The effect of consciousness-Raising activities on the 10th grade students grammatical competence at Tran Nhat Duat upper secondary school.pdf

V IE T NAM NATIO NAL Ư NIVERSITY-HA NOI
ƯNIVERSITY OF LANGƯAGES & IN TER N A TIO N A L STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADƯATE STUDIES
i e i e i c i c k i c i e i c k i c i d e i d c i c i c k
ĐINH T H Ị THANH VÂN
•
THE EFFECT OF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING
ACTIVITIES ON THE 10th GRADE STUDENTS’
GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE
AT TRAN NHAT DUAT UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL
(Tác động của các hoạt động nâng cao nhận thức đối vói năng lực ngữ
phap của học sính lóp 10, trường THPT Trần Nhật Duạt)
M .A. M IN O R PROGRAM ME THESIS
Field : English Teaching Methodology
Code : 601410
Supervisor: Phạm Thị Hạnh, M.A.
ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRUNG TAM THÕNG TIN THƯVIỆN
ữQU 0004%
HANOI-2011

DECLARATION
I hereby State that the m lnor thesis entitled “The effect of consciousness-
raising activities on grade 10th students’ gram m atical competence at T ran Nhat Duat
U pper Secondary School” and subm itted in partial fulfiUment of the requirem ents for
the degree of M aster of Arts in English teaching methodology is the result of my own
research. The substance of the thesỉs has not, wholly or in part, been submitted for a
degree to any other universities or institutions.
The research reported in this thesis was approved by Ms Pham Thi Hanh,
M.A., Vietnam National University of Hanoi.
Hanoi, Septem ber, 2011
Đinh Thị Thanh Vân

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude and respect to my supervisor,
Ms. Pham Thi Hanh, M.A., for her continual guidance, comment, and especially her
sympathy throughout the whole research process.
I am also grateful to all teachers at the Postgraduate Department, ƯLIS,VNU, whose
lectures and guidance have contributed to my understanding of the problem and led to the
completion of this thesis. My special thanks would also go to Dr Le Van Canh, who helped
us update the modem approaches in English teaching methodology and suggested this
thesis.
I am indebted to my beloved friend, To Thi Ngoe Nga, ULIS, VNU, for her
encouragement. She was so helpful and dedicated in spite of her illness. Thanks also go to
my colleague, Ly Tuan Anh for his support in collecting the data for the study.
Especially, I wish to express my appreciation to my students of class 10 A l, TNDUSS,
who have been really helpíul and cooperative in the implementation of the study.
Last but not least, I would also like to send my whole-hearted thanks to my family, my
parents and my husband who took care of my two little sons and supported me spiritually
during my study.

ABSTRACT
The teaching approach of grammar has always been the most complex and
controversial aspects in second language teaching in general and in English in particular.
With an investigation into the reality of teaching and leaming grammar at Tran Nhat Duat
Upper Secondary school, this thesis is aimed at working out an appropriative, effective,
suitable and practical approach in a mountainous context, not to pinpoint the right or
correct method to teach grammar. Upon carrying out a preliminary investigation and
literature review, it is found that CR activities, which integrate instructional assumptions
and components of traditional and communicative methods, can work well in the context
of a mountainous school. CR activities were then designed and implemented in the second
term of the school year 2010-2011 with the participation of 41 students from class 1OA 1.
In order to collect the data, a number of instruments were employed including: (a) a semi-
structured group interview to the twenty students of grade 10,h in that school; (b) classroom
observations; (c) a questionnaire aíìer applying CR and (d) a test. The results of the study
reveal that (1) students had a positive attitude towards the necessity of English grammar
learning; (2) the tradỉtional methods were mainly used in this school and (3) CR activities
vvere effective on ỉmproving students' grammaticaỉ competence. As far as the study
suggests, it can be concluded that CR activities can be an effective tool for the
improvement of Engiish grammar teaching practices.

ABBREVIATIONS
MOET: Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training
CR: Consciousness-raising
CC: Communicative competence
GC: Grammatical competence
LC: Linguistic competence
CLT: Communicative language teaching
L2: Second language
L l: First language
SSLE: Second School Leaving Examination
TNDƯSS: Tran Nhat Duat ưpper Secondary School
T: teacher
Sts: students

V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION.......................................................................................... i
KNOW LEDGEMENTS...............................................................................ii
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................iv
PART I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
1. Rationale for the study .....................................................................................................1
2. Aims of the study..............................................................................................................2
3. Scope of the study.............................................................................................................3
4. Signiíìcant of the study................................................................................................. 3
5. Method of the study.......................................................................................................... 4
6. Organization of the study............................................................................................. 5
PART II. DEVELOPM ENT..................................................................................................... 5
C hapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEVV................................................................................6
1.1 Communỉcative competence and gram m atical competence............................... 6
1.1.1 Communicative competence...................................................................................6
1.1.2 Grammatical competence.........................................................................................8
1.2 Methodology for teaching gram m ar......................................................................... 10
1.2.1 Pro and Anti-Grammar Perspectives........................................................................... 10
1.2.2 The Evolution of Language Teaching M ethodology............................................... 12
1.2.3 Consciousness-raising approach................................................................................... 17
C hapter 2: RESEARCH M E T H O D O L O G Y .................................................................21
2.1 Background of the study..................................................................................................21
2.1.1 The course......................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.2 The students......................................................................................................................21
2.2.3 The teachers.......................................................................................................................22
2.2 Research questions...........................................................................................................23

vi
2.3 Research approach..............................................................................................................23
2.4 P articipants...........................................................................................................................25
2.5 Instruments.................................................................................................................... 25
2.6 Data collection procedures...............................................................................................27
2.7 Data anaiysis procedures.................................................................................................. 29
2.8 Sum niary............................................................................................................................... 29
C hapter 3: THE PRACTICAL STUDY..............................................................................30
3.1 Prelim inary investigation.................................................................................................. 30
3.1.1 Interviews............................................................................................................................30
3.1.2 Class observations............................................................................................................. 32
3.2 Intervention......................................................................................................................... 34
3.2.1 The design and aims ofC R activities.............................................................................34
3.2.2 Procedures of the CR lessons.......................................................................................... 34
3.3 E valuation.............................................................................................................................36
3 .3.1 Data presentation oftheevaluation questionnaires........................................36
3 .3.2 Data presentation ofthequizzes and thetest................................................40
3.4 Sum m ary............................................................................................................................... 39
C hapter 4: DISCUSSION OF THE FIN D IN G S.............................................................. 40
4.1 Research question 1............................................................................................................ 40
4.2 Research question 2............................................................................................................ 40
4.3 Research question 3 .............................................................................................................41
PART III: CO NCLUSION ......................................................................................................41
1. Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 41
2. Recom m endations....................................................................................................... 42
3. Lỉmitations of the study andsuggestions for ĩurther study.............................. 43
4. Suggestions for the further study............................................................................ 44
REFERENCES
APPENDICES

1
PART I: INTRO DU CTIO N
1. Rationale of the study
English has become a common means of communication of human beings all over
the world. Integrating into that trend of the global integration, Vietnam has been more and
more active to train hard-working and dynamic Vietnamese, who can use English íluently
for communicative purposes. Much effort has been spent on improving Vietnamese students’
competence to be able to communicate in English. The most signiíicant solution can be the
implementation of the new series of English books started in 2 0 0 6 by the Ministry of
Education and Training (MOET) for secondary high school which claimed to develop both
language skills and language knowledge for students. There are two types of textbook sets:
the advanced and the Standard ones. Each unit in the new English textbooks consists of five
parts: Reading, Speaking, Listening, Writing and Language Focus, among which the
Language Focus sections are toconsolidate students’ pronunciation and grammar.
Once the new textbooks have been implemented, the teaching approach has also
changed. However, the teaching approach of grammar has always been the most complex
and controversial aspects. It has taken a long but not easy time for teachers to change their
traditional ways of teaching to so-called communicative approach. But after several years
applying communicative language teaching (CLT), although seeing a lot of its advantages,
many teachers have wondered vvhether CLT is really effective, suitable and practical in
Vietnamese context, which rarely has “the opportunity to take part in meaningíul
communication interaction with highly competent speakers of the language, i.e. to respond
to genuine communicative needs in realistic second language situations” (Canale and
Swain (1980), cited in Canh, 2 0 0 0 ); and in which most of the national examinations whose
sole objective is to measure candidates’ linguistic or grammatical competence in vvritten
form. Especially, in the context of a mountainous upper secondary school in Yen Bai
province, teaching English is not a simple task because of many reasons. Firstly, the
students in this school have a low level of English; every student with the English score at
the school entrance examination above zero can enter the school. Secondly, the size of the
class at the school is big with average of over 4 0 students in one class, which makes
teachers diffícult to take control. Furthermore, other problems are compounded by poor
living conditions, poorly-fumished classrooms, scarce access to supporting materials and
facilities, limited access to the target language. As a result, many students fail to make

2
progress in leaming the language and the quality of English language. All the above-
mentioned ĩactors seem to be disadvantageous to teaching Engỉish, especially in
dcveloping students' communicative competence. In the context of this school, teaching
grammar, therefore, should be done and needs to be done appropriately.
After twelve years of teaching English in which five years by the new English
textbooks in this mountainous school, the researcher observed that the teachers and
leamers there faced a number of difficulties not only in teaching and leaming the four
language skills but also in teaching and leaming grammar during the Language Focus
lessons, especially for grade 10' , the starter in upper secondary school program. The
researcher of this study has always wondered how she should present grammar to be
effective beíore a preparation for a grammar period. Luckily, during the course as a post
graduate student at University of Languages and International Studies, she has been
considering the ‘consciousness-raising’ approach, which she subjectively thinks
appropriate to her school context. Consequently, she decided to do an action research on
applying consciousness-raising activities and investigating their effect on students’
grammatical competence with the hope to make a small contribution to improve the quality
of teaching English grammar in a mountainous province. The research was entitled “The
effect of consciousness-raising activities on grade 10lh students’ grammatical competence
at Tran Nhat Duat Upper Secondary School”.
Overall, the researcher hopes that this study would provide a possible solution
to teaching gram m ar in everyday classroom situation; thus, it vvould be helpíul to not
only the researcher herselĩ in making better teaching decisions in her classes but also
to the school adm inistrators and policy makers for íurther improvement o f English
teaching and learning.
2. Aims of the study
With the above-presented rationale, the aims of the study are:
• To investigate attitudes towards grammar lessons of mountainous stuđents who
are considered as weak grammatical competence, to find out their diíĩĩculties and their
desires in teaching and leaming grammar.
• To fmd out how teachers in a mountainous school context treat grammar lessons
and identify the problem arising in grammar lessons.

3
• To offer some consciousness-raising activities and to fínd out vvhether they are
suitable andeffective togrammar lessons, may or may not improve mountainous students’
grammatical competence.
It is hoped that the íìndings from this study will be of some benefits to the teachers
in Vietnamese secondary schools, especially those who are engaged in grammar teaching.
3. Signiíicance of the study
The study is hoped to be beneíĩcial to both teachers and students in mountainous
high schools. First, íĩndings of the study could be shared among teachers of English to
improve the quality of teaching and leaming in the coming years. Next, it might highỉight
the rationale for proíessional development programs for high school teachers of English in
mountainous areas in Vietnam. Finally, the ĩindings could be used as a data base for
further study.
4. Scope of Che study
There are two sets of the new English textbooks for grade 10: the advanced and the
Standard sets. This study only aimed at investigating the reality of teaching and leaming
grammar in Language Focus lessons in the Standard set.
This study, as early stated, was designed to investigate how mountainous teachers
treat grammar lessons; mountainous students’ attitudes towards grammar teaching, their
difficulties and desires in order to make some changes by using C-R activities and find out
whether C-R activities effective or not; may improve or may not improve the quality of
teaching and learning.
To keep the study in a manageable size, the study has been delimited only to three
English language teachers and a group of grade 10 students at Tran Nhat Duat ưpper
Secondary School in Yen Bai.
5. Methodology
The study was conducted as an action research. This type of research was chosen
for the following reasons. In the first place, being a teacher of English, the researcher
herself actually experienced traditional methods and saw their advantages on tests and
disadvantages on communication; she then tried the communicative methods vvith a lot of
difficulties in a mountainous school and deeply wanted to take some actions for
improvement. However, teaching of grammar is the most controversial and each teacher
has their own reasons to choose a suitable grammar teaching approach for their own

4
context. Thereíore, the activities which the researcher applied may be appreciated in this
context but unappreciated in others and the results need a reílective phase for action during
the next circle.
This study employed both qualitative and quantitative data collection Instruments
including interview, class observation, questionnaire and test.
Firstly, a review of literature was conducted, critically examining the various
theoretical issues conceming communicative competence, grammatical competence, and
approaches on grammar teaching, especially consciousness- raising approach.
Secondly, an intervievv was conducted with some guided questions. The
interviewees were given the questions before for better preparation of ideas and thoughts.
Because the questions gathered information of a rather diffícult topic to the students and it
involved a great recall of grammar teaching and leaming experiences, they obviously
needed time to prepare. The prepared questions also kept the intervievver as an
inexperienccd researcher ííom losing tract. Besides, students’ interviews were taken to
provide preliminary data on their thinking for the researcher to identify their difficulties
and their desires tovvard grammar teaching and leaming beíore CR activities were applied.
Furthermore, to identify once again the problem, class observation was etnployed
to investigate teaching approaches in grammar lessons and students’ ways of leaming in
class, and to compare betvveen what the students said and the fact. Three grammar lessons
taught by three different teachers were observed and then transcribed in details to identify
gaps betvveen what the students said in the intervievv and what actually happens in class.
The grade 10,h Language Focus lessons, not other lesson skills, were chosen because the
researcher prefers a real picture of grammar teaching and the grammar teaching cannot be
conducted carefully in any lesson, but only in Language Focus lessons.
Then, a questionnaire after eight lessons applying CR was carried out to provide
triangulated data on students’ grammar leaming preference and their reactions to CR
activities.
Last but not least, quantitative data of a quiz after each lesson and a test after all
eight lessons applying CR were analyzed to confirm the effect of CR activities on students’
grammatical competence.

5
6. Organization of the study
This study consists of five parts: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology,
Results & Discussion, and Conclusion.
• Part one: Introduction - presents the rationale, aims, signiíìcance, scope,
methodology, and organization of the study.
• Part two: Development
C hapter one: Literature Review - provides a theoretical basis for the study.
C hapter two: Research Methodology - includes an overview of the approach used
in conducting the study. It also provides a thorough description of the data collection
procedure as well as the analytical procedure.
C hapter three: The Practical Study
C hapter four: Discussion of the íìndings - reports the íĩndings of the study and
discusses the prominent aspects.
• Part three: Conclusion - presents the conclusions of major íindings,
recommendations, limitations for the study, and suggestions for further studies.

6
PART II: DEVELOPM ENT
CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW
Grammar teaching methodology and consciousness raising approach needs to be
theory driven. Tliis chapter reviews prominent literature to support the research. The
principal areas to be discussed are communicative competence, grammatical competence,
CR approach and CR activities.
1.1 Communicative competence and gram m atỉcal competence
1.1.1 Communicative competence
The íĩrst challenge with which the researcher has to be encountered is how to
detlne communicative competence. As far as her restricted knovvledge, the term was
originally coined by Hymes (1966), reacting against the perceived inadequacy of
Chomsky's (1965) linguistic competence with the distinction between competence and
performance. For Chomsky, linguistic competence (LC) was deíĩned as the innate system
of linguistic knowledge possessed by native speakers of a language. This is in contrast to
linguistic períbrmance which refers to the actual use of a language. According to Chomsky,
it is the 'ideal' language system that makes it possible for speakers to produce and
understand an iníìnite number of sentences in their language, and to distinguish
grammatical sentences from ungrammatical sentences. This is unaffected by
"grammatically irrelevant conditions" such as speech errors. LC includes components such
as phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics and morphology.
For Hymes, competence is integral to attitudes and values conceming language and
other codes of communication. Here is reíerence to "social factors" which he exempliíìes
as positive productive aspects of linguistic engagement in social life: “there are rules of use
without which rules of grammar vvould be useless” (Hymes, 1972). Hymes was interested
in what degree of competence speaker/hearers needed in order to give themselves
membership of particular speech communities. Hymes examined what factors-particularly
socio-cultural ones--in addition to "grammatical competence" are required for
speaker/hearers to participate in meaningful interactions. He asserted that a sentence must
not only be grammatically correct but it must be appropriate in reaction to the context in
which it is used as well. For Hymes, what an individual needs to know in order to be
communicatively competent in a speech community is to understand the rules of use,

7
vvhich determine “when to speak, when not, and as to talk about with whom, when, where,
in what manner” (Hymes, 1972, p. 277)
As much as there has already been much debate about linguistic competence (LC)
and communicative competence (CC) in the second and íòreign language teaching
literature, the outcome has always been the consideration of cc as a superior model of
language following Hymes’ opposition to Chomsky's LC.
Other linguists strongly coníìrin Hymes’ theory. Canale and Svvain (1980) deíìned
c c in terms of three components: grammatical competence: (words and rules),
sociolinguistic competence (appropriateness), strategic competence (appropriate use of
communication strategies) and in 1983, Canale reíìned the above model, adding discourse
competence (cohesion and coherence). Canale and Svvain (1980, pp. 35-36) imply c c
could be used as a signiíìcant basis to helping students produce target language as a Central
feature of their social interaction. They State that one of the many aspects of c c which
must be investigated, more rigorously, before a communicative approach can be
implemented fully in the areas of second language teaching and testing is: development of
administratively feasible cỉassroom activities that can be used to encourage meaningful
action in target language use. That is the reason why cc is considered One of the most
important theories that underlie the communicative approach to foreign language teaching.
Savignon (1985, p. 130) also views cc as:
'...the ability to function in a truly communicative setting that is a dynamic
exchange in which LC must adapt itself to the total information input, both
linguistic and paralinguistic of one or more interlocutors. c c includes GC
(sentence level grammar), socio-Iinguistic competence (an understanding of the
social context in which language is used), discourse competence (an understanding
of how utterances are strung together to form a meaningful whole), and strategic
competence (a language user's employment of strategies to make the best use of
what s/he knows about how a language works, in order to interpret, express, and
negotiate meaning in a given context).’
Bachman (1990) divides c c into the broad headings of "organizational
competence," which includes both grammatical and discourse (or textual) competence, and
"pragmatic competence," which includes both sociolinguistic and "illocutionary"
competence. Through the iníluence of CLT, it has become widely accepted that cc should
be the goal of language education, Central to good classroom practice. This is in contrast to

8
previous views with prominent representative Noam Chomsky in which GC vvas
commonly given top priority.
In relatively simple terms, there has been a change of emphasis from presenting
languagc as a set of forms (grammatical, phonological, lexical) which have to be leamed
and practiced, to presenting language as a fùnctional system which is used to íulíill a range
of communicative purposes. This shift in emphasis has largely taken place as a result of
íairly convincing arguments, mainly from ethnographers and others who study language in
its context of use, that the ability to use a language should be described as cc.
To conclude, communicative competence is a term in linguistics which refers to a
language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and the like, as
well as social knovvledge about “when, where and how to use language appropriately”
Díaz-Rico and Weed (2010, p. 58). The notion of cc intended by Hymes does not provide
any priorities for any does not need to have an accurate knovvledge of linguistic form or
usage, but rather claimed that the perfect knowledge of linguistic form is not enough to
make hiin/her a communicatively competent language user. WoIfson (1980) points out that
GC is an intrinsic part of cc but in many cases, the term c c misinterpreted for language
teachers and curriculum developers as theseparation of GC from cc.
1.1.2. G ram m aỉical competence
It is necessary to determine the term grammar as well as grammatical competence
in vvhich the latter needs more emphasis. Grammar is known as a íìeld of linguistics that
involves all the various things that make up the rules of language. Subíĩelds of linguistics
that are considered a part of grammar include syntax, phonetics, morphology and
semantics. Grammar is also used as a term to the prescriptive rules of a given language,
vvhich may change over time or be open to debate.
Different linguists deíine grammar in different ways depending on their particular
field of interest: A traditional grammarian might see grammar as the “part of speech”
together with a set of rules goveming how they can be combined, often accompanied by
pointers as to what is considered “correct” and “incorrect” usage. A structural linguist
might see grammar as the sum total of sentence pattems in which the words of particular
language are aưanged. A cognitive linguist might see grammar as our innate knowledge of
the structure of language. A íunctional linguist might see grammar as a resource used to
accomplish communicative purposes in speciĩic contexts. According to Brumíit & Johnson

9
(1979), a grammar describes and attempts to account for the ability of the speaker to
understand an arbitrary sentence of his language and to produce an appropriate sentence on
a given occasion. Bastone (1994) divides grammar into product: the component parts of
rules that make up the language, and process: the way in which grammar is depỉoyed from
moment to moment in communication. These authors do not only consider the vital role of
grammar in writing but also in speaking. Widdowson (1990) also cỉaims that “Grammar is
not just a collection of sentence pattems signiíying nonsense, something for the leamer’s
brain to puzzle over.” For him, grammar should be viewed as linguistic rules ílinctioning in
alliance with words and context for the achievement of meaning.
As impressive as the various deíĩnitions of grammar, grammatical competence is
deíìned in diíTerent ways. One of the most significant deílnitions is “grammatical
competence is One among four components of communicative competence” (Canale and
Swain, 1980) such as above reference. Thombury (1999) writes that from "a leamer's
perspective, the ability both to recognize and to produce well-formed sentences is an
essential part of leaming a second language" (Thombury, 1999, p. 3), but points out that
there exists a lot of controversy and debate on how this ability is best developed and
achieved. GC is a massive íìeld, and the syllabus outlines the grammatical content to be
taught and is usually represented in the course books vvhich then in tum are the basis for the
language teachers' decisions in regards to what to focus on and what to teach in a grammar
context. More speciíìcally, GC íocuses on command of the language code, including such
things as the rules of word and sentence /ormaíion, meanings, speỉling and pronunciation
(Gao, 2001) (my emphasis). The goal is to acquire knowledge of, and ability to use, forms of
expression that are grammatically correct and accurate (Díaz-Rico & Weed, 2010; Gao,
2001). Grammatical competence acts to promote accuracy and Ịỉuency (my emphasis) in
second language production (Gao, 2001), and increases in importance as the leamer
advances in proíĩciency (Díaz-Rico&Weed, 2010). Fotos (1994) also has the same idea.
In short, GC is not an opposite extreme of cc but it is an important part of cc. It is
the students’ ability to recognize the distinctive grammatical structures of a language and
then to use them to communicate effectively, accurately and íluently. However, to
motivate students successfully, it depends a lot in teacher’s methods. More importantly,
grammar needs to be taught in context. As Larsen-Freeman (2000) points out, we need to
pay attention to the three dimensions of grammar: form, meaning and use. Simply teaching

10
grammar rules and/or having student memorize verb conjugations will not help students
acquire grammatical competence.
1.2 Methodology for teachỉng grammar
Methodology in language teaching has been characterized in a variety of ways.
Within methodology is a distinction often made between methods and approaches, in
which methods are held to be íixed teaching systems with prescribed techniques and
practices, and approaches are language teaching of different ways in the classroom.
Teachers may follow the same approach but use various methods to reach the íĩnish.
To make an analysis of grammar teaching methodology, let’s start the point with
Ellis (2002)’s questions: 1. Should we teacher grammar at all?
2. If we should teach grammar, how should we teach?
1.2.1.Pro and Anti - gram m ar perspectives
To answer for the first question, it is simple “Yes” or “No” but the controversy is
not really simple. A lot of linguists and researchers have supported grammar teaching. The
c c model of Canale and Swain (1980) consists of four components: grammar competence,
discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence, which clearly
illustrates the signiíìcance of grammar as one component of c c . Smith (2001) also worries
that if we do not pay attention to grammar nor create opportunities for leamers to improve
their grammar, they are likely to stand the risk of “fossilization”.
Rutheríord and Smith (1985) report that grammar teaching can be beneíìcial to
leamers in the sense that it raises leamers’ consciousness conceming the differences and
similarities of LI and L2. Therefore, grammar teaching can be used as a “linguistic map”
with the road signs to help students as they explore the “topography” of the new language.
Hannan (1989), Lewis (1986) and Gamer (1989) also give strong support to
grammar teaching. Hannan argues that grammar is highly valuable as an important part of
the study of the Ianguage, of ideas and of writing. Gamer believes that grammar gives us a
means to analyze and describe our language.
To sum up, the rationale for teaching grammar is multifaceted and grammar is
acknowledged to be important in language teaching and leaming. When teaching a íbreign
language, grammar cannot be neglected because if the leamers do not study grammar, they
do not have the base to use a language. Unless leaming of grammatical system is begun,
the leamers will have no foundation on which íurther leaming can be based once they are

11
in the language community. It must be the aim to create the conditions for communicative
and grammar facts to be leamed simultaneously.
One of the biggest challenges to pro-grammar perspectives comes from Krashen,
who has intended to downplay the value of deliberate grammar teaching. The study of
grammar has only a second role in the language program with the goal to produce optimal
monitor-user, programmers who can use grammar as a supplement to acquisition when
they have time, when the focus is on form, and when they know the rules. In Krashen and
Tarrel (1983)’s Natural Approach, grammar can be acquired naturally from meaningful
input and opportunities to interact in the classroom and GC can be developed in a íluency-
oriented environment vvithout conscious focus on language forms. O f course, some
leamers may acquire second language grammar naturally without being taught such as
immigrants to the United States, who attain proíìciency in English on their own can be a
goođ example of naturalistic acquisition (Lightbovvn and Spada, 1999), but this is not true
for all leamers.
Gregg (1984) criticizes Krashen’s acquisition hypothesis that “ Krashen himself
seems to be aware of this: The idea that we first learn a new rule, and eventually, through
practice, acquire it, is widespread and may seem to some people to be intuitively
obvious....It was, I thought, exactly the way I leamed languages m yselí...”. Gregg sees
himself as a typical example of the process which consists of knowing the rules, being
aware of them and ending up with an ability to talk about them. This is a perfect process of
acquiring through leaming, opposed to Krashen’s claim that leaming need not precede
acquisition.
Personally, I think it is important to teach grammar in secondary schools, especially
in Vietnamese settings because of these two reasons: Firstly, the English language
examinations that secondary students have to take have a lot of grammatical elements in
spite of the fact that these exams have been improved. Secondly, students are not leaming
English just for basic oral communication, motivated students will continue to study in the
universities for academic purposes.
1.2.2. The Evolution of Language Teaching M ethodology
Linguists and those involving in language have seen a lot of exciting developments
in language teaching. Some have been at the level of syllabus design; others are concemed

12
vvith niethodology as we are seeing the growth of new procedures and techniques, many of
which challcnge our traditional views of what should happen in the classroom.
The history of language teaching methodology is the history of never-ending search
for effective teaching methods with different approaches, especially for grammar, a focal
point which has aroused a great deal of controversy among educational researchers,
linguists, methodologists and teachers. Opinions differ not only with reference to whether
or not to teach grammar, and if so, how to teach it. Language teaching methodology has
changed in approaches and so do methods of grammar teaching. What follows is a brief
description of grammar is taught.
From a traditional point of view, the goal should be to teach language from a
formal perspective. Since the mid to late 19th century, the dominant trend was a non-
communicative approach. With the Grammar Translation Method, grammar was taught
deductively, by studying grammar rules and translating from L2 to LI and vice verse.
Richards and Rodgers (1986) noted that it is a method without theory or without any
literature.
The Direct Method was introduced by the German educator Wihelm Vicktor in the
early 1800s as a reaction to the Grammar Translation Method, based on the belief that
language could best be taught by its vivid use in the classroom. There is no translation
anymore and the silent study of literature was replaced by actual use of spoken language
practice, and explicit and deductive grammar instruction was replaced by an implicit and
inductive approach. It emphasized the importance of listening and speaking the íòreign
language. Lessons begin with a dialogue in the target language. Meaningful contexts for
leaming, inductive teaching of grammar and avoidance of translation are among these
principles. “The Direct Method provides an exciting and interesting way of leaming a
language through activities” Rivers (1981) made comments.
The Reading Method was a reaction to the impracticality of the direct method. In
this method, reading was viewed as the most usable skill to have in a foreign language and
developed for both practical and academic reasons. Stem (1983) gave a comment that the
reading method grew out of practical educational considerations in America in the 1920s.
Despite criticism against this method for not paying adequate to speaking, it has gained
interest in the teaching of languages for speciíìc purposes such as reading scientiíĩc
literature.

13
The Audio-lingual Method derived from structural linguistics in the us in the
1950s, laid emphasis on mimicry of forms and memorization of certain sentence pattems
which are used intensively instead of grammatical explanation or talking about the
language. Question and answer in open class or close pairs to practice a particular form can
be also argued to have its basis in the Audiolingual method. “In the early sixties audio-
lingualism had raised hopes of ushering in a golden age of language leaming.” Stem
(1983) assessed this method.
The mix between transformational grammar and cognitive psychology created
Cognitive-code leaming. As Krashen (1982) states, it is the case with Grammar Translation,
the assumption of cognitive code is that conscious leaming can be accomplished by
everyorie, that all rules are leamable, and that conscious knowledge should be available at
all times. Grammar was acquired inductively. The most important of these ideas was that
leaming must be meaningful and relatable to an individual’s cognitive structure if it was to
become a permanent part of his or her understanding of the world. Language leaming
thereíbre is “an active, intelligent, rule-seeking, problem solving process in which leamers
are encouraged to reílect upon and discuss the way the target language operates” (Nunan,
1991, p. 233).
Another prominent method is Community Language Leaming vvhich was primarily
concemed with converting the classroom into a warm and supportive “community” in
which leamers were helped to move from complete dependence on the teacher to complete
autonomy. It is referred to as an aíĩectively-based method. For Brown (1994b): what is
íĩrst needed is for members to interact in an intemational relationship in which students
and teacher join together to facilitate leaming in a context of valuing and prizing each
individual in the group. Although it has been attacked for its non-directiveness, lack of
cohesion, its valued contributions assumes that leaming takes place best in an environment
of mutual trust, mutual support and cooperation between teacher and leamers and among
leamers themselves.
Other language teaching methods that iníluence a lot are The Silent Way,
Suggestopia, Total Physical Respond and Natural Approach. Each method has its own
advantages and disadvantages; the problem is that how teachers choose or combine
appropriated and relevant methods to the aims and objectives of their language course,
their leamers and their own teaching context.

14
CLT, which aims at íocusing on communicative proficiency by replicating
contextual features of real communication in the classroom, has been the dominant
language teaching methodology emerged in the mid 1970s and 1980s. However, different
and even contradictory views emerged during the latter half of the twentieth century.
As Winddowson (1990) mentions “Knowing a language does not mean to
understanđ, speak, read or write sentences, it means to know how sentences are used to
communicate effect.” Since the purpose is to accept language as a tool for communication,
the teachers should tum this principle into action by using íiinctional syllabus in their
language class.
CLT is grounded on a theory of language as communication. The goal of CLT is to
create a realistic context for language acquisition in the classroom in order to develop what
Hymes (1972) reĩerred to as “communicative competence”. His theory of cc of what a
speaker needs to know in order to be communicatively competent in a speech community.
Another linguistic theory of communication favored in CLT is Halliday’s íìinctional
account of language use. The focus of CLT is on functional usage and leamers’ ability to
express their own ideas, feelings, attitudes, desires and needs. Open-ended questioning and
problem-solving activities and exchanges of personal information are utilized to enable
leamers to develop leamers’ cc. In this approach, “skill” has become more important than
“content”. “A competent speaker not only knows how to use linguistic form coưectly, but
is also able to use language appropriately with respect to context, interlocutor, and register.
Hymes (1972) argues.
Since then, teaching methods have changed from “accuracy” to “íluency”. A view
of teaching language as communication is a view in which meaning and the use to which
language is put plays a center part. “Master of language use” is the way teaching students
how “to mean” as well as how “to form”. Knowledge of how the language functions in
communication does not automatically follow from knowledge of sentences. Once we
accept the need to teach language as communication, vve can obviously no longer think of
language in terms of only sentences. We must consider the nature of discourse, and how
best to teach it. Teaching materials in the past have been largely derived from the products
of theoretical sentence grammar. We now need materials that derive from a description of
discourse; materials that affect the transfer from grammatical competence, knowledge of
sentences, to what has been called cc, knowledge of how sentences are used in the

15
períbrmance of communicative acts of different kinds. New series of secondary textbooks
provide us, the teachers, what we have expected for a long time. With the design of
grammar lesson lastly after reading, listening, speaking and writing, grammar which
appears in different contexts is Consolidated in some other forms of exercises. Teachers
only need to design some suitable techniques such as using games, songs... to make it
more interesting. GC remains in a perceptual State of potentiality unless it is realized in
communication. The study of discourse might indicate the nature of such rules, and give us
some clues as to Ỉ10W we might approach teaching them.
The diĩílculty is that the ability to compose sentences is not the only ability we
need to communicate. Knowing what is involved in putting sentences correctỉy is only one
part ofwhat we niean by knowing a language, and it has very little value on its own: It has
to be supplemented by a knovvledge of what sentences count as in their normal use as a
mean of communication. Teacher’s role in CLT is supporting and assisting the students in
their production of acceptable responses rather than towards assessing and correcting.
Teacher should be alert to sense vvhen and where help is needed and what form it should
take. “I, the teacher, am here to help you, the leamers succeed and progress in your
leaming, not to judge, scold or make you feel inferior” (Ur, 1998). Leamers’ activation
depends on teacher’s organization. A well-designed grammatical activity should be based
on task that has clear objectives and entails active use of the structure being practice; and it
should maintain leamers’ interest and motivation through careful choice of topic, with
different kinds of suitable activities.
Unlike the traditional methods of leaming and teaching, in a CLT approach,
leamers are required to take part in a number of meaningíul activities with different tasks.
This is to improve leamers' cc by encouraging them to be a part of the lessons themselves.
Our students can use the foreign language to deíĩne, classify, generalize, promise, predict,
describe, and so on. They can aware of how the language is used for the particular kind of
communication they are concemed with, special the nature of different communicative
acts, the way they are realized, the way they combine in diíĩerent varieties of language use.
This way can enable leamers to manage the new structures and develop their
communicative skills at the same time. However, the question is whether CLT is
appropriate to local contexts and cultures, and how it might be adapted and used by
teachers and leamers in relevant ways. Communicative needs are diversiíied in diíĩerent

16
settings or c c can mean different things for different groups of foreign language leamers.
One size doesn’t fit all. Canh (2000, p. 77) finds out:
‘Although Vietnamese teachers take a positive view of the communicative
approach to language teaching, they find it difficult to use this approach for their
pedagogical practice. There are various reasons for this constraint in using
communicative methods but the most important ones are the diữìculty in creating
“realistic second language situations” for their students who have no real-life
conimunicative needs in the target language on the one hand, and the pressures to
prepare their students for the discrete-point examinations, on the other.... To
facilitate innovations in teaching methodologies, there must be some macro-
changes, the most significant of which is to reform the testing system......
Communicative teaching should be supported by communicative testing.... It is
crucial that teachers should be made to be aware that Canale and Swain’s (1980)
model of communicative competence is not applicable to every context’
A common misconception is that CLT does not include the teaching of grammar
(Thompson, 1996). Some teachers believe that it is good to limit their students only in
doing something like improving the communicative competence of their students. They
pay little attention to the grammatical structure of their students’ speaking. This is only one
side of the coin. We all know that grammar is not only the core of a language, but a
theoretical tool in regulating language. Those above- mentioned teachers ignore this idea;
they pay their attentions only to the communicative function of the language and reject
grammar.
AU in all, “to have an effective period of grammar teaching, teachers must bear in
mind that the purpose of teaching grammar is to help the students ỉeam the language, and
the teachers must be wary of making grammar end of their teaching. Teachers should also
consider altematives to traditional grammar instruction, such as grammar consciousness-
raising tasks" (Fotos & EIlis, 1991; Fotos, 1994). For Fotos (1994), grammar CR task can
be a valuable technique in promoting GC in communicative classroom: can understand
grammar structures and use them in communication. Teachers should also leam “how to
treat grammar more communicatively in the classroom and how to match grammar
instruction with leamers’ needs as well as their preferences” (Canh, 2004, p. 147).
1.2.3 Consciousness-raising approach
CR is often claimed to hold a 'middle-ground position' betxveen two extreme
approaches to teaching L2 grammar (Yip, 1994, p. 124; see also Nunan, 1991, p. 151). At
one end of the scale is the zero approach advocated by Krashen's vvork, at the other

17
traditional grammar based approaches. This rather static view can be challenged by a
different One considering the evolution of language teaching methođology through the past
decades: The claim that the teaching of grammar is a waste of time is thus to be seen as a
reaction to older approaches using extensive grammar drilling and consequently
Rutherford's CR stands for the pendulum svvinging back but taking into account more
recent findings of second language acquisition research as well as benefits of
communicative approaches.
It has to be pointed out, however, that grammatical CR cannot be considered
simply as a movement 'back to grammar’ because it is characterized by several important
differences to older approaches: First of all, it does not aim the production of the target
structure in the short term but íbcuses on long-term leaming objectives, accepting that at
the moment a structure is taught it may not be leamable for the leamer. Furthermore,
grammar does not have to be taught in the form of explicit rules, the leamer may also be
led to grammatical insights implicitly (this is not a new ideal but seems to have been
overlooked in strictly grammar-based approaches). Thirdly, the focus on meaning
introduced by the communicative movement is not abandoned and texts that have been
produced for communication are preferred over concocted examples (Willis & Willis,
1996). Reíerring to what has been said about the term CR in its everyday use meaning, one
might dare to say that grammatical CR postulates that 'the language is grammatical' rather
than 'the language is grammar'.
1.2.3.1 What isC R ?
Most authors using the tenrn 'grammatical consciousness-raising' rely on Rutheríord
(1987). CR is an important topic throughout Rutherford’s book, but interestingly he also
offers a strikingly brief (while very broad) explanation of the term in his glossary: "the
drawing o f the learner's attention to /eatures o f the target language" (my emphasis).
Hence the ĩunction of grammar CR is to highlight certain grammatical topics for the
leamer to develop his or her awareness of them for the moment he or she wil! be ready to
insert this specific feature into the developing L2 system, thus to acquire it. While a
considerable number of such topics can be handled by the leamers themselves, grammar
CR can indeed help to prevent the fossilization of eưors where the language would provide
only negative evidence to the leamer (Rogers, 1994) and can also accelerate the acquisition
ĐA! HỌC QUÓC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRUNG TAM THÒNG TIN ĨHƯ VIỀN
Ũ Ị 0 Â M Ề Ễ U

18
of grammatical structures in L2 leaming. He consequently sees grammatical CR as a
means of “illuminating the leamer’s path from the known to the unknovvn”.
According to Nunan (1991, p. 149), CR rẹịects the split between conscious leaming
and subconscious acquisition. However, it also contrasts with traditional grammatical
instruction in a number of important respects. Unlike traditional approaches to teach
grammar, CR fu!fíls a process rather than product role: it is a ĩacilitator, a means to an end
rather than an end in itself. Leamers must ‘notice the gap between their own production
and that of native speakers’ (Schmidt and Frota, 1986, cited in Nunan, 1991). One function
for CR is to assist leamers to ‘notice the gap’. Taking a rather diííerent line from Nunan,
Smith (1981) arguing that ‘traditional’ instruction is one type of CR.
CR can be realized in many different ways, and there are numerous Creative
techniques for sensitizing leamers to grammatical principles within a communicative
context. There are many ways of teaching grammar, and it is wrong to imply that teachers
are conữonted with two mutually exclusive choices when it comes to teaching grammar:
either avoiding the teaching of grammar altogether, or retuming to a ‘traditional’ form-
focus approach.
Ellis (1993) contrasts CR with practice activities. Among the characteristics of
CR he lists:
The ‘attempt to iso la te a speciíìc linguistic feature for íocused attention’.
From the wealth of language data to which leamers are exposed we identify
particular features and draw the leamer’s attention speciĩically to these.
The provision of ‘d a ta which illustrate the targeted feature’. It is our
contention that this data should as far as possible be drawn from texts, both
spoken and written, which leamers have already processed for meaning, and that
as far as possible those texts should have been produced for a communicative
purpose, not simply to illustrate íeatures of the language.
The requirement that leamers ‘utilize in teỉỉectu a l e ffo rt’ to understand
the targeted íeature. There is a deliberate attempt to involve the leamer in
hypothesizing about the data and to encourage hypothesis testing.
(Original emphasis)
CR, then, can be seen as guided problem solving. Leamers are encouraged to
notice particular features of the language, to draw conclusions from what they notice and
to organize their view of language in the light of the conclusions they have drawn.

19
1.2.1.2 Vhat are C R activities?
According to Willis & Willis (1996), teacher provides CR activities which
encourage leamers to think abouí samples of language and to draw their own conclusions
about how the language works. Leamers could be left to work out the grammar for
themselves. CR activities have been a part of language teaching for a long time. Indeed the
grammar-translation approach to language teaching certainly embodied CR, leamers work
from language data to formulate rules for language production. These are CR activities
which we can use:
Step 1: Identify/ Consolidate
Students are asked to search a set of data to identiíy a particular pattem or usage
and the language forms associated with it.
Step 2: Classify (semantic; structural)
Students are required to work with a set of data and sort it according to similarities
and differences based on formal or semantic criteria.
Step 3: Hypothesis building/ checking
Students are given (or asked to make) a generalization about language and asked to
check again this against more language data.
Step 4: Cross-language exploration
Students are encouraged to íìnd similarities and differences between patteming in
their own language and patteming in English.
Step 5: Reconstruction/ Deconstruction
Students are required to manipulate language in ways vvhich reveal underlying
pattems.
Step 6 : Recall
Students are required to recall and reconstruct elements of a text. The purpose of
the recall is to highlight signiíĩcant íeatures of the text.
• Reference training
Students need to learn to use reference works- dictionaries, grammars and
study guides....
CR task is an important key for the development of one’s autonomous leaming
which help leamers to develop and strengthen their strategies for language leaming. A

2 0
natural follow-up (o a CR task would be a communicative task using the target structure.
This gives the teacher an opportunity to assess how well the students are able to use the
grammar. CR is thereíore considered as a combination or a key to bridging the gap
betvveen traditional grammar íòcused teaching and CLT.
'Do both Those are the two words I write most often in margins when I read
academic articles about the teaching of grammar in second- language instruction.
Focus on íluency or accuracy? Do both, in proper balance give the students’ needs
and goals? Have students work with grammar structures inductively or deductively?
Do both: you never know where any particular student’s “Aha” is going to come
from. Use authentic or adapted language? Students need both. Work with sentence-
level vs. connected-discourse material? Both can have good pedagogical purpose and
eíTect. Engage in open-ended communicative interaction or controlled respond
exercises? Both are beneíìt for students. Explicit instruction or communicative
exposure? Both.“Focus on awareness rather than períbrmance” in teaching grammar?
(Ellis, 2002: 29). My handvvritten note in the margin: Do both. ’
Beíty (2007)
Betty (2007) helped the researcher come to the end of the literature review.
Through this chapter, the researcher was provided a better understanding the phenomenon
and that could help her do the research more scientiĩically. The researcher took these
criteria to measure her students’ GC. In fact, to improve mountainous students’ GC, beíòre
CR were applicd, the researcher investigated the reality of grammar teaching and leaming
at her school, then she measured the students by asking them doing quizzes and tests; to
know how her students communicate accuraíely and íluently, she created communicative
situations and encouraged them to speak as much as they can. The next chapter will be the
place for restating the research questions and discussing the research method used.

21
CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 Background of the study
2.1. ỉ The course
By the publication of new series of textbook in 2006, the Vietnamese Ministry of
Education and Training (MOET) has promoted the use of communicative teaching
methodology in the English classroom, especially syllabus approach to grammar teaching:
the ability to communicate set as the syllabus goals. To stress the importance of developing
students’ ability to use English for the purpose of everyday communication, MOET shows
that teaching English in secondary schools is to help students to use English as a tool to
communicate at a basic level in the forms of listening, speaking, reading and writing.
The textbooks currently used to teach English are Tieng Anh 10, Tieng Anh 11,
Tieng Anh 12 with two sets: the advanced and the Standard ones. The teaching content of
English textbooks follows the theme-based approach and is developed on six broad themes.
The six themes are subdivided into 16 topics coưesponding with 16 units and a “Test
yourseir’ after every 3 units. Ali units have the same structure, starting with the theme of
the unit, following four lessons íocused on language skills and ending with language focus.
Language skills are developed in parallel with the development of such language
knovvledge as grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation.
With strengths, the textbooks are expected to contribute better quality of English
leaming in Vietnam high schools. In terms of curriculum development, the introduction of
the new textbook can be new fresh air blowing into the teaching and leaming situation at
secondary schools in Vietnam. However, to a large number of mountainous students, the
English textbooks are very difficult. Very often the amount of new vocabulary in one unit
was too much for students. In addition, many topics in their English textbooks were strange
to their daily lives and background. Grammar lesson is a part of Language Focus, which
also includes Pronunciation and it takes at least 15 minutes, hence there are only 30
minutes for grammar. Comparing to other periods of skill development, Language Focus
lessons seem to be the most difficult and the most uninteresting.
2.1.2 The students

22
The study was conducted in a mountainous school where mạịority of students
have a lot of difficulties both in living and studying condition. Most of the students in this
mountainous school do not have much time and good conditions for studying like students
in Hanoi. They do not also have good physical construction compared to those in cities due
to the poor living condition. Many students’ English level is low and Vietnamese language
skills are limited. In fact, the students have been entered the school by an entrance
examination including Math, Literature and English with total marks for all three subjects
just over zero. Besides, the lack of modem school equipment and qualifíed teaching
facilities also affect their study. For them, English is simply an obligatory subject; they
leam it mainly for marks, the only goal is to pass the tests. The time, the input and
exposure to the language are limited to the classroom. Thereíore, they seem to be passive
in leaming. Students listen to their teachers and repeat passively and give a mechanical
response. They are likely to become demotivated to English leaming, depending much on
the textbook and teachers’ method of delivery. Language activities like role plays,
problem-solving tasks, or iníbrmation gap activities, thereíore, seem strange to their
culture of leaming. Even, when they fail to understand something, they are not daring
enough to ask for clariíĩcation in public. Thereíore, the teacher seems to be the sole
provider of experience in the target language in this English leaming environment.
2.1.3 The teachers
MOET has stated that the objective of language teaching is teaching leamers to
communicate íluently, appropriately and spontaneously in the cultural context of the target
language. To meet the demand of leamers of English, teachers of English in Vietnam have
been trying to catch up with the world’s latest frameworks of English Language Teaching
as well as to ĩind out the most suitable and effective method of teaching English with the
hope of providing leamers with a means of communication, namely English which is vital
for thern to be successful in their job and to fulfill their social demands in the time of
globalization.
At TNDUSS, there are 10 teachers of English currently working, nine íemales and
only one male. Their ages range from 28 to 36. Their experience in teaching English varies
from 6 to 14 years. They are considered young to meet the need of updating the new
methods of teaching. With regard to teaching methods, as teachers of English in many
other provinces in Yen Bai, teachers of English at TNDUSS are now more communication-

23
oriented. However, some get used to speech dominated education by a teacher-centered,
book-centered, Grammar Translation Method and an emphasis on rote memory.
At time the researcher drew up the problems in the teaching staff meetings and
shared the same opinions from other teachers of English in this school, she then tried out
some small changes with a hope that her students would be more motivated with the new
materials and those worked. Thus in the study she was strongly determined to make a well-
planned project on the area of applying some CR activities in teaching grammar in second
term units in English 10.
2.2 Research questions
With above objectives, the research questions developed for the study were:
ì) What are the students' attitudes towards grammar lessons?
2) How do teachers treat grammar lessons in a mountaỉnous schooỉ?
3) What are the students' reactions to C-R activities applied in grammar lessons?
How C-R activities ạffect students’grammatical competence?
To answer to these questions would serve to give insight into the effective of CR activities
on secondary students’ grammatical competence.
2.3 Research approach
In order to fmd out the answer to the research questions, the researcher decided to
conduct an action research. The action research vvas chosen because it is a systematic,
reílective study of researcher's actions, and the effects of these actions, in her workplace
context. It involves deep inquiry into her professional practice. The researcher examined her
work and sought opportunities for improvement. As a designer, she worked with colleagues
to propose new courses of action that help their community improve work practices. As a
researcher, she sought evidence from multiple sources to analyze reactions to the action
taken. She recognized her own view as subjective and sought to develop her understanding
of the events from multiple perspectives. She used đata collected to characterize the íorces in
ways that could be shared with practitioners. This leads to a reílective phase in which the
designer formulates new plans for action during the next cycle.
Beíore discussing the compatibility of the thesis’ aims with action research, some
literature of action research should be presented íìrst. Reason & Bradbury (2007) deíĩne
action research as “an interactive inquiry process that balances problem solving actions
implemented in a collaborative context... A teacher could not begin to practice vvithout

24
some knowledge of the situation in which they are operating and some idea of what it is
that needs to be done. The researcher chose action research to understand, to improve and
to see the effect of planned change in her practice.
According to Elliott (1991), action research investigates everyday problems
experienced by teachers. In the other words, action research involves the gathering of
evidence about practice. “I experience a problem when some of my education values are
negated in my practice” (Whitehead, 1985). And then, action research proceeds through a
process of planning, action and reílection upon action. This can be thought of as an action-
reílection “cycle”:
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3
la<cA
ction
co C
C
1aTd
A
Ta'yzoEvioonoe
Co oc: a-ứ
aV
2
CLvĩccrcc
Reílect
C
OO
C
!aTd
A
'i3yzcL
viO
O
rx»
P'ogress ve Prob en Solv ng w t" ActiO'' Research
(Source: From Wikipedia, thefree encyclopedia)
This form of research then is an iterative, cyclical process of reílecting on practice,
taking an action, reflecting, and taking ĩurther action. Thereíore, the research takes shape
while it is being performed. Greater understanding from each cycle points the way to
improved actions. The results of this type of research are practical, relevant, and can
iníòrm theory. Critical reílection is at the heart of Action Research and when this reílection
is based on careful examination of evidence from multiple perspectives; it can provide an

25
effective strategy for improving the organization's ways of working and the whole
organizational climate. Action research takes place in cycles. Each cycle is a discrete
experiment—taking action as a way of studying change.
An action research is a design experiment. It is designed with an eye toward deeper
understanding of change. However, from the researcher’s point of view, an action research
alvvays provides insights into a complex instance and contribuíes, more or less, to the íìeld
it belongs to.
2.4 Participants
This study was carried out within class 10A1 consisting of 41 male and female
students at TNDUSS in Yen Bai. All of them are at the same age of flfìeen to sixteen. The
reason for the choice of this class because this is the best group among others, it was hoped
that they could easily catch up with the application; they have also had four years’
experience at ]ower secondary school and half a year at upper secondary school, they are
believed to have more to say about grammar teaching and leaming. Grade 11 and grade 12
are more preoccupied with examination preparation so their response to the research
questions might be influenced by their examination-biased perspectives.
Students in class 10A1 are considered better than their ửiends at the same grade.
Most of them share their joy of leaning English and make their active participation in
practicing Speaking, Reading, Listening and Writing tasks and activities, except for
Grammar. During the time the researcher has been vvorking with her students, she has
made some intervievvs and observations to fínd out the reasons. Students used to study
grammar with traditional methods which really made students bored and tired. For any of
them do not like some tasks and activities in their textbooks because they are too long, too
difficult and uninteresting.
2.5 Data Collection Instruments
In order to get inĩormation, the main data collection instruments for this study were
interviews, classroom observations, a questionnaire for students and a test.
2.5.1 ínterviews
Selinger and Shohamy (1989) point out that the use of intervievv as a data collection
instrument permits a level of in-depth infonnation, free response, and ílexibility that
cannot be obtained by other procedures. Although an interview usually requires
considerable time commitments from both the interviewer and interviewees, it is an

26
excellent way to collect data. In other vvords, interview is an extremely useful and valuable
way to get in-depth and comprehensive information.
In this study, the iníbrmal interviews with 2 0 voluntarily students were held in
ordcr to obtain the iníòrmation on their attitudes towards grammar lessons In so doing, the
researcher aimed to íĩnd out their difficulties and desires in teaching and leaming grammar.
Each iníbrmal interview lasted for about 15 minutes on average and was conducted only in
Vietnamese, for the interviewees felt comfortable and easy to express. Basic intervievv
questions were prepared (see Appendix 2). With interviewees’ pemiission, the intervievvs
werc note-taken. All interview data were analyzed interpretatively (j'or details o f the
inter’iew, see Appendix 4).
2.5.2 Classroom observaíions
in this study, from classroom observations, the researcher wanted to see how
English classes were really going on by the teachers of English in a mountainous area such
as how they organized classroom activities; how teachers conducted their teaching; which
approaches the teachers used in their classroom teaching. The purpose of observation in the
context of the present study was not to evaluate the teaching and leaming. Rather,
observing the teachers in action in this study was aimed at discovering how grammar had
been taught and leamt grammar in the actual classroom to ascertain the prevalent problems
given by the students during the intervievvs (for detaiỉs o f the observation, see Appendỉx 7).
The observations were conducted in three Language Focus lessons at grade 10 of three
teachers. The teachers vvere asked for permission beíore being observed. The observations
strengthened the iníormation gathered in the interviews.
2.5.3 Questionnaire
The questionnaire designed for the students was distributed to them aíìer CR were
applied. A1I questions and their items were written in Vietnamese to make sure that the
students could have a clear understanding of the questions and ansvvers. Furthermore, using
their native language the students were able to express their thought more easily in open-
ended questions. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. Part one was intended to collect
personal information of the participants, such as their age, gender, years of leaming
English. Part two consisted of 8 questions both close and open-ended questions. The
purpose of the questionnaire was to investigate the students’ awareness of the importance

27
of grammar, their evaluation of cuưent grammar teaching in the Language Focus lessons
and CR activities.
2.5.4 Quizzes and Tests
For Elana (2002), a language test is a procedure or device for measuring and
evaluating a person’s language knovvledge. A language test today attempts to tap language
use, communicative ability, connected discourse and períòrmance of real authentic
language. There are many types of tests but the researcher chose achievement test in this
study. The achievement evaluate “the test-taker’s language in relation to a given
curriculum or material vvhich the test-taker had gone through in a given course” (Elana,
2 0 0 2 ). Quizzes were carried out immediately in five minutes after the lessons had been
íìnished; tests were designed after all eight lessons and done in 45 minutes: Beíòre the real
test was prepared, a sample test had been done for the students to get used to the model.
2.6 Data Collection Procedure
According to Selinger and Shohamy (1989), once the researcher has selected a
speciíìc design for the study which is consistent with the objectives of the research, the
next step is to collect the research data. In collecting the data it is important to use
procedures which elicit high quality data, since the quality of any research study depends
largely on the quality of the data collected and the data collection procedure.
This study started in the school year 2010-2011. Firstly, the researcher analyzed the
English curriculum and the instructions for teaching and assessing English provided by
MOET. The purpose vvas to identify the teaching approach used in the syllabus, the level
of students’ English that the curriculum wishes students to achieve. During the íìrst
semester, the researcher decided to conduct a group intervievv to get the íìrst data. The
researcher also observed some English Language Focus lessons sections in order to have
the second input at what actually happened in class associated with grammar teaching, then
she applied what she planned, collected and analyzed the evidence.
Group interview was chosen as the íirst data collection instrument because of the
two main reasons. Firstly, group intervievv was time saving to both the researcher and the
students interviewed. Secondly, it allovved the intervievvees to share their ideas, to explain
their leaming practices. Thereíòre, it was hoped to provide the researcher with a rather
deep understanding of grammar from different points of view.

28
The intervievv questions aimed at getting information about the students’ attitudes
tovvards grammar, their diffículties as weỉl as their ideas to have better grammar periođs.
The data from the interview were converted into text in a way that was easy to write, easy
to read and easy to comprehend.
To investigate the reality of grammar leaming and teaching, the đata collected from
interviewing the student is far from enough. That is the reason why after finishing the
interview, the researcher observed some more classes in order to collect more evidences
for the conclusion of the intervievv data analysis. The three observed lessons are only
involved Language Focus lessons with three grade 10 classes. The researcher only acted as
a non-participating observer and took íìeld notes of the classroom procedures. These notes
were then transcribed and analyzed to assess grammar teaching in the classroom in terms
of teachers’ methods and students’ reactions to the way grammar structures were taught.
After eight periods of applying CR, a questionnaire on students’ opinions and
comments on grammar teaching as well as their style preĩerences, both closed questions
and open questions are composed. The closed questions for factual and fairly predictable
answers whereas open questions are for the answers in terms of opinions, beliefs and
judgments, allow the respondents to feel that they can contribute more individual points of
view and more detail information. The qucstions íòcus on the followings:
• Assess of the importance of grammar(Q 1)
• Students’ evaluation of current grammar teaching(Q2) and their styles
preferences (Q3)
• Students’ reactions to CR activities applied in grammar lessons(Q4,5,6,7, 8 )
Besides, a five minute-quiz after each lesson vvas carried out to reílect partly what
students received from what they had just leamt, whether they understood the lessons or
not. And then the tests were designed to assess how CR activities aíĩected on students’
grammatical competence, to fínd out they are effective or not. Due to the shortage of the
time, the pilot test was conducted immediately before the achieved test with the aim to
make students get used to with the test-form. The tests were taken after eight periods of CR
application with 35 questions covered all aspects of grammar the students had leamt on
both language skills and language knovvledge. The fírst four questions are about relative
pronouns; the second four are about “vviir and “going to”; the next four are about ing”

29
or “iníinitive”; and then are about conditionals and passive voice. From questions 21 to 25
are for reading comprehension which íocuses on comparatives. Students had to choose one
word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct from questions
26 to 35. Through these achievement tests, the researcher could check the students’
understanding by their results, compare to their subjective perspectives through the
questionnaire, and she could have more reliable data.
2.7 Data Analvsỉs Procedure
lnterview data, class observation were then analyzed in accordance with data
gathered from the questionnaire, the quizzes and the achieved test. Data collected from
these three sources were categorized into 1 ) mountainous students’ attitudes towards
grammar, 2) mountainous teachers’ methods of grammar teaching 3) students’ reactions
tovvards CR activities and its affect to students’ grammatical competence. The data were
categorized to seek answers to the research questions established for this study. The data
were then analyzed both descriptively and interpretively.
2.8 Summary
This chapter presented the research questions, the research methodology and
instruments of data collection. By employing above four different instruments, the
researcher hoped to achieve more reliable, valid data. The next chapters will present the
practical study and discuss the íìndings.

30
CHAPTER THREE: THE PRACTICAL STUDY
This chapter will describe carefully how the practical study happened by comparing
and contrasting the enriched and various data.
3.1 Preliminary investigation: Data presentation of the interview and observation
3.1.1 Intervievv
To answer the íìrst research question, intervievvs were conducted with some guided
questions. The students were asked in Vietnamese and they answered the interview
questions also in Vietnamese. This was to guarantee the truthfulness of the infoimation in
case the students were not coníìdent enough in answering in English or they might get
coníused in understanding the questions and in giving ansvvers to these questions {Thefu ll
transcript o f the interview ìs given in Âppendìx 4).
•Students ’ attitude towards ỉearnỉng Engỉish grammar.
The íìrst question asked the respondents whether they like English grammar or not.
The results showed a mạịority of the students responded íavorably to the leaming English
grammar (60%), still many of them did not like (35%), and one answered neither liked nor
đisliked. Most of the students were aware of the beneíĩts of leaming grammar. Typical
reasons they gave for their interest in leaming grammar included: Grammar is a key to
successful communication, more easily and more accurately- good understanding of
grammar helps a lot in reading and translating books, in vvidening the knowledge;
Grammar also helps students much in doing their homework and tests; and English
grammar is simpler, clearer and more logical than Vietnamese grammar.
With regard to their negative attitudes tovvards leaming grammar, some students
explained that they did not And grammar interesting, sometimes because of the methods
the teacher employed to teach them. For them, English grammar was too diffícult, too
complex, and not easy to remember and apply in doing exercises or in real Iife.
Interestingly, One among them did not like English grammar but he could see the active
side of the Language Focus lesson; he said he liked this period because it helped him
understand more the structures. The student who neither liked nor disliked gave the reason
that the grammar lesson didn’t motivate him, many lessons he couldn’t understand. The
one who answered didn’t like grammar very much because he had not got much grammar
knovvledge since primary and secondary school.

31
• Students ’difficuỉties in ỉearning English grammar
All students stated that they íầced a lot of difficulties in leaming grammar. Many of
them complained that English words were too difficult to pronounce, and because of their
lack of vocabulary knovvledge, they met a lot of diffìculties in understanding and changing
English word forms. This supported the “strong relationship that exists betvveen grammar
and vocabulary” (Hedge 2000, p. 145). For them, the English structures were difficuỉt to
use, to apply in doing exercises; diffícult to remember, easy to forget. Also, they had a few
opportunities to apply the leamed structures to communicate because the exercises were
not easy; they often had not enough time to practice the structures they had leamed, and
those were the reasons why they knew the structures and words but failed to express them.
Moreover, many of them said that the way of expressing ideas in English was
different from Vietnamese; thereíore they were afraid of making mistakes when using
English. Furthermore, the way their teacher presented grammar structures was not really
interesting, so it was not attractive enough for students to concentrate- their teacher mainly
took examples in the text book, gave the structures or íòrms, explained in Vietnamese and
then asked students to do the exercise; sometimes they let them play a game but only in left
time and in fear of affecting neighbored classes. Large class size also caused difficulty for
their study, so they did not have much chance to practice or get teacher’s attention. Finally,
teaching aids were not available and the leaming facilities were poor, vvhich made more
difficult to study effectively.
• Students ’contributed ỉdeas to have an effective English grammar period.
When responding the suggestion of giving ideas for a better English grammar
period, all of the students expressed their motivation and actively vvanted to make some
contributions to it. Exams was paid attention to, so they expected their teacher to explain
the structures carefully, gave more examples, especially in communicative situations and
revised the leamed knowledge as well as practiced the new ones; many of them suggested
the teacher giving them more grammar exercises as well as provided them key words.
As they mentioned above, they had a few communicative opportunities to use
English, many of them expected their teacher to create more communicative situations and
encouraged them to join. Some of them found grammar lessons stressful, sometimes boring
with ineffective activities which were repeated day by day. Some wished their teacher
more comfortable, more easy-going, and more Creative in methodology such as using

32
pictures, visưal teaching aids, more games and outdoor activities which imitated TV game-
shows. They expressed their preoccupation with teacher’s mood: 'W e do not like learning.
One reason is that we fear the teacher because the teacher sometimes enters the cỉassroom
bringing with her tenseness andfrustration. We aỉlfeel stressful
Not surprisingly, unless the teacher created a relaxing atmosphere in the classroom,
the students could not motivate in leaming. Although they expected some eíĩorts from their
teacher, they themselves realized that they had to make effort too, and they highly
appreciated self -studying. One student did not take care how their teacher taught, because
he thought that it depended on the students themselves; if they worked hard, they would
have better results and vice verse. Another student expressed his satisfaction vvith the
present method of his teacher. A student, may be a good one, wished to leam more other
structures in a period but another wished to have reduced knovvledge. Therefore one
student bravely suggested that teachers shouid have suitable methods for diíTerent levels of
students. Generally, they íound the teaching materials authentic and suitable to them. Only
several students vvished the teaching materials less diffìcult and more interesting.
From the students’ response, we can see that most of the students recognized the
importance of grammatical knowledge not only to their study in the classroom but also to
their use of the language for communication outside the classroom. A focus on grammar is
obviously a necessary or a desirable part of classroom language leaming.
3.1.2 Class observations
To have more authentic data from what the students said, three classroom
observations were carried out to provide second data. During two weeks, the researcher
visited three grammar lesson taught by three different teachers at TNDUSS. Due to
technical constraints, the researcher did not videotape or audiotape the lessons she
observed. Instead, she took notes of the classroom procedures and activities in the most
possible đetailed manner to co mpare to field notes of the interviews. After analyzing three
class observation notes, she pointed out some following results:
3.1.2.1 Results/rom observations o f classes I0A2 and Ỉ0A4
Similar to the data gained from questionnaire, the data from class observations
revealed that the teachers presented grammar in different vvays but still mainly traditional
methods, used a lot of Vietnamese to explain the use and meaning of grammar structures,
then tried to explain the use and form of the grammar items illustrates this phenomenon.

33
Students could master the structures rather well, might apply in doing exercises quickly but
thc lessons were not different much from a natural Science subject. The class observations
also shovved that the teachers did not have enough time to go through all the stages, from
presentation to focused practice to communicative practice. A1I of the two teachers
observed just concentrated on the íìrst two stages as they engaged in only presentation and
controlled practice. The teachers did not have chances to organize any communicative
activities because they were in a repeated cycle of explanation and exercise. There were no
instances of free production. Most of the class time, the students were asked to do the
written exercises to remember the forms of the target grammar structures rather than to use
the language for Communications.
3.1.2.2 Result/rom observation o f class 10B4
In this period, the teacher used visual teaching aids, used questions to elicit the
students’ knovvledge in her teaching, and delivered handouts to make something different
from the text book. She also organized pair work, group work, games or role playing for
the students to take part in. The teacher gave comments when the students did something
good which encourage them to participate in the class activities. The students đid exercises
orally and actively joined the pair vvork, group work or role playing....The teacher created
exciting, relaxing, supporting and ửiendly atmosphere in the class but the students seemed
to have some vague knovvledge and thereíore could not do the exercises well.
After collecting data from interviews and observations, the researcher could
identify the problems more clearly and she strongly wanted to make intervention for these
problems.
3.2 Intervention
3.2.1 The design and aỉms of CR activities
As you have seen above, there are seven main steps with numerous Creative
techniques in a CR lesson (W illis & Willis, 1996) to sensitize leamers to grammatical
principles within a communicative context. CR activities encourage leamers to think about
samples of language and to draw their own conclusions about how the language works. CR
activities are to help students to identiíy or recall and remember eíĩectively English
structures through communicative contexts and practice in communicative situations.
Tải bản FULL (81 trang): https://bit.ly/3AT3qx5
Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net

34
3.2.2 Procedures of a CR task
Firstly, to begin the lesson comíbrtably, teacher prepared and held a quick game
because of limited time. To introduce the new grammar, teacher created a situation in
which the new knowledge appears. Teacher might use pictures to help mime, and tried to
spcak to force students to listen. If the situation was rather difficult to understand, teacher
might prepare handouts to save time and ask students to read and answer the teacher’s
questions for comprehension. The procedures of a CR task include:
In the other words, to draw leamers’ attention to formal properties of the target
language, CR generally use inductive means whilst retain the option of some deductive
explanation. The desired outcome of a CR task is an awareness of how a language feature
or features work. CR activities require leamers to talk meaningíully about a language point
Tải bản FULL (81 trang): https://bit.ly/3AT3qx5
Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net

35
using their own linguistic resources. As Ellis (1991) and Willis & Willis (1996) broadly
describe CR tasks in terrns of these stages:
1. Students are given a text vvhich uses a particular structure or grammatical form.
An ideal text would contain authentic language, and does not need to be specially written
with leaming in mind, providing the students are able to understand it. There need only be
enough examples of the target structure in the text. The leamers then process it for
meaning, which means they look at the text as a piece of reading rather than as grammar to
make sure they understand its message.
2. The target structure (TS) is highlighted in the text, either on the text itselí or on
another copy. Sentences are kept within their context, rather than pulled out and analyzed
separately. The TS can be underlined or color-coded. Altematively, students can find
examples themselves, such as “Underline every example of a, an or the you can find”.
3. The students look at the examples and see hovv they work in the text. For
example, they could be given questions such as “What words go after a, an or the?” or
“What is similar among all the examples you found?” In pairs or groups, students discuss
and make assumptions such as “/ỉave been is used with since andfor".
4. The students are then asked to íbrmulate and/or present a rule for what they have
found, not to take the form of a períect grammar explanation. An example vvould be “The
is used when you know about something, and a and an are used when you don’t”. It is not
necessary for the rule to be entirely correct or to cover the whole of the grammar point, but
merely that it increase the awareness of how the TS functions in English.
Bankier, J (2009) adds a fíflh stage: almost all leamers will need some form of
coníĩriĩiation from the teacher, particularly those students who are unused to CR, are of a
low ability or simply are not very good at íbrming generalizations. If this takes the form of
a ten-minute grammar explanation then the purpose of CR will be lost, as students will
believe their assumptions did not have a value. Rather than spending too much time
correcting wrong assumptions, the teacher can brieíly highlight correct assumptions by
summarizing them on the whiteboard (j'or specific lesson plans, see Appendừ 5).
3.3Evaluation
3.3.1 Data presentation of the evaluation questionnaire
• Assess ofthe importance ofgrammar
The results from question ỉ showed that all students were aware of the beneíìts of
leaming English grammar. Not surprisingly, none supposed it was not important; 68.3% of
6815715

The effect of consciousness-Raising activities on the 10th grade students grammatical competence at Tran Nhat Duat upper secondary school.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The effect of consciousness-Raising activities on the 10th grade students grammatical competence at Tran Nhat Duat upper secondary school.pdf

Similar to The effect of consciousness-Raising activities on the 10th grade students grammatical competence at Tran Nhat Duat upper secondary school.pdf (20)

More from NuioKila

More from NuioKila (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The effect of consciousness-Raising activities on the 10th grade students grammatical competence at Tran Nhat Duat upper secondary school.pdf