SỬ DỤNG các HOẠT ĐỘNG GIAO TIẾP để hỗ TRỢ CHO VIỆC GIẢNG dạy NGỮ PHÁP TRONG các lớp học BAO gồm NHIỀU TRÌNH độ ở TRƯỜNG đại học điện lực

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
POST- GRADUATE DEPARTMENT
----------******----------

Tr nh Lan H

ng

MA Minor Thesis

USING COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT GRAMMAR
TEACHING FOR LARGE MULTILEVEL CLASSES
AT ELECTRIC POWER UNIVERSITY
S

D NG CÁC HO T

GI NG D Y NG
TRÌNH

NG GIAO TI P

H

TR

CHO VI C

PHÁP TRONG CÁC L P H C BAO G M NHI U
TR

NG

I H C

I N L C

Field: Methodology
Code: 601410
Supervisor: Nguy n Thu L H ng, MA

Hanoi, 2008


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the
possibility to complete this thesis. I want to thank the Post Graduate Department, College of
Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi for giving me permission to
commence this thesis in the first instance and to use departmental data.
I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Nguyen Thu Le Hang, MA whose help,
stimulating suggestions and encouragement helped me in all the time of research for and
writing of this thesis.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all my lecturers at the
Post Graduate Department at College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University,
Hanoi, whose lectures and support have laid foundation for my thesis.
My colleagues from the Faculty of Fundamental Sciences and students Electric Power
University supported me in my research work. I want to thank them for all their help, support,
interest and valuable hints
Especially, I would like to give my special thanks to my husband, my family and my
friends whose patient love and continual encouragement enabled me to complete this work.

The minor thesis is concerned about ‘Using communicative activities to support grammar
teaching for large multilevel classes at Electric Power University”
It is aimed at finding out how grammar has been taught to multilevel classes at Electric Power
University, what students of these classes like and dislike about learning grammar through
communicative activities and the difficulties they meet when learning grammar through
communicative activities. Hence, communicative activities are designed or adapted to
improve the effectiveness of teaching grammar through communicative activities to these
classes.
The minor thesis consists of three chapters. Chapter I provides some theoretical background
for the thesis. Chapter II aims to describe background information about the current teaching
and learning of grammar at EPU and present data analysis and discussions. Chapter III
proposes some suggestions on ways of using communicative activities to support grammar
teaching for large multilevel classes.
The study should be regarded as an attempted to find a more appropriate way to enhance
grammar teaching in the light of CLT in large multilevel classes at EPU.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES, GRAPHS AND FIGURES
TABLES OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
PART A: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1
1. RATIONALE ..........................................................................................................................1
2. AIMS OF THE STUDY ..........................................................................................................2
3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................................... 2
4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .....................................................................................................2
5. METHODS OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................3
6. DESIGN OF THE STUDY .....................................................................................................3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................4
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................4
I.1.Roles of grammar in language teaching:................................................................................4
I.1.1. Definition of grammar........................................................................................................4
I.1.2. Different views on grammar teaching in second language classroom ...............................5
I.1.2.1. Anti-grammar views.......................................................................................................5
I.1.2.2. Pro-grammar views .........................................................................................................6
I. 2. Teaching grammar in the light of CLT ................................................................................8
I.3. Multilevel classes ..................................................................................................................9
I.3.1. Definition of large multilevel classes.................................................................................9
I.3.2. Challenges of teaching large multilevel classes.............................................................. 10
I.3.3. CLT in large multilevel classes........................................................................................10
CHAPTER II: THE STUDY ....................................................................................................12
II.1.The setting of the study.......................................................................................................12
II.1.1. Background information about the current teaching and learning of grammar at EPU
...................................................................................................................................................12
II.1.1.1. The current situation ....................................................................................................12
II.1.1.2. Experimental application .............................................................................................13
II.2. The study on the effectiveness of using communicative activities to teach grammar in
large multilevel classes at EPU...................................................................... ……………….14
II.2.1. Description of data collection instruments and procedures...........................................14
II.2.1.1. Subjects of the study....................................................................................................14
II.2.1.2. Instruments..................................................................................................................15
II.2.1.3. Data analysis procedure......................................................................................... ….16


II.2.2. Data analysis and discussions.........................................................................................16
II.2.2.1. Questionnaire...............................................................................................................16
II.2.2.2. Interviews ……………………………………………………...……………………30
II.2.2.3. Classroom Observation..............................................................................................32

CHAPTER III: THE USAGE OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT
GRAMMAR TEACHING FOR LARGE MULTILEVEL CLASSES AND IMPLICATION
FOR CLASSROOM TEACHING ............................................................................................35
III.1.Using songs and verses ....................................................................................................37
III.2.Using games and problem solving activities.....................................................................40
III.3. Role play..........................................................................................................................42
III.4. Story telling..................................................................................................................... 43
III.5. Picture description ...........................................................................................................44
III.6. Dialog performance..........................................................................................................45
! "

PART C: CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................47
REFERENCES
APPENDICES

!

#


EPU: Electric Power University
CA: Communicative activity
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
ESP: English for Specific Purposes


Table 1: Students’ profile ..........................................................................................................18
Table 2: Teachers’ profile .........................................................................................................19
Table 3: Students’ attitude towards the position of grammar ………………………….…… 19
Table 4: Reasons for learning grammar ....................................................................................20

Table 5: Frequency of teaching grammar in large multilevel classes .......................................20
Table 6: Frequency of learning grammar through communicative activities in a large
multilevel class ..........................................................................................................................21
Table 7: Frequency of communicative activity application in grammar teaching ...................21
Table 8: Challenges of teaching large multilevel classes ..........................................................22
Table

9:

Students’

opinions

about

learning

grammar

through

communicative

activities…................................................................................................................................23
Table

10:

Students’

interests

in

learning

grammar

through

communicative

activities……..…......................................................................................................................23
Table 11: Students’ agreement to grammar teaching through communicative activities..........24
Table 12: Obstacles when participating in communicative activities in large multi level
classes

…………………………………………………………………………..............25

Table 13: Evaluation of the effectiveness of communicative activities in large multilevel
classes by students…………………………………………………………………………....27
Table 14: Evaluation of the effectiveness of communicative activities to large multilevel
classes by teachers……………………………………………………………………………29


1. Rationale
Nowadays English is becoming one of the most popular languages worldwide. In different
countries, different people at different ages learn English for their own purposes. Learning to
use a language freely and fully is a lengthy and effortful process. In Vietnam, learning English
language is interested by young people, especially students at universities for a plenty of

reasons such as getting jobs in foreign companies, studying abroad and so on.
However, teaching English is said to be not effective at universities in Vietnam because as a
matter of fact, multilevel classes are currently popular in many universities in general and at
Electric Power University (EPU) in particular, which causes many difficulties to teachers and
students in language teaching.
Grammar teaching plays an important role at EPU as it supplies students basic knowledge to
prepare for the final exams and ESP course in the second year. Many students at my
university think grammar, of course, is very important. Why? Very simply, words have
grammar. Grammar is important because it is the language that makes it possible for us to talk
about language. Grammar names the types of words and word groups that make up sentences
not only in English but in any language. As human beings, we can put sentences together even
as children--we can all do grammar. But to be able to talk about how sentences are built,
about the types of words and word groups that make up sentences--that is knowing about
grammar. People associate grammar with errors and correctness. But knowing about grammar
also helps us understand what makes sentences and paragraphs clear and interesting and
precise. Grammar can be part of literature discussions, when we and our students closely read
the sentences in poetry and stories. And knowing about grammar means finding out that all
languages and all dialects follow grammatical patterns. However, the fact that how grammar
should be taught in multilevel classes in Vietnam is questioned and discussed by many
experts and teachers from many countries and at the moment it is really a big challenge.
The traditional method of grammar teaching is currently not appropriate in multilevel classes
in EPU because it makes students become passive recipients. Therefore, teaching grammar in
the light of CLT is becoming a new approach and designing

suitable communicative

activities to teach grammar for a multilevel class is very necessary. In most classes at EPU,


using communicative activities to support grammar teaching is often conducted but according

to all teachers there, for a multilevel class it is not satisfactory.
The fact has urged me to find out the answers to this question. In this paper, hopefully, some
communicative activities suggested to support grammar teaching in multilevel classes will
help teachers cope with difficulties in a multilevel language class.
2. Aims of the study
•

To investigate students’ evaluation of learning grammar through communicative
activities at Electric Power University

•

To identify characteristics of large multilevel classes at EPU.

•

To suggest some communicative activities for large multilevel classes at EPU to help
students acquire grammatical knowledge in a communicative way.

3. The scope of the study
•

Focus on evaluation of the effectiveness of using communicative activities for large
multilevel classes to first-year students at Electric Power University.

4. Research questions
•

How has grammar been taught to large multi-level classes of first year students at the
EPU?

•

What do students of these classes like and dislike about learning grammar through
communicative activities?

•

What difficulties do students of these classes meet when learning grammar through
communicative activities?

•

What should be done to improve the effectiveness of teaching grammar through
communicative activities to these classes?

5. Methods of the study
To realize the aims, the study used a combination of different methods in order to ensure the
accuracy and practicality.
First, the data was collected from survey questionnaires done by students and teachers at
Electric Power University. The writer, then, worked with the data by combining different
methods like analyzing, synthesizing, comparing, etc. in order to draw out important findings.


In addition, the writer collected some information based on her informal observation and
interviews to make sure that the data is more accurate and reliable.
6. Design of the study
This study is divided into 3 parts.
Part A, INTRODUCTION, deals with the reasons for the research, the aims, the scope,
methodology and research questions.

Part B, DEVELOPMENT, consists of three chapters.
Chapter I provides some theoretical background for the thesis with the focus on the
main points: definitions of grammar, different views on grammar teaching, teaching grammar
in the light of CLT, multilevel classes and CLT in multilevel classes.
Chapter II aims to describe background information about the current teaching and
learning of grammar at EPU and present the methodology underlying the research including
data collection instruments, procedures. A detailed data analysis and discussions are also
given.
Chapter III proposes some suggestions on ways of using communicative activities to
support grammar teaching for large multilevel classes.
Part C, CONCLUSION gives a summary and a recommendation for further study.


This chapter aims to explore the theoretical background for the thesis overviewing the
following main points: definition of grammar, different views on grammar teaching, teaching
grammar in the light of CLT, multilevel classes and CLT in multilevel classes.
I.1. The roles of grammar in language teaching
I.1.1. Definition of grammar
There are so many definitions and ideas of grammar defined by researchers and linguists.
What various opinions writers on English grammar have given in answer to the question,
What is grammar? may be shown by the following
According to Wikipedia, Grammar is the study of rules governing the use of language. The set
of rules governing a particular language is the grammar of that language; thus, each language
can be said to have its own distinct grammar. Grammar is part of the general study of
language called linguistics. Grammar is a way of thinking about language. It is also added that
as the word is understood by most modern linguists, the subfields of grammar are phonetics,
phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. In summary, grammar is rules of
a language governing its phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics; also, a written
summary of such rules. English grammar is a description of the usages of the English
language.

From Celce-Murcia (1988:16)’s view, ‘grammar is a subset of those rules which govern the
configurations that the morphology and syntax of a language assume’. Therefore, it can be
said that grammar is a field of linguistics that involves all the various things that make up the
rules of language. Grammar teaches the laws of language, and the right method of using it in
speaking and writing.
Ur (1988: 4) defines that ‘grammar may be roughly defined as the way a language
manipulates and combines words (or bit of words) in order to form longer units of meaning.’
and then in 1996, he stated ‘grammar is a set of rules that define how words (or parts of
words) are combined or changed to form acceptable units of meaning within a language’.
Clearly, grammar makes up all the words and structures in a sentence. There is a set of rules
which governs how units of meaning may be constructed in any language.


In short, grammar is the study of the structure and features of a language. Grammar usually
consists of rules and standards that are to be followed to produce acceptable writing and
speaking.
I.1.2. Different views on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms
The role of grammar in ESL programs is currently often debated, what sorts of structures
should/should not be taught at certain levels, why students can't seem to use grammar
effectively in writing even when they've studied it very diligently, why so few grammar books
provide enough contextualized analysis of "real usage" in spoken and written discourse, etc.
There are perhaps two major views on grammar teaching: anti-grammar teaching and programmar teaching.
I.1.2.1. Anti-grammar views
According to Thormann (1969), the first ‘anti-grammar’ was published in the seventeenth
century. In this book, the author explained that people did not know how to speak a language
because of the poor instruction they perceived heretofore, the inefficiency of the methods
used and the inadequacies of the masters. Thormann also adds that rarely would the students
gain the spoken mastery of the language with grammar teaching. He also emphasizes that
grammar has not been eliminated but it has been deemphasized and it is no longer leant by
learning by heart.

However, the real representatives of anti-grammarians are Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrel.
The Natural Approach was developed by Tracy Terrell and Stephen Krashen, starting in 1977.
The Natural Approach is based on the following tenets: Language acquisition (an unconscious
process developed through using language meaningfully) is different from language learning
(consciously learning or discovering rules about a language) and language acquisition is the
only way competence in a second language occurs. (The acquisition/learning hypothesis)
•

Conscious learning operates only as a monitor or editor that checks or repairs the
output of what has been acquired. (The monitor hypothesis)

•

Grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order and it does little good to try
to learn them in another order.(The natural order hypothesis).

•

People acquire language best from messages that are just slightly beyond their current
competence. (The input hypothesis)

•

The learner's emotional state can act as a filter that impedes or blocks input necessary
to acquisition. (The affective filter hypothesis)


Krashen draws on one set of references from Roger Brown in the early 1970’s. He claims
that Brown’s research on first language acquisition showed that parents tend to correct the
content of children’s speech rather than their grammar. Therefore, in the Natural Approach,

the teacher is expected to be the provider of comprehensible input in the target language,
emphasizes comprehensible and meaningful practice activities rather than production of
grammatically perfect utterances and sentences.
I.1.2.1. Pro-grammar views
“ There is no doubt that a knowledge-implicit or explicit-of grammatical rules is essential for
the mastery of a language: you cannot use words unless you know how they should be put
together.” (Ur, 1999: 4). The goal of teaching grammar is to help our students speak with
organized sentence structures in order to make themselves understood.
Meanwhile, Hawkins (1984: 150-1) affirms the importance of grammar for effective language
learning as follows “ The evidence seems to show beyond doubt that though it is by
communicative use in real “speech acts” that the new language “sticks” in the learner’s mind,
insight into pattern is an equal partner with communicative use in what language teachers now
see as dual process of acquisition. Grammar, approached as a voyage of discovery into the
patterns of language rather than the learning of prescriptive rules, is no longer a bogey word.”
In fact, one cannot master a language without the knowledge of its grammar.
Rutherford and Smith (1988) report that grammar teaching is beneficial to learners in the
sense that it raises learners consciousness concerning the difference and similarities of L1 and
L2 . Thus, grammar teaching can be used as a “ linguistic map” with road signs to help
students as they explore “the topography” of the new language.
The list of supporters of grammar is still ongoing. Hannan (1989) argues that grammar is
highly valuable as an important part of the study of language. He also points out that grammar
reflects the power and order of human mind and besides it helps us to understand the diversity
of human culture.
Lewis (1986) and Garner (1989) share the same ideas with Hannan. They give strong support
to grammar teaching. Garner believes that grammar gives us a means to analyze and describe
our language.


Palmer (1984) claims that it is grammar that makes language so essentially a human
characteristic. Therefore, the study of grammar has been proved to be very helpful in the

detailed understanding of language.
In short, grammar is acknowledged to be of importance in language study in general and in
language teaching and learning in particular.
Today, teaching grammar in ESL/EFL classroom poses quite a few myths and needs to be
demystified. However, we cannot deny the role of grammar in teaching a language and
grammar is still considered one of the key components of a language. One cannot master a
language without the knowledge of its grammar. Swain (1985) stated

“Grammatical

competence occupies a prominent position as a major component of communicative
competence.”. The fact is that at a very basic level, words on their own are often enough to
communicate with someone. If someone says ‘Water. Please’ and look as if he is requesting
something, we will understand that he/she wants us to give some food. But when we want to
express a more complex meaning, words on their own may not be enough. Therefore, we have
to use grammar to communicate more effectively, more precisely with others. That
communication may be in a conversation or an essay or a notice or a hundreds of other things.
We use grammar to ‘fine-tune’ a meaning, to make it more precise.
I.2. Teaching grammar in the light of CLT
Teaching grammar, in a communicative classroom is proposed as a challenge for classroom
practitioners in Vietnam today
The term “communicative language teaching” covers a variety of approaches that all focus on
helping learners to communicate meaningfully in a target language. Early approaches
downplayed the importance of grammar, some even advocating the abandonment of any focus
on form. More recent approaches acknowledge the centrality of grammar and try and teach
learners the relationship between grammatical form and communicative meaning.
Without grammar, words hang together without any real meaning or sense. In order to be able
to speak a language to some degree of proficiency and to be able to say what we really want
to say, we need to have some grammatical knowledge. By teaching grammar we not only give
our students the means to express themselves, but we also fulfill their expectations of what

learning a foreign language involves. Fortunately, nowadays with the emphasis on a


communicative approach and a wealth of stimulating resources, teaching grammar does not
necessarily mean endless conjugation of verbs or grammar translation.
The question “Is there a place for language forms in a communicative classroom?” is posed to
all classroom practitioners.
The classroom goals of CLT are focused on the different components of communicative
competence of which grammatical competence occupies a prominent position (Brown, 2001).
The six characteristics of CLT mentioned by Brown clearly state that although
“organizational language forms is not the central focus,” they should by no means be ignored
as fluency and accuracy are both “seen as complementary principles underlying
communicative techniques”. The balance of focus between language forms and meanings is of
course a matter of degree, not an all-or-nothing affair.
Attention to language forms in a communicative classroom is clearly justified. The questions
left are how much attention should be given and in what format.
I.3. Multilevel classes
I.3.1. Definition of large multilevel classes
According to Smart (2006), large multilevel classes are classes of more than 30 learners in
elementary, secondary, adult or tertiary settings. Also, they are classes that have been roughly
arranged according to ability. Furthermore, they are classes that have been arranged by agegroup with no thought to language ability. Multilevel classes are thought to be classes where
learners vary considerably in language and literacy skills and are in need of great deal of
personal attention and encouragement to make progress.
Hayes (1997) defines that any class with over 40 learners can be considered a large class.
Teaching large classes is difficult for three reasons. First, teaching large classes requires more
work for the teacher as there are more learners to assist, more papers to mark, etc. Second,
large classes are often more difficult to control because of the number of learners. Noise is
greater, and discipline problems are more likely to become uncontrollable. Third, many of the
techniques and materials we use in smaller classes are difficult to use with larger classes. If
there is little classroom space, for example, arranging seats in groups can be difficult or

impossible.
There are two kinds of multi-level classes:


•

ones in which all learners are in the same grade, yet their abilities are different. All
learners in a class might be officially in grade 3, but some cannot read or write. Their
level is really grade 1.

•

ones in which grade levels are actually mixed in a class - for example, putting grade 1
and grade 2 learners in the same class. This kind of multi-level situation is usual in
universities in Vietnam.

Large classes are always multi-level. Why? The more learners we put together, the more
variety we will have. This is why teachers of large classes must also be able to teach multilevel classes.
I.3.2. Challenges of teaching large multilevel classes
Large classes are a reality in many countries and they pose particular challenges. Thus, the
question here is what the challenges of teaching large multilevel classes are.
•

It's difficult to keep good discipline going in a large class.

•

You have to provide for more children of different ages and different abilities, wanting
to learn different things at different speeds and in different ways.

•

You can't easily give each child the individual attention they need.

•

You may not have enough books or teaching and learning aids.

Large and multi-level classes are more difficult to teach because they require more work on
the part of the teacher, they include many learners with different learning styles and needs,
and the potential for disruption is greater than in small classes.
I.3.3. CLT in large multilevel classes
The goal of CLT is to help learners to communicate meaningfully in a target language.
Therefore, many teachers embrace CLT because CLT represents a modern and progressive
way of language teaching and their belief is to teach students to be able to use the language.
However, when it comes to the level of practice, especially in large classes, teachers often
encounter many difficulties. Their desire to implement CLT, which is manifest through efforts
to promote common Western CLT practices such as pair work and group work, conflicts with
many contextual factors. These factors range from systemic constraints such as traditional
examinations, large class sizes, to cultural constraints characterized by beliefs about teacher
and student role, and classroom relationships, to personal constraints such as students' low
motivation and unequal ability to take part in independent active learning practices, and even
to teachers' limited expertise in creating communicative activities like group work.


Yang (2003) stated that ‘although teacher education programmes around the world have
emphasized the use of communicative teaching with more interest in learner-centredness,
novice and experienced teachers alike tend to follow the layout and suggestions of the
textbook only’. Teachers who have grown up in cultures with teacher-centred classrooms,
standardised examinations, prescribed textbooks, and large classes find it difficult to teach

communicatively and finally give up communicative teaching together. Thus, to make
communicative language teaching possible, teacher should consider how to use
communicative activities with wisdom at proper times to arouse learners’ interest. Such
activities are not necessarily group work or pair work, but should focus on task completion
rather than learning the form intently. In other words, Communicative Language Teaching has
to be focused, meaningful and fun.
Obviously, it is a big challenge for teachers of English to teach English for large multilevel
classes. Thus, importantly, it requires teachers to find out what their learners are interested in
beside assessing learners’ level, switching between modes of instruction and managing the
classroom wisely. Because according to Cheng (2004), ‘expectations of individuals are now
different’. And ‘Education has failed to realize that what the society is interested in among
our young people is what they could do in the future, rather than what they know at the
moment’.
Yang also added ‘Teaching junior students to order a Happy Meal in English in their [EFL]
home country is irrelevant, unless teachers can provide [an authentic] context where English
must be used’. CLT should not be treated as a package of formulaic, prescriptive classroom
techniques. Teachers in Vietnam or elsewhere need to make further efforts to develop and
generate, within the communicative approach, classroom techniques appropriate to their
conditions and also find out suitable activities to teach grammar in the light of CLT in large
multilevel classes.
In short, the chapter has so far conceptualized the discussion of issues and aspects concerning
the topic of the study. It has discussed the concepts and ideas relating to grammar, the use of
CLT in teaching grammar, multilevel classes, challenges of teaching large multilevel classes
as well as CLT in large multilevel classes. The following chapter will present the research
methodology and findings- under the light of the above-discussed theories.


II.1. THE SETTING OF THE STUDY
II.1.1. Background information about the current teaching and learning of
grammar at EPU.

II.1.1.1. The current situation
Electric Power University was founded in 2006, switching from Electric Power
College. As one of the new-born universities, it has to cope with many
difficulties in teaching and learning. In spite of difficulties and challenges,
English is always considered of great importance by all the leaders and teachers
because it equips students with additional skills to supplement and upgrade their
knowledge and then find better jobs after their graduation. Therefore, teachers of
English at EPU are making great efforts to find out appropriate approaching
methods to teach English more effectively.
However, there have been existed some problems needing to be solved. The
classes are quite big with more than 50 students in a class. Levels of students are
variable: elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate. There are even some
students who have never learnt English before. They also have different learning
styles. Some active students like communicating and participating in
communicative activities. Some are still influenced by traditional method of
teaching and learning. They are not aware of their language needs in term of
communication in real life situations. They often keep silent and are not willing
to participate in class activities. As a result, it is difficult for the teacher to
monitor the class and engage students in communicative activities in the class.
Besides, English is one of compulsory subjects at EPU but it is not the main
subject and the traditional exams-written exams are being used. Therefore, the
attitude towards English learning is also a matter. Their major is not English so
they do not devote themselves to English learning. Sometimes in the class, they
do not have independent habit of learning English. They just want to be given
exercises to practise grammar to pass the final exams. Some even think that


communicative activities are not necessary and just take time, not helping them
get high marks at the end of the term.
II.1.1.2. Experimental situation

Most teachers of English at EPU are very young and energetic. They are willing
to devote their time and enthusiasm to language teaching: researching and
debating to find out an appropriate and progressive way to teach English
effectively. As a result, using CLT in teaching grammar has been applied in
many classes at EPU for three reasons: (1) Traditional exams are based mainly
on grammar, (2) Understanding grammar is very important for EPU students as
it supplies basic knowledge for reading ESP documents, (3) CLT is a new trend
which is approved by many researchers and teachers in many countries.
The total time of 150 periods of English learning is divided into 2 terms of the
first year at the university. This means that students have 75 periods each term
and the test takers have 2 final tests at the end of each term.
The requirements of the 1st term is to cover 10 units from unit 1 to unit 10 in New
Headway Elementary and from unit 11 to unit 8 in New Headway Pre-Intermediate
Generally, students have 6 periods/ week and each period lasts 40 minutes and after
2 units they have a revision lesson.
New Headway Elementary and Pre-Intermediate are recommended to be used
as the textbook for 1st year non-major students at Electric Power University. It
was written by Liz and John Soars and is well -known and learnt by a lot of
learners from different places in the world. It is said that this course book is
appropriate for students who are in the first year and have the needs of
improving grammar, vocabulary and English skills such as speaking, listening,
reading and writing. New Headway presents basic structures of English and
develops them through a variety of different contexts. Emphasis is also placed
on enlarging the students’ knowledge of vocabulary, and on developing their
ability to communicate. The key features of New Headway are flexibility and
coherence. The grammar section presents and practices a structural area.


Understanding grammar structures is one of the most important factors for firstyear students. However, there is a fact that grammar lessons seem to be
separated from communicative activities and the real life, which makes learning

grammar become boring and unmotivated. Some grammar exercises are
repetitive and boring. One of the causes is the current grammar materials used
for first year students at the university. There were teachers complaining that
exercises in the textbooks were mainly mechanical drill ones, lack of context for
communication. Consequently, EPU teachers have used supplementary
materials or adapt materials to make grammar lesson more interesting and more
authentic. It makes students more active and the atmosphere in classes also
seems to be more authentic thanks to communicative activities. However, there
is one issue raising from the fact that classes at EPU contain between 55 and 65
students. Many teachers consider these classes are too large and that they give
rise to a number of problems. Another fact is that initial teacher training appears
to do little to help teachers deal with the issues raised by teaching and learning
in large classes. Teachers have to cope with classes which contain 50 students or
more learners are, therefore often ill-prepared to deal with the situation in which
they find themselves in schools. Some of activities demonstrate to be suitable
but some do not. The question here is that which communicative activities are
more appropriate to teach in large classes and to attract students at variable level
involve in activities actively and creatively.
II.2. The study on the effectiveness of using communicative activities to
teach grammar in large multilevel classes at EPU.
II.2.1. Description of data collection instruments and procedures.
II.2.1.1. Subjects of the study
The participants of this study were 117 first-year students from two classes at
EPU and 15 teachers.
The students are non-English majors aged from 18 to 20. All these non-English
majors learnt general English in the first year, preparing for English for specific
purposes in the second year.


15 teachers involve in the survey aged from 23 to 54. Their experience in

teaching English varies from 2 to 30 years. Of these teachers, 3 are master
holders, 9 are taking master courses at Hanoi National University, College of
Foreign Languages and Hanoi University. The rest graduated from other
universities. All of these teachers have experiences of teaching large multilevel
classes.
II.2.1.2. Instruments
This study employed the quantitative method which helped to provide qualified
background data for finding out appropriate activities for large multilevel
classes. In order to obtain in-depth and rich data, the study used a variety of
research instruments and sources of data: questionnaires, classroom observation
and interviews.
• Questionnaires
To gain data for the research, two kinds of questionnaires were designed. One was
designed for 117 non English major students and the other was for the teachers.
Some open-ended questions were also provided so that the respondents could
have opportunities to express their opinions about the items raised in the
questionnaires. The questionnaires are enclosed in the appendices.
The first questionnaire consists 3 parts. Part 1 is about learners’ personal
information, part 2, consisting 5 questions, is to obtain information on learning
grammar and learning grammar through communicative activities, part 3,
including 3 questions, is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of these
communicative in a large multilevel class. It was delivered to 117 non-English
majors in two classes at EPU. However, of 117 questionnaires delivered, 17
incompletely filled questionnaires are rejected, leaving 100 for analysis.
The second questionnaire was delivered to 15 teachers of English at EPU. The
purpose of this questionnaire is to draw information on grammar teaching, their


evaluation to communicative activities which they experience in large multilevel
classes and their suggestion to solutions in large multilevel classes.

• Classroom observation
Apart from the survey questionnaires for non-English majors and teachers,
classroom observation was employed to clarify and test the validity of
information. A large multilevel class of 63 first-year students at EPU was taught
grammar through communicative activities. The class observation was carried
out to evaluate whether the teachers would give the lesson successfully: the way
it motivates as many students as possible into the activity, the way she monitors
the class.
• Interviews
Both teachers and students would be respondents to the researcher’s interview to
discuss for further information to have depth understanding of their evaluation
to the effectiveness of communicative activities in large multilevel classes. Their
answer were copied and then translated into English. The questions for the
interviews are included in the Appendices.
II.2.1.3. Data analysis procedure
There were 117 survey questionnaires delivered to 2 classes consisting 64 and
53 first–year students. When delivering the questionnaires, the teacher was with
the students to give any explanations if necessary. The students were given 45
minutes to finish their answers. They, therefore, had enough time to think of the
answers carefully. These questionnaires were also collected by the teacher
herself.
In the first place, information collected from two types of questionnaires were
consolidated and categorized. The results were analyzed and presented in forms
of tables and figures. The observation notes were jotted down to provide the
findings in form of reflections. Beside classroom observation, information
gained through interviews was added to support the interpretation, making the
collected information more reliable and valid.


II.2.2. Data analysis and discussions

This part presents and discusses the findings which are resulted from the
analysis of the three sources of data collected: questionnaires, classroom
observation and interviews.
II.2.2.1. Questionnaire
The presented and analyzed data was taken from two questionnaires delivered
for both students and teachers at EPU.
Research Question 1: How has grammar been taught to large multi-level
classes of first year students at EPU?’
As can be seen from the table below, the students’ profile play a very important
role in deciding how grammar has been taught to large multilevel classes of the first
year students at EPU.
Years of learning English

Places

before entering EPU
0
of

1-3

3-5

>5

Provinces

Cities

4

10

11

19

56

81

19

11

19

56%

81%

19%

%

Number

<1

%

students
Percentage

4% 10%

Table 1: Students’ profile
The total number of the students chosen in the study was 100 of which 75 were male
and 25 were female. The majority were aged 19. Some were 18 and the rest belongs
to the age groups of 20-24.
More than a half of students have learnt English for over 5 years (56%). 19%
have spent from 3 to 5 years studying this language. 11 % have experience of 13 years in learning English while 10 % have learnt English less than one year.
There are even 4 students who have no experience of learning English because


they did not have it as a compulsory subject in high schools or they studied
another language such as French and Russian before.
Most of the study subjects came from the countryside and provinces round
Hanoi (81 students) while only 19 were from big cities. Their different places of
domicile led to a greatly various experience in their English language learning.
Students from the countryside and provinces round Hanoi were taught grammar
in traditional ways and have no opportunities to practise communicating
English. Therefore, it is hard for them to get acquainted with the approach of
learning grammar through communicative activities.
Age
25-30 31-35
No

of

9

Years of teaching

35-40

>40

<5

5-10

11-20

>20

2

2

2

11

1

1

2

teachers
Percentage

60%

13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 73.3% 6.6%

6.6%

Table 2: Teachers’ profile
Teachers’ profile is as important as students’ profile in how grammar has
been taught in large multilevel classes at EPU. As can be seen from the
table, the English teachers at EPU are rather young with 9 teachers aged
from 25-30. 2 are aged from 31-35, 4 are aged from 35 to more than 40. It
shows that the English teacher group of EPU are enthusiastic and willing to
acquire new methods and approaches to help their students gain the essential
knowledge. Also, they have a lot of experience in teaching English. In fact,
initial teacher training appears to do little to help the teachers deal with the
issues raised by teaching and learning in large

classes. Therefore, it is

hoped that their experience is enough to provide with useful advices for
coping with large class- a very common situation at EPU at the moment.
• The attitude of students at EPU towards the position of grammar
The data about the attitude of students at EPU towards the position of grammar
is summarized in the table below.


Very

Answer

important

Questions

Important Neutral

Almost
unimportant

Unimportant

How
important

is

52%

42%

5%

1%

0%

grammar?

Table 3: Students’ attitude towards the position of grammar
It can be seen from the table that in spite of some differences, almost students
at EPU are aware of the importance of grammar learning. Maybe it is because
their final tests are often in written form and focusing mostly on grammar.
Remarkably, 52% and 42% suppose that learning grammar is very important
and important respectively. Only 5% have neutral idea about the importance
of grammar learning. However, 1% and 0% claim that it is almost
unimportant or unimportant.
• Reasons for learning grammar
Why

do

you

learn Number of students

Percentage

grammar?
To pass the final exams

22

22%

To communicate better

55

55%

It is a compulsory subject

22

22%

Other reasons

20

20%

Table 4: Reasons for learning grammar
Information obtained from the survey reveals that the largest proportion of
participants find learning grammar help them improve communication skills.
Obviously, they have more motivations to learn grammar than other groups who
learn grammar just to pass the final exams (22%) or just because learning
grammar is compulsory at the university (22%). Thus, teaching grammar
through communicative activities may be an appropriate way of helping them
learn grammar effectively and also communicate successfully. In addition, 20%