the implementation of consciousness-raising technique on grammar teaching to a class of second-year non-major students at hanoi national university of education

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
***

TA THANH BINH


THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING
TECHNIQUE ON GRAMMAR TEACHING TO A CLASS OF
SECOND-YEAR NON-MAJOR STUDENTS AT HANOI
NATIONAL UNVIERSITY OF EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY

(Vận dụng thủ thuật xây dựng nhận thức ý nghĩa trong việc
dạy ngữ pháp cho một lớp sinh viên năm thứ hai không
chuyên ở Trường Đại Học Sư Phạm Hà Nội: Điển cứu)

PROGRAM I
M.A. MINOR THESIS


Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10




Hanoi, 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
***

TA THANH BINH


THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING
TECHNIQUE ON GRAMMAR TEACHING TO A CLASS OF
SECOND-YEAR NON-MAJOR STUDENTS AT HANOI
NATIONAL UNVIERSITY OF EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY

(Vận dụng thủ thuật xây dựng nhận thức ý nghĩa trong việc
dạy ngữ pháp cho một lớp sinh viên năm thứ hai không
chuyên ở Trường Đại Học Sư Phạm Hà Nội: Điển cứu)

PROGRAM I
M.A. MINOR THESIS


Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10
Supervisor: Phung Ha Thanh, M.A

Hanoi, 2010

iv
TABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Rationales of the study 1
1.2. Research problems and questions 2
1.3. Scope of the study 3
1.4. Methodology of the study 3
1.5. Significance of the study 4
1.6. Organization of the thesis 4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. Different approaches to grammar teaching 5
1.1.1. Zero-grammar approach versus form-focused approaches 5
1.1.2. Deductive versus inductive approach 6
1.2. Consciousness-raising 8
1.2.1. The concept of consciousness-raising 8
1.2.2. Characteristics of consciousness-raising 9
1.2.3. Consciousness-raising in relation to different approaches to grammar
teaching 10
1.2.4. Consciousness-raising versus practice 11
1.2.4.1. The role of practice in second language teaching 11
1.2.4.2. The role of consciousness-raising in second language learning 12
1.3. Studies on learners’ preferences to inductive consciousness-raising tasks 13
1.4. Studies on effectiveness of inductive consciousness-raising tasks. 14
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 15
2.1. The context and subjects 15
2.1.1. Teaching context 15

2.1.2. The subjects of the study 16
2.1.2. The researcher role 17
2.2. Procedure 17
2.2.1. Pre-treatment questionnaire 17
2.2.2. The treatment 18

v
2.2.3. Collection of worksheets 19
2.2.4. Post-treatment questionnaire 19
2.2.5. Data analysis 20
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 21
3.1. Which types of learning (the inductive consciousness-raising or the deductive
approach) did the students prefer before and after the implementation? 21
3.2. What are the possible reasons for their preferences? 21
3.2.1. Reasons for the preference of deductive learning. 22
3.2.2. Reasons for the preference of inductive consciousness-raising. 23
3.3. How different were students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising and
deductive learning? 23
3.3.1. In terms of interestingness 24
3.3.2. In terms of difficulty 24
3.3.3. In terms of usefulness 25
3.4. What were students’ opinions about learning grammar rules without practice? 25
3.5. To what extent did students succeed in discovering the target rules? 26
3.5.1. Success rates from the analysis of worksheets 26
3.5.2. Success rates from the analysis of students’ self-reflection 28
3.5.3. Failure rates in comparison 29
3.5.4. Reasons for failure 30
3.5.5. Success rates and the difficulty degrees in comparison 31
3.6. To what extend, did they remember the rules that they had discovered by
themselves? 31

3.6.1. Test results 31
3.6.2. Test results and success rates in comparison 32
CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 33
A. Summary of main findings 34
B. Implications 35
C. Limitations and suggestions for further research 36
REFERENCES 38
APPENDICES


vi
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS


Title
Page
Table 1
Reasons for students’ preferences
21
Table 2
Subjects’ evaluations on the two types of learning in terms of
interestingness
24
Table 3
Subjects’ evaluations on the two types of learning with regards to
difficulty
24
Table 4
Subjects’ evaluations on the two types of learning with regards to
usefulness

25
Table 5
Students’ opinions about learning without practice
25
Table 6
Students’ success rates in discovering rules
26
Table 7
Rule discovering failure rates in comparison
29
Table 8
Success rates of rule discovering and the difficulty degrees in
comparison
31
Table 9
Test results and success rates in comparison
32
Chart 1
Students’ success rate in discovering rules
27
Chart 2
Students’ self-reflection on their rules discovering
28




1
INTRODUCTION

1. Rationales of the study
According to Ellis (2006: 101), grammar has held and continues to hold a
central place in language teaching. Indeed, grammar has played an important part in
language education, explaining why grammar still has occupied a considerable space in
current language course-book materials. Moreover, the question of how grammar should
be approached has been in the arena for discussion for a century, proving that teaching
grammar is a matter of great concern by second language theorists. In practice, a great
amount of time in language teaching syllabuses has also been spent on grammar; and to
many teachers teaching a language mainly involves dealing with its grammar.
In Vietnam, the approach to grammar teaching that has been favoured by most
teachers of English is the deductive one, where teachers play the role of knowledge
providers and learners’ role is limited to receivers. Such way of teaching grammar is not
only tiring for teachers for they have to spend most of lesson time talking, presenting,
explaining, and correcting grammar practice exercises, but learners also find it boring to
attend long-lasting lessons in silence. More importantly, deductive teaching does not
foster learners’ autonomy because of its teacher-led quality. As a result of the deficit in
self-studying skills, learners have to depend greatly on the teacher for the main source
knowledge, thus restricting their learning success.
Using inductive consciousness-raising tasks in teaching grammar rules is one of
the possible solutions to the problems discussed above, because it not only relieve
teachers from the burden of speaking, enhance learners’ autonomy and create motivating
learning environment but it is also expected to be effective in terms of explicit
knowledge gains and retention. In an inductive grammar lesson, learners actively work
with one another most of the time and the teacher just interferes when help is needed,
hence enabling him/her to save a great deal of energy for presentation. Moreover,
consciousness-raising tasks require learners to discover grammar rules for themselves;
thus encouraging learners’ autonomy in the sense that if learners can find out rules for


2

themselves then they are making significant steps towards being self-reliant and
independent. Furthermore, inductive consciousness-raising involves problem-solving
activities, which are believed to be stimulating and motivating to the majority of learners.
In terms of effectiveness, inductive learning involves great mental effort, and learners
are actively engaged in the meaning-making process, consequently they are more
attentive and attain greater retention of the knowledge acquired.
Though grammatical consciousness-raising tasks have a firm base in second
language acquisition research and have become popular among theorists, they have not
been widely used by practitioners. There are several reasons accounting for this fact.
Some teachers are afraid that learners may not prefer the idea of discovering rules by
themselves for they normally expect to get knowledge from their teachers. Some project
that learners may feel frustrated when learning without practice. Others are concerned if
inductive consciousness-raising is effective for learners with low levels of English
because it is suggested by some researchers that learners need enough proficiency to
perform consciousness-raising tasks. This paper describes a study to investigate whether
this expectation has any basis.

2. Research problems and questions
The study purposes to investigate learners’ preferences between the inductive
conscious-raising and the traditional deductive approach to grammar teaching, reasons
for their liking, their evaluations on two types of learning, their opinions regarding
learning without practice, and the effectiveness of inductive consciousness-raising tasks.
Specifically, the study aims to address the following questions:
1) Which types of learning (the inductive consciousness-raising or the deductive
approach) did the students prefer before and after the implementation?
2) What are the possible reasons for their preferences?
3) How different were students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising
and deductive learning?
4) What were students’ opinions about learning grammar rules without practice?

3
5) To what extent did students succeed in discovering the target rules?
6) To what extend, did they remember the rules that they had discovered by
themselves?

3. Scope of the study
Consciousness-raising is a broad idea which can be applied to various fields of
teaching and consciousness-raising itself can be either inductive or deductive. The
consciousness-raising implemented in this study is grammatical consciousness-raising,
which is conducted inductively through six hypothesis making and testing steps.
The implementation of consciousness-raising tasks, takes place within three
lessons of grammar. The first two lessons involve the rules of meaning regarding present
continuous tense and modal verb “would”. The third lesson deals with formal rules of
indirect question.
The study primarily focuses on studying grammatical conscious-raising from
learners’ perspectives. It also investigates how effective grammatical consciousness-
raising is. The two aspects of effectiveness investigated are learners’ ability to discover
the target grammar rules and their retention of explicit knowledge after the
implementation.
The subjects in focus are undergraduate students having the pre-intermediate
level of proficiency in English. They are English non-major students at Hanoi National
University of Education.

4. Methodology of the study
This is a study on grammatical consciousness-raising from learners’ perspective.
The subjects were a group of twenty-nine English non-major undergraduate students
whose levels of English were pre-intermediate or below. The implementation of three
grammar lessons with consciousness-raising tasks was conducted in three consecutive
weeks. Data were collected before and after the implementation from pre-treatment and

post-treatment questionnaires. An additional data collection tool was a collection of


4
students’ worksheets. The type of data analysis used in this study was descriptive
statistics.

5. Significance of the study
In the first place, the research is expected to intensify the researcher’s
understanding of grammatical consciousness-raising, thus improving her own teaching
quality. Secondly, it is hoped to inspire other teachers of English to carry out further
investigations into consciousness-raising, so that it can be employed effectively and
widely in English language teaching.

6. Organization of the thesis
The first part, Introduction, briefly introduce the rationales, research questions,
methodology, scope and significance of the study.
The main part of this paper is designed with three chapters as follows:
Chapter 1, the Literature Review, offers the theoretical background to this study
by reviewing different approaches to grammar teaching and discussing a number of
studies on learners’ preferences and effectiveness of grammatical consciousness-raising.
Chapter 2, the Methodology, reports the design of the study, the subjects, the
data collection instruments used for this study and the statistical method to analyze the
data.
Chapter 3, the Findings and Discussion, provides an analysis of the data, the
interpretation of the results and discusses some prominent issues arising from the study
results.
The last part, Conclusion, draws pedagogical implications including a number of
recommendations for university teachers of English to use consciousness-raising tasks in
teaching grammar rules. It also points out some limitations of the study and suggestions

for further investigations.




5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Different approaches to grammar teaching
According to Ellis (2002:167), the two main questions which have been debated
in the field of language pedagogy are:
1) Should we teach grammar at all?
2) If we should teach grammar, how should we teach it?
The differences among various approaches to grammar teaching stem from how
they address these two above questions.

1.1.1. Zero-grammar approach and form-focused approaches
Ellis (1985: 229) introduced three possible explanations for the first question: 1)
the non-interface position; 2) the interface position and 3) the variability position.
The non-interface position advanced by Krashen (Ellis, 1985: 229) distinguishes
two types of knowledge: learnt knowledge and acquired knowledge. Krashen (1982) (in
Ellis, 2002: 167) maintains that “formal instruction in grammar will not contribute to
the development of acquired knowledge - the knowledge needed to participate in
authentic communication”; therefore, there is no point in grammar teaching.
On the contrary, the interface position lends credence to grammar teaching
because these two types of knowledge are not entirely separate (Ellis, 1985: 234). A
weak interface position which has been proposed by Seliger (1979) (in Ellis, 1985:234)
states that formal instruction facilitates acquisition. Seliger believes the learnt
knowledge of grammar rule may make the internalization of the rule easier and may
facilitate the use of features which are acquired, but still only “shadow” (in Ellis, 1985:

234). A strong interface position states that two types of knowledge can interact, and
explicit knowledge (learnt knowledge) can turn into implicit knowledge (acquired
knowledge) through practice (Ellis, 1985: 235).
The variability position holds the idea that different kinds of knowledge are used
in different types of language performance; for example, formal instruction presumably


6
develops the type of knowledge that is required to undertake the kinds of tasks in
“discrete-point” tests (Ellis, 1985: 237). Therefore, Bialystok (1982) (in Ellis R., 1985:
244) suggests “instruction must consider the specific goals of the learner and attempt to
provide the appropriate form of knowledge to achieve those goals”. As can be inferred
from the above discussion, the question of whether or not grammar should be taught
depends on learners’ specific needs.
The three positions support very different approaches to language teaching (Ellis,
2006: 97). Non-interface position leads to such zero-grammar approaches as: the Natural
Approach and Total Physical; while the interface position provides a strong base for
form-focused approaches. Particularly, the weak interface position supports techniques
that induce learners to attend to grammatical feature. Examples of those techniques are
Content-based Instruction and Task-based Language Learning. Whereas, the strong
interface position is the ground for Presentation-Practice-Production model (Ellis, 2006:
97). Finally, the variability position supports the combination of various methods
appropriate to specific teaching contexts, which serves as the base for Context-based
Language Teaching or Post-method pedagogy.

1.1.2. Deductive and inductive approaches
The answers for the question of how grammar should be taught are varied in
accordance with the various existing approaches to second language teaching. However,
those approaches can be categorised under two broad terms: inductive approach and
deductive approach. Then the question can be simplified into whether grammar should

be taught deductively or inductively.
A deductive approach is “an approach to language teaching in which learners
are taught rules and given specific information about a language” (Richard, Platt &
Platt, 1992: 98). Dealing with the teaching of grammar, the deductive approach can also
be called rule-driven learning because in such an approach, a grammar rule is explicitly
presented to students and followed by practice applying the rule. PPP model is a typical
example of this approach (Richard, Platt & Platt, 1992: 98).


7
An inductive approach comes from inductive reasoning in which a reasoning
progression proceeds from particulars to generalities (Felder & Henriques, 1995) (in
Widodo, 2006: 127). In inductive language teaching, “learners are not taught
grammatical rules or other types of rules directly but are left to discover or induce rules
from their experience of using the language” (Richard, Platt & Platt, 1992: 99).
Examples of approaches that make use of the principle of inductive learning are Direct
Method, Communicative approach, and Counselling Learning (Richards, Platt & Platt,
1992: 99).
Of the two above approaches, which one is better? This question provokes a
long-standing debate among theorists and practitioners.
Sheen (1992) (in Mohamed, 2004: 228) states that the deductive approach, where
the learners are explicitly taught the rules of particular features of the target language, is
the more effective mean of teaching grammar. Norris and Ortega (2000: 527), after
investigating and comparing the effectiveness of second language instruction in
publications between 1980 and 1998, conclude that explicit instruction (referring to
deductive instruction) is more effective than implicit one (referring to inductive
instruction).
However, Brown (1994: 105) states that an inductive approach “comforts more
easily to the concept of interlanguage development in which learners progress through
possible stages of rule acquisition.” Similarly, Bourke (1996) (in Mohamed, 2004: 228)

believes that an inductive approach, whereby learners are encouraged to look for
regularities for themselves is more successful than the deductive one.
There are a great number of researchers taking a middle ground in the debate
between inductive and deductive teaching supporters. Ellis (2006: 98), for example,
believes that “simple rules may best be taught deductively, while more complex rules
may best be taught inductively” and that “learners skilled in grammatical analysis are
likely to fare better with an inductive approach than those less skilled”. Other empirical
studies also show that some learners achieve better in deductive language lessons, while
others perform better in inductive classes (Widodo, 2006: 129). The difference may be


8
due to the difference in learners’ cognitive styles which are associated with their
different neurological mechanisms (Eisenstein, 1987, in Widodo, 2006: 129). To sum up,
both deductive and inductive presentations can successfully be applied depending on the
cognitive style of the learner and the language structure presented.

1.2. Consciousness-raising
1.2.1. The concept of consciousness-raising
Linguistically, the term consciousness-raising, “consciousness-raising” is
understood as “the deliberate attempt to draw the learner's attention specifically to
formal properties of the target language” (Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith, 1985: 274).
Ellis (2002: 168) states that “consciousness-raising involves an attempt to
equip the learner with an understanding of a specific grammatical feature - to
develop declarative rather than procedural knowledge of it.”
Both definitions given by Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith (1985: 274) and Ellis, R.
(2002: 168) are brief and broad. They just mention the goals at which consciousness-
raising aims but do not show how these aims can be achieved. In their definition,
Richards, Platt & Platt (1992: 78) give more information on how to draw learners’
attention. As they put it, consciousness-raising is “an approach to the teaching of

grammar in which instruction in grammar (through drills, grammar explanation, and
other form-focused activities) is viewed as a way of raising learner’s awareness of
grammatical features of the language. This is thought to indirectly facilitate second
language acquisition. A consciousness-raising approach is contrasted with traditional
approaches to the teaching of grammar, in which the goal is to instill correct
grammatical patterns and habits directly” (Richards, Platt & Platt, 1992: 78).
From the above definitions, it can hardly be figured out how consciousness-
raising is different from other traditional grammar-based methods and it is also not clear
to indicate the position of consciousness-raising in the swing of language teaching
approach pendulum. These questions will be discussed further in the following sections.



9
1.2.2. Consciousness-raising in relation to different approaches to grammar
teaching
1.2.2.1. The position of consciousness-raising in approaches to grammar teaching.
Consciousness-raising is often claimed to hold a “middle-ground position”
between two extreme approaches to grammar teaching (Yip V., 1994: 124 and Nunan D.,
1991: 151). At one end of the scale is the zero-grammar approach advocated by Krashen,
at the other end is traditional grammar based approaches. Consciousness-raising stands
for the pendulum swinging back but taking into account more recent findings of second
language acquisition research as well as benefits of communicative approaches.
It has to be pointed out, however, that grammatical consciousness-raising cannot
be considered simply as a movement “back to grammar” because it is characterized by
several important differences to older approaches: first of all, it does not aim the
production of the target structure in the short term but focuses on long-term learning
objectives, accepting that at the moment a structure is taught it may not be learnable for
the learner (Yip V. 1994: 125). Furthermore, grammar does not have to be taught in the
form of explicit rules; the learner may also be led to grammatical insights implicitly.

Thirdly, the focus on meaning introduced by the communicative movement is not
abandoned and texts that have been produced for communication are preferred over
concocted examples (Willis D. and Willis J., 1996: 64).

1.2.2.2. Inductive and deductive consciousness-raising
According to Ellis (2002: 172), consciousness-raising can be either inductive or
deductive. In the case of induction, “the learner is provided with data and asked to
construct an explicit rule to describe the grammatical feature which the data
illustrate”; whereas, in the case of deduction, “the learner is supplied with a rule which
is then used to carry out some task.” (Ellis, 2002: 172).
Mohamed (2004: 1) differentiates two types of consciousness-raising tasks. He
explains that “a deductive task provided explicit explanations of a grammar structure
while an inductive task required learners to discover the grammar rules for themselves.


10
If consciousness-raising activities are conducted inductively, they are quite
similar to theories of discovery learning. According to Hammer (1987: 29), “discovery
techniques are those where students are given examples of language and told to find out
how they work to discover the grammar rules rather than be told them.” Richard, Platt &
Platt (1992: 112) state that discovery learning based on the following principles:
a) Learners develop processes associated with discovery and inquiry by
observing, inferring, formulating hypotheses, predicting and communicating.
b) Teachers use a teaching style which supports the processes of discovery and
inquiry
c) Textbooks are not the sole resources for learning
d) Conclusions are considered tentative not final
e) Learners are involved in planning, conducting, and evaluating their own
learning with the teacher playing supporting role.
1.2.3. Characteristics of consciousness-raising

Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith (1985: 280) state that “consciousness-raising is
considered as a potential facilitator for the acquisition of linguistic competence has
nothing directly to do with the use of that competence”.
Ellis (2002: 169) also points out that consciousness-raising is only directed at
explicit knowledge, with no expectation that learners will use in communicative output a
particular feature that has been brought to their attention through formal instruction. He
contrasts the characteristics of a consciousness-raising task with characteristics of
practice and concludes that the main difference between the two is “consciousness-
raising does not involve the learner in repeated production”. Below are consciousness-
raising task characteristics listed in Ellis (2002: 168)
1. There is an attempt to isolate a specific linguistic feature for focused attention.
2. The learners are provided with data which illustrate the targeted feature and
they may also be supplied with an explicit rule describing or explaining the
feature.


11
3. The learners are expected to utilise intellectual effort to understand the
targeted feature
4. Misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the grammatical structure
by the learners leads to clarification in the form of further data and description
or explanation
5. Learners may be required (although this is not obligatory) to, articulate the
rule describing the grammatical structure.

1.2.4. Consciousness-raising versus practice
1.2.4.1. The role of practice in second language teaching
The role of practice in second language teaching is a controversial topic which
has been on the arena for discussion for the past few decades.
A strong interface position, which is implicit in traditional grammar-based

approaches, recognizes the connection between practice and use and maintains that
practice enables learners to use the structure they have been taught in communicative
situations (Larsen-Freeman D., 2003: 102).
However, Larsen-Freeman D. (2003: 103) argues that “learners require time to
integrate new grammatical structures into their interlanguage systems; for instance,
learners often produce forms that bear no resemblance to what has been presented to
them of practiced.”
Ellis (2002: 170), an advocator of a weak interface position, after reviewing
empirical and theoretical studies, also casts doubt on the efficacy of practice for
“practice will not lead to immediate procedural knowledge of grammatical rules,
irrespective of its quantity and quality.”
Furthermore, Krashen (in Larsen-Freeman, 2003: 103), who advocates non-
interface position state that “there are numerous studies that confirm that we can
develop extremely high levels of language competence without any production at all”
and “there is no direct evidence that output practice leads to language acquisition.”



12
1.2.4.2. The role of consciousness-raising in second language learning
There is also no consensus on the role of consciousness in second language
learning. As Schmidt (1990: 130) puts it, “the most common attitude towards
consciousness is one of skepticism”. Seligers (1983: 187, in Schmidt, 1990: 129)
devalues the role of consciousness and states that “it is at the unconscious level that
language learning takes place”. Krashen (1981, in Schmidt, 1990: 130) insists on the
little use of conscious learning in actual language production and comprehension. Gregg
(1984: 94), one of Krashen's harshest critics opposing Krashen's opinion that learning
can never become “acquisition”, also agrees on the fact that most language learning is
unconscious.
According to (Schmidt,1990: 131), consideration of the role of consciousness in

cognition and learning has been respectable over the recent decades. The most
prominent supporters of consciousness-raising are Rutherford and Sharwood. Rutherford
W. & Sharwood-Smith M., (1985) examine the role of consciousness-raising in the light
of Universal Grammar. They believe that “the sequence of language features as well as
the pace they are learned in is given by the learner, not the curriculum or the textbook
and the certain language features can only be learned in a fixed sequence”. Hence, in
their opinion, the function of grammar consciousness-raising is to highlight certain
grammatical features for the learner to develop his or her awareness of them, then when
he or she is ready to insert these specific features into the developing the second
language system, they will acquire them. Rutherford (1987: 25), furthermore, insists on
the fact that language learners already have a broad knowledge of language of both
specific and universal kind to build on and he calls the language learning process “an
interaction of the universal with the specific”. He consequently sees grammatical
consciousness-raising as a means of “illuminating the learner's path from the known to
the unknown”, in other words, “a facilitator for the acquisition of linguistic
competence”, as it is put in Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith (1985: 280).
Fotos (1994: 326) also agrees with Rutherford on the facilitating role of
consciousness-raising. In her opinion, “the grammar consciousness-raising task is not


13
aimed at developing immediate ability to use the target structure but rather attempts to
call learner attention to grammatical features, raising their consciousness of them, and
thereby facilitating subsequent learner noticing of the features in communicative input.”
Ellis (2002: 171) shares the same idea that “consciousness-raising facilitates the
acquisition of grammatical knowledge needed for communication.” He claims
consciousness-raising is not only helpful in the formation of explicit knowledge – which
is of limited use in itself – as he believes, but also contributes to the acquisition of
implicit knowledge. He points out two ways in which consciousness-raising facilitates
the acquisition of implicit knowledge:

1) It contributes to the processes of noticing and comparing and, therefore,
prepares integration. This process is controlled by the learner and will take place only
when the learner is developmentally ready.
2) It results in explicit knowledge. Thus, even if the learner is unable to integrate
the new feature as implicit knowledge, she can construct an alternative explicit
representation which can be stored separately and subsequently accessed when the
learner is developmentally primed to handle it. Furthermore, explicit knowledge serves
to help the learner to continue to notice the feature in the input, thereby facilitating its
subsequent acquisition.
He concludes that “consciousness-raising is unlikely to result in immediate
acquisition; more likely, it will have a delayed effect”

1.3. Studies on learners’ preferences of inductive consciousness-raising tasks.
There have been only few studies investigating grammatical consciousness-
raising from a learner perspective.
Ranalli (2001) conducted a study of learners’ preferences between
consciousness-raising and traditional deductive approaches. His study showed that the
learners showed no clear preference though they acknowledged that consciousness-
raising approach was more interesting. Instead, most of learners took a practical
approach by expressing a preference for a teaching method that sensibly combines the


14
two because they supported productive practice activities which are usually associated
with deductive learning (Ranalli, 2001: 3).
Mohamed (2004) investigated learners’ opinions about the use of deductive and
inductive consciousness-raising tasks in the teaching of grammar. The results of his
study indicated that learners view both task types to be useful and there was no obvious
preference for one task type over the other (Mohamed, 2004: 228).

1.4. Studies on the effectiveness of inductive conscious-raising tasks
There are a number of studies investigating the effectiveness of consciousness-
raising tasks (hereinafter to be referred as C-R tasks) in developing explicit knowledge
of second language.
Fotos and Ellis (1991) compared the effects of teaching grammar by grammar
explanations and by a C-R task on Japanese learners’ ability to judge the grammaticality
of sentences with dative (in Ellis, 2003: 163). They found that both methods resulted in
significant gains in understanding of the target structure.
However, Mohamed (2001)’s study showed that inductive C-R is more effective
than deductive C-R with groups of high intermediate learners. This study suggests that
the effectiveness of C-R tasks may depend on the proficiency of learners.
According to Ellis (2003: 164), “learners need sufficient proficiency to talk
metalingually about the target feature, and if they lack this, they may not be able to
benefit to the same degree from a C-R task”. He suggests C-R tasks may not be well-
suited to young learners and may not appeal to learners who are less skilled at forming
and testing hypotheses about the language. The problem here relates to whether learners
are able to verbalise the target rules. Sharwood-Smith (1981: 162) argues that the
articulation and learning of rules is not an element of necessity in C-R, because “C-R
can be accomplished without requiring of learners to talk about what they have become
aware of”.




15
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
2.1. The context and subjects
2.1.1. The teaching context
The research was done in the Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of
Education. The Faculty of English is in charge of teaching two types of students:

English-majored students are those who train to be teachers of English and the non-
majors are those who learn English as a minor subject in their curriculum. The present
study involved English non-major students who generally do not have strong motivation
to learn English because their future jobs (as a teacher of math, philology, physics,
chemistry and the like) have little thing to do with English. But rather, they learn English
just because it is a compulsory subject in the university curriculum. Therefore, they do
not have any communicative needs and passing the exam is their first and foremost goal.
The course-book series used for English non-major students is Lifeline. Students
are supposed to finish two books Lifeline Elementary and Lifeline Pre-intermediate in
three terms of fifteen weeks. In each week students have four class hours of English. In
total, there are 180 class hours spent on two volumes of Lifeline, each of which consists
of 14 units. In each unit, there are four main parts, namely grammar, vocabulary, reading,
listening and speaking; however, speaking is less stressed in this course book series.
Students have to take two mid-term exams and one end-term exam in each
school term. Each mid-term exam accounts for 25% of the final score; and 50% of the
final result is attributed to the end-term exam. The first mid-term exam consists of two
subtests: a listening test and a writing test (focusing on grammatical structures). The
second mid-term exam is a speaking test consisting of 3 parts, namely picture
description, topic presentation and free questions and answers. The end-term exam
consists of 50 multiple choice questions focusing on grammar knowledge.
As it is inferred from the text book and the nature of the end-term exam, the
importance has been put on grammar knowledge.



16
2.1.2. The subjects of the study
The subjects in this study were a group of twenty-nine second-year English non-
major students at Hanoi National University of Education. They were mathematics
major students who are assumed to possess logical minds; therefore, it was expected that

hypothesis making and testing might work for them.
Furthermore, all of them were about nineteen or twenty year old, the age at
which people are usually recognized for their creativity and open-mindedness, which
means they were expected to have a more receptive view to new ideas as well as new
methods of learning than older people.
Their assumed level of proficiency in English was pre-intermediate, but their
actual command of English is quite heterogeneous. According to their previous end-term
test results, three fifths of them are able to attain pre-intermediate and the rest of two
fifth are just at elementary or lower levels. As it was suggested by Ellis R. (2003), their
low competence of English might not enable them to talk metalingually about
grammatical features. However, in the researcher’s opinion, it did not matter if they
were allowed to use their mother tongue to verbalise the target grammar rules.
As it was revealed from the pre-treatment questionnaire, the most popular model
of grammar lessons that the subjects had experienced was the deductive one (with the
ranking of 72.4%) while the least frequently seen one was inductive teaching with C-R
tasks with 82.7% students rating C-R as the least frequently seen. This fact was not to
suggest that all of them could be expected to prefer deductive learning when offered a
choice because each individual would undoubtedly have a different learning style.
However, the frequent experience of deductive learning could affect their expectation
about a grammar lesson: they would expect their teachers to explain everything and
might feel frustrated with being asked to construct their own rules.
All of the above features of the subjects made up a complicated case that is worth
insightful investigations. With regards to the research questions, some of the features
might be positive while the others might contradict the results.


17
For the subjects were all undergraduate students the two terms “subjects” and
“students” is used interchangeably in this study.

2.1.3. The researcher role
The researcher played a role of an insider, who had close relationship with the
subjects because she had been teaching them for one semester. Primarily she was a
practitioner rather than a researcher. Her research aims were to gain insightful into her
teaching contexts and solve problems that she had encountered.

2.2. Procedure
The implementation and the data collection took five weeks on the whole. In the
first week, pre-treatment questionnaire sheets were delivered and collected. Data from
this first questionnaire was processed before the implementation of the three lessons. In
case the results showed that the majority of the subjects had already known about the
target grammar rules, the contents of the three lessons would be changed. The reason
was there was no point in asking students to discover the rules that they had already
mastered. The three treatment lessons were conducted one by one in the three following
weeks consecutively. The students’ worksheets were handed out at the beginning and
collected at the end of each lesson. The post-treatment questionnaire was conducted in
the fifth week, one week after the last treatment lesson.

2.2.1. Pre-treatment questionnaire
The pre-treatment questionnaire was consisted of seven questions, with a mixture
of self-reporting, attitudinal and testing question types. The three first questions inquired
students’ past grammar learning experience and their opinions about the way of
grammar teaching that they had most frequently experienced. In the question number
four students were asked to make a choice between the inductive and deductive
procedures of grammar teaching. The three last questions purposed to test their
knowledge about the target grammar rules.


18
2.2.2. The treatment

According to Ellis R. (2002: 172), consciousness-raising itself can be either
inductive or deductive. The inductive way of implementing consciousness-raising is
using C-R tasks, where “the learner is provided with data and asked to construct an
explicit rule to describe the grammatical feature which the data illustrate”.
Willis D. and Willis J. (1996: 69) list seven categories of C-R task types:
i. identify and consolidate patterns or usages;
ii. classifying items according to their semantic or structural
characteristics;
iii. hypothesis building, based on some language data, and then perhaps
checked against more data;
iv. cross-language exploration;
v. reconstruction and deconstruction;
vi. recall;
vii. reference training.
The C-R task type implemented in this study was the third one, the inductive
hypothesis building. Basing on that idea, the researcher designed three C-R grammar
lessons, each of which consisted of six steps.
Step 1: setting the scene (learners listen to, or read, a text in order to grasp basic
meaning);
Step 2: comprehension questions (learners answer comprehension questions
following the listening or reading texts);
Step 3: noticing (learners notice the form, and match form to meaning);
Step 4: making hypothesis (learners generate their own hypotheses);
Step 5: checking hypothesis (learners test their hypotheses with other examples);
Step 6: confirming hypothesis (learners confirm their hypotheses).

All three grammar lessons were adapted from text materials in Lifeline Pre-
intermediate by Tom Hutchinson and New Headway Pre-intermediate by Liz and John

19
Soars. Lesson one was about “the present continuous tense with future meaning” (see
appendix 3). Lesson two dealt with using “would” to talk about past habits (see appendix
4). And finally the structures of indirect questions were the focus of lesson three.
The three above grammar items was chosen for the reason of convenience. The
materials available for these grammatical features were easier to be adapted into C-R
tasks than those for the others.
There are six tasks (equivalent to six steps mentioned above) in each lesson. The
teacher played a role as a guide who helped the students to understand the task
instructions. Sometimes teachers had to explain the task instructions in Vietnamese so
that every student was clear about what to do. The students worked in groups or pairs in
tasks one, two, three and five; however, they were asked to work alone in tasks four and
six, where they had to write down their hypothesis about the rules. Individual work was
required here to make sure the students themselves discovered the target rules rather
than simply copied their classmates’ work.

2.2.3 Collection of worksheets
Each of the students’ worksheets consisted of six tasks. In task four and task six,
students were asked to write down the target rules in both Vietnamese and English;
hence, only the answers for tasks four and six were analysed. Each student had to hand
one piece of worksheet at the end of each lessons (see appendix 3, 4, and 5).

2.2.4. Post-treatment questionnaires
Almost all of the questions in the two questionnaires were close-ended ones with
defined answers. There was only one question where students were asked to give their
own reasons for their choices. The nature of the questions is attitudinal, self-reporting
and testing.
The first questions of the post-treatment questionnaire were to inquire students’
evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising grammar teaching. The second question
aimed to inform whether students prefer C-R lessons or traditional deductive learning.

20
The fourth question aimed to elicit students’ opinion about learning without practice and
the next question was to check whether students had, in fact, found out the rules or not.
At the end of the questionnaire, there were some questions to test students’ explicit
knowledge of the target grammar rules.

2.2.5. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics was employed to describe the data addressing the following
main questions:
1) Which types of learning (the inductive consciousness-raising or the deductive
approach) did the students prefer before and after the implementation?
2) What are the possible reasons for their preferences?
3) How different were students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising
and deductive?
4) What were students’ opinions about learning grammar rules without practice?
5) To what extent did students succeed in discovering the target rules?
6) To what extend, did they remember the rules that they had discovered by
themselves?
Data for almost all of the questions were calculated by percentage to compare the
frequency of distribution. The third question asked students to evaluate how interesting,
difficult and useful were the three C-R lessons Each point in the scales of interestingness,
difficulty and usefulness was given a number, with number four for the highest degree
and number one for the lowest degree. All the scores were recorded, then the Mean and
Standard Deviation for each lesson or each learning type were calculated for
comparison. The mean scores were interpreted under the following scheme:

3.26 – 4.00: Very interesting/ difficult/ useful
2.51 – 3.25: Somewhat interesting/ difficult/ useful

1.76 – 2.50: Somewhat boring/ easy/ useless
1.00 – 1.75: Very boring/ easy/ useless