the language teaching and learning procedure Grammar points and drilling can be related to the meaningful use of language in the students’ own lives

2.1.4 Model P — P — P for grammar teaching in the light of CLT

As far as known, there are numerous models of grammar teaching: PPP (Presentation — Practice — Production), TTT (Test — Teach — Test), ARC (Authentic use, Restricted use, Clarification and focus), and ESA (Engage, Study, Activate) All models have their own advantages and disadvantages; however, amongst them, PPP is the most popular till now In the light of CLT, a three-stage P —- P - P grammar lesson can be specifically reviewed as follows

(1) Presentation stage

As regards to the stage of presentation, there have existed numerous opinions discussing how a grammar point is effectively taught According to Cotter (2005),

Trang 28

Thornbury (1999) and Swan (2011), some grammar points can be effectively taught hrough an inductive ‘discovery’ approach, others probably not (Cotter, 2005; Thornbury, 1999; Swan, 2011) That means teachers may choose to present srammar either explicitly or implicitly In an explicit presentation, teachers begin by tating the grammar focus and explaining it In contrast, when grammar is presented mplicitly, teachers may begin with an example or a meaningful context that embeds he target grammar and may delay or avoid an overt explanation of the grammar Nevertheless, mentioning grammar presentation, Savage, Bitterlin and Price (2010) yas a slightly different view They argue that it may not be practical or desirable to :mploy a purely explicit or implicit approach when presenting grammar A “hybrid” wresentation that introduces the grammar implicitly, in a meaningful context, and ilso includes explicit explanation of form, meaning, and use, should probably be the ule of thumb in most cases (ibid.)

Trang 29

entic texts With the final technique (i.e authentic texts), they mean, after ning to a dialogue or reading a text, students can answer questions to highlight eertain grammatical structures, which helps to drive rules Also dealing with this plage of inductive presentation, the five typical techniques of objects, charts, examples (Brown, 2000; Thornbury, 1999), texts (Gower, Phillips & Walters,

2005), and games (Celce-Murcia, 1987) are commonly applied

With objects, according to Brown (2000) and Thornbury (1999), they not only liven up the context but provide a kinesthetic, hands-on dimension to grammar teaching, which enhance students in communication and stimulaté them to practice conversation rules as well For charts, Brown and Thornbury consider them as useful devices for illustrating certain grammatical points, practicing patterns, clarifying grammatical relationships Over examples, according to Brown and Thornbury, they are one of the techniques from which students withdraw an understanding of the rules That is, grammar rules are presented and the learners engage with them through the study and manipulation of examples Towards fexts, Gower, Phillips and Walters (2005) suppose that they provide a natural context for language exploration and a pool from which particular language items and structures can be drawn, analyzed and practiced Texts can be reading texts and listening texts The former includes newspaper, stories, biographies, information leaflets, booklets, letters, reports, notices, etc; meanwhile, the later involves conversations, interviews, short talks, radio, television programs, songs, etc With respect to games, Celce-Murcia (1987) notes, “well-planned games can teach and reinforce grammar points very successfully if the activities are geared to students’ proficiency, age, and experience and are not presented condescendingly” (p.133)

Regardless of whether grammar is taught explicitly or implicitly, deductively or inductively, the teacher should conclude the presentation stage by checking that students understand what has been taught There are various ways to check students’ understanding the meaning and the use of a language item Of them, four

Trang 30

ful tools suggested by Gover, Phillips and Walters (1995) are probably more

effective in all cases: visuals, timelines, concept questions, and translation With visuals, students are asked to choose the picture that best illustrates the meaning of a [ particular word or sentence; to put pictures in order to show a sequence of events; or ‘to match pictures and sentences For time-lines, this is graphic ways of illustrating the use of tenses With it, students can be asked to select the correct time-line in accordance with its picture, to label or even draw time-lines Over concept questions, they should be simple and short, in language that does not include the language being checked, asked often and spread around the class Towards translation, this is only possible with monolingual groups but it can help cut down on lengthy, laborious explanations, particularly at lower levels However, it is advisable that teachers should not lead students to getting into the habit of translating every language item they meet

(2) Practice stage

The overall goal of this stage is, apart from developing accuracy, to help students build fluency with the target structures That is, practice activities target at two objectives: precision at applying the system, and automisation of the system (Thornbury, 2002) For improving precision, practice activities have these characteristics: attention to form, familiarity, thinking time, and feedback; meanwhile, where automisation is the goal, practice activities have these features: attention to meaning, authenticity, and communicative purpose (ibid.) In the light of CLT, along with mechanical practice, it is quite essential to include meaningful practice in the practice stage In mechanical practice, students carry out activities without necessary understanding the language they are using; whereas, “meaningful practice refers to activities where students are required to make meaningful choices when carrying out practice” (Richards, 2006, p.16) Particularly, two types of practice activities that serve as guided practice and meaningful practice are

reviewed as follows

Trang 31

In terms of mechanical practice, Doff (1988) and Paulston (n.d.) suggest three main activities that best satisfy accuracy development: repetition drills,

substitution drills, and fill-ins With repetition drills, the teacher gives examples and

gets the class to repeat them This is the easiest way to practice the structure so as to make students familiar with the structure and the teacher can correct any mistakes However, this is a very limited form of practice; it is not creative Over substitution drills, the teacher gives prompts (a word, a phrase or a whole sentence) and get

students to give examples This would keep the class more active For /ill-ins,

students have to fill in a blank of a short paragraph or passage with words or phrases that they suppose the most suitable both in form and meaning

To serve the sub-phase “meaningful practice” that follows the mechanical practice, Harmer (1991) and Paulston (n.d.) offers three major kinds of freer practice activities: information gap, personalization, and transformation With information gap, different students are given different bits of information and by sharing this information they can complete a task This is more motivating because it mirrors real-life interactions Towards personalization, students use the language they have learnt to talk about themselves and their lives It is more interesting and realistic thanks to something involving personal information Over transformation, students have to rewrite sentences so that they have the same meaning but different zrammatical structures, or rearrange the word order to make complete and neaningful sentences In addition, Nunan (2001) and Richards (2006) suggested wo more activities: role-plays and group discussions With respect to role-plays, students are assigned roles and improvise a scene or exchange based on given nformation or clues In group discussions, students learn how to solve language sroblems in a systematic way and to decide what language to use in the different situations given by their teachers Group discussions can help students solve sroblem by themselves and also improve their oral language abilities

Trang 32

Mentioning the role of teachers during this stage of practice, Thornbury (2002) points out that the teacher’s main role is to guide or direct students in their first attempt to use the new grammar structure in context It includes modeling the activity, checking that students understand the task, monitoring, and providing feedback

(3) Production stage

In the communicative stage called “production”, language use is less controlled and more spontaneous than in the previous stage Students have the opportunity to use the target grammar as they listen, speak, read, and write about real, meaningful topics in their lives That is, this stage reflects real language use outside the classroom According to Thombury (1999), well-designed communicative activities provide a need for students to understand each other They create an opportunity for students to hone their negotiation skills in the safety of the classroom Regarding this stage of production, in his argument over communicative stage, Richards (2006) critically argues that communicative practice refers to activities “where practice in using language within a real communicative context is the focus, where real information is exchanged, and where the language used is not totally predicted” (p.16)

With the aim of communication, Harmer (1991) suggests five activities that are designed to provoke spoken communication between students and/or between the teacher and the students such as discussions, communication games, problem- solving tasks, role-plays, and interviews With discussions, students are asked to xpress themselves on a topic in groups or as a whole class For communication zames, Students take part in language games on a topic as real competitors Over problem-solving activities, students are encouraged to talk together to find a solution to problems Towards role-plays, students are asked to play roles, pretending to be someone that they are not In interviews, students ask and respond

Trang 33

4 each other about their own information Besides the five suggested oral be municative tasks, Harmer offers three written-form tasks that can be used to Bhs ce communication in writing such as sentence writing, parallel writing, and fassage writing In sentence writing, students are asked to write complete sentences Esing picture prompts or given information With parallel writing, they are asked to Write a second sentence in the same way, keeping the meaning unchanged Over ba Sage writing, they are asked to write a short passage based on given cues in the forms of pictures or prompting words

Regarding the role of teachers in this stage, Thornbury (1999) argues that interactions in communicative practice may include more content than just the target grammar Students are, in this phase, freer to choose the context of their utterances; that is, this phase is highly student-centered The teacher acts mainly as a facilitator or manager He (She) performs the following tasks: modeling the activity, setting up the grouping, providing a process for students to report back, monitoring, and giving feedback (ibid.)

(4) Teacher’s feedback and error correction

Also in the three-stage procedure of a grammar lesson, teacher’s feedback and error correction is seen as the final step of the whole lesson process (Thornbury, 1999) Teacher’s feedback and error correction, according to Thornbury, must take place throughout the lesson Teachers’ correction strategy, however, should probably change in accordance with the phase of the lesson During the second stage — practice, correction should be predominantly straightforward and immediate; whereas, during the third stage — production, communication should not be interrupted That is, the teacher should take notes of errors and deal with them

after the communicative exercises instead

Trang 34

fonceptual framework for the study

Associating the basis of the reviewed theories and the reality of grammar ing in Le Hong Phong Junior High School, a conceptual framework for the frent study is developed All the grammar lessons for the training program are h monly carried out based on the model P — P — P in the light of CLT

In the first stage — presentation, students will be exposed to one of authentic fatexts such as a short spoken or written text in which the target grammar point is kbcddcd The text topics are required to be interesting enough and close to bodents’ real life so that they can get students’ involvement Following the text is a : ort follow-up task designed at reasonable level All serve the aim of focusing k dents on the target grammar point Then, students are asked to work in pairs or bc all groups to figure out the form, meaning and use of the target structure Embcdded in the introduced text with the teacher’s assistance The teacher gives fee dbacks and brief explanations if any of the form, meaning and use of the structures is quite out of students’ depth Certainly, in order to make sure students already understand and master the target structure, the teacher has to check their comprehension before moving to the next stage

In the next stage — practice, the teacher creates controlled and meaningful practice tasks to help students practice the form of the structure both mechanically and communicatively First, students practice the structure mechanically via such drills as repetition and substitution that are employed for accuracy development Besides, some written forms of drills like gap-fills and transformation are positively exploited within this stage Then, students practice the structure meaningfully at text level with the real purposes in pairs or groups to exchange ideas Some meaningful practice tasks like information gaps, picture prompts, personalization, etc are created for students to practice the form of the target structure Specifically, in order to make practice more meaningful, in this stage, students are asked to say real

Trang 35

ings about themselves, or given a situation that implies the structure and let to

ecide what to say During this stage, the teacher may interfere with students’ ormance if necessary to give some help If the target structure is inappropriately duced, he can signal the mistakes on the spot for accuracy

` In the final stage — production, students are given some communicative tasks to produce the learned structure so as to achieve some communicative purposes ‘Students have a chance to use the structures to express their own ideas or talk about their experience Communicative activities that are in need applied in this stage include role-plays, games, discussions, interviews, problem-solving tasks, and parallel writing or passage writing The main aim of this stage is to develop fluency and confidence; thus the teacher’s interruption for correcting students’ mistakes is not necessary Pair-work and group-work are intensively applied When these activities are in the process, the teacher walk around the class to give timely assistance and take notes on the mistakes that obstruct the communication and correct them with the whole class at the end of the stage

The conceptual framework for the study is demonstrated as can be seen in Figure 2.2

Trang 37

2.3 Empirical research

Experts of language teaching methods have been advocating various methods of teaching grammar for centuries Therefore, grammar teaching has a very long nistory and it has tremendously changed over the centuries from Grammar- Translation Method to Communicative Language Teaching and subsequent ones such as Task-Based Language Teaching or some else Also, teachers have been Jebating on what method is the best for teaching grammar for generations; hence, studies on grammar teaching, especially CLT implication in grammar teaching, <eeps on being carried out, both outside and inside Vietnam

Outside Vietnam, a lot of educators have been investigating the implementation of CLT in grammar teaching Four of the latest that will be taken into account are Burns and Borg (2005) in Australia, Khan (2007) in Bangladesh, Ming (2011) in China, and Mozaheb (2011) in Iran

To reach the answer to the research question “Should grammar be taught separately, not integrated with other skills?”, Burns and Borg (2005) conducted an nternational study within eighteen countries around the world The survey was xecuted on 231 English language teachers via personal contact both online and in 1ard copies The finding showed that 81% of teachers surveyed disagreed with the statement that grammar should be taught separately As a result, the suggestion that xrammar should be taught in integration of the four language skills was offered

From his experience as an English language teacher for ages, Khan (2007) llustrated his observations that though his students learned grammar structures well hey could not apply them in real-life situations This was due to the traditional way applied to teach grammar in his institute He hence provided five suggestions in the 10pe to make grammar teaching more interesting, meaning, and effective These were (1) avoiding rule-giving teaching, (2) engaging the learners, (3) teaching

Trang 38

grammar through pictures and physical objects, (4) teaching grammar through texts, and (5) teaching grammar through role-plays

After reviewing the literature on the English grammar teaching methods smployed in China and the literature relating the origin namely main features and principles of CLT, Ming (2011) withdrew the conclusion that integrating grammar teaching with the communicative approach could make the grammar teaching more interesting and appealing and thus improve the students’ ability to use language Ming recommended that English language teachers should set cultivating learner’s sommunicative competence as the aim of ELT (English Language Teaching) In order to fulfill this purpose, Ming suggested that teachers should design enough classroom activities simulating the real world and encourage learners to actively Jarticipate in these activities

In order to investigate the qualities of good and effective grammar lessons in he current trend, Mozaheb (2011) conducted a study at his department by observing en English grammar classes After analyzing the audio recordings of the classes and also scrutinizing the written reports of each session, the following principles were taken out as the philosophical orientations and approaches of the teacher: (1) Using authentic materials is a good source for motivating students These materials include newspaper editorials, short stories, interesting texts retrieved from the internet, etc.; (2) Using graphs and charts is beneficial while teaching different ‘enses; (3) Classroom discussions and debates are two fundamental techniques in consolidating the newly learned lesson; (4) Pair-work, group-work are supplementary activities for teaching grammar in a communicative way; and (5) Using mother tongue in foreign language classes can be regarded as a very helpful Jevice in grammar teaching

It is obvious that though they were different in designs and methods of ‘esearch, all the four mentioned oversea studies targeted at finding out the effective

Trang 39

ways to teach grammar in the current trend What they concluded and suggested are found either absolutely or at least to some extent related to the features of CLT and its implication in grammar teaching which are worth examining within the context

of Vietnam

Regarding Vietnamese context in recent years, many studies on the application of CLT in grammar teaching, both surveys and experiments, have been conducted Those who did surveys are Nguyen-Hue (1999), Dinh-Thoa (2006), Nguyen-Truc (2007), and Nguyen-Nhi (2007)

To investigate the issue ‘How to teach grammar communicatively to children?’, two surveys were conducted by Nguyen-Hue (1999) and Nguyen-Nhi (2007) Nguyen-Hue executed her study on 1,424 children and 28 English language teachers within six schools in Tra Vinh town; whereas, Nguyen-Nhi focused on 92 children and 10 English language teachers at Vietnam USA Society English Training Service Center The data collected via teacher interviews, and teacher and student questionnaires revealed that the implementation of CLT in grammar teaching faced a lot of problems that arose from various aspects such as the shortage of techniques, students’ improper perception of studying grammar, non- communicative textbooks and syllabus, big-sized classes, the examination system that did not boost teachers and children to learn English for communication, and the techniques accompanying with CLT were not welcomed by the teachers who got used to traditional ways of teaching Thus, the studies recommended several suitable ways to apply CLT in teaching grammar such as replacing grammar-only class with skills-based one, and more communicative course-books should be taken into account Also, some communicative activities like games, songs, stories, discussions, role-plays, etc should be applied in grammar teaching

Scrutinizing the issues that how grammar was taught for senior high school students and how to support grammar teaching, two studies were carried out by

Trang 40

Dinh-Thoa (2006) and Nguyen-Truc (2007) Dinh-Thoa conducted a survey on 345 students and 21 English language teachers within four selected schools in Bien Hoa City of Dong Nai province; meanwhile, Nguyen-Truc executed a survey on 191 students and 10 English language teachers at Thu Khoa Nghia High School in An Giang province The data from the teacher and student questionnaire revealed that teachers faced a lot of difficulties in applying CLT in grammar teaching such as lack of school facilities, teachers’ poor knowledge of CLT, large-sized classes, students’ passive learning style and lack of learning motivation, lack of time for students’ practice, differences in students’ levels Thereby, some communicative activities were recommended in the hope to make the grammar teaching process more effective and interesting Particularly, real situations and examples were considered good techniques to present structures; short games, songs, and puzzles should be used in warm-up and production stage; pair-work and group-work should

be intensified in the class

On the whole, the four studies above obtained several similar findings First, they revealed that applying CLT in grammar teaching faced a lot of difficulties Nevertheless, if these obstacles were overcome, then CLT would benefit students It really promoted students’ interest in grammar lessons, and helped improve their communicative competence as well Second, they all offered some recommendations to both administrators and teachers that there should be some changes in syllabus, textbooks, evaluation methods and learning conditions Particularly, CLT should be applied to balance accuracy and fluency; textbooks should be designed to accommodate the expectations of the communicative syllabus; grammar should be taught in context, students’ knowledge should be activated through the creation of information gaps, questionnaires, surveys, quizzes, games, songs, and story-telling