Tác động của các hoạt động nâng cao nhận thức đối với năng lực ngữ pháp của học sinh lớp 10, trường THPT Trần Nhật Duật

V IE T N A M N A T IO N A L Ư N IVER S ITY-H A N O I
Ư NIVE R S ITY OF LAN GƯ AGES & IN T E R N A T IO N A L STUD IES
F A C U L T Y OF POST - GRADƯ ATE STU DIE S
i e i e i c i c k i c i e i c k i c i d e i d c i c i c k
Đ IN H T H Ị TH A N H V ÂN
•
THE EFFECT OF CONSCIO USNESS-RAISING
ACTIVITIES ON THE 10th GRADE STUDEN TS’
GRAM M ATICAL COM PETENCE
AT TRAN NHAT DUAT UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL
(Tác động của các hoạt động nâng cao nhận thức đối vói năng lực ngữ
phap của học sính lóp 10, trường T H P T Trần Nhật Duạt)
M .A . M IN O R PR O G RA M M E TH E S IS
Field : English Teaching Methodology
Code : 601410
Supervisor: Phạm Thị Hạnh, M .A .
ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRUNG TAM THÕNG TIN THƯ VIỆN
ữQ U 0004%
HANOI-2011
DECLARATION
I hereby State that the m lnor thesis entitled “The effect of consciousness-
raising activities on grade 10th students’ gram m atical competence at T ran Nhat D uat
U pper Secondary School” and subm itted in partial fulfiUment of the requirem ents for
the degree of M aster of A rts in English teaching methodology is the result of my own
research. The substance of the thesỉs has not, wholly o r in part, been subm itted for a
degree to any other universities o r institutions.
The research reported in this thesis was approved by Ms Pham Thi H anh,
M.A., Vietnam National University of Hanoi.
Hanoi, Septem ber, 2011
Đinh Thị T hanh Vân

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude and respect to my supervisor,
Ms. Pham Thi Hanh, M.A., for her continual guidance, comment, and especially her
sympathy throughout the whole research process.
I am also grateful to all teachers at the Postgraduate Department, ƯLIS,VNU, whose
lectures and guidance have contributed to my understanding o f the problem and led to the
completion o f this thesis. My special thanks would also go to Dr Le Van Canh, who helped
us update the modem approaches in English teaching methodology and suggested this
thesis.
I am indebted to my beloved friend, To Thi Ngoe Nga, ULIS, VNU, for her
encouragement. She was so helpful and dedicated in spite o f her illness. Thanks also go to
my colleague, Ly Tuan Anh for his support in collecting the data for the study.
Especially, I wish to express my appreciation to my students o f class 10 A l, TNDUSS,
who have been really helpíul and cooperative in the implementation o f the study.
Last but not least, I would also like to send my whole-hearted thanks to my family, my
parents and my husband who took care of my two little sons and supported me spiritually
during my study.
ABSTRACT
The teaching approach of grammar has always been the most complex and
controversial aspects in second language teaching in general and in English in particular.
With an investigation into the reality of teaching and leaming grammar at Tran Nhat Duat
Upper Secondary school, this thesis is aimed at working out an appropriative, effective,
suitable and practical approach in a mountainous context, not to pinpoint the right or
correct method to teach grammar. Upon carrying out a preliminary investigation and
literature review, it is found that CR activities, which integrate instructional assumptions
and components of traditional and communicative methods, can work well in the context
of a mountainous school. CR activities were then designed and implemented in the second
term of the school year 2010-2011 with the participation of 41 students from class 1 OA 1.
In order to collect the data, a number o f instruments were employed including: (a) a semi-
structured group interview to the twenty students o f grade 10,h in that school; (b) classroom

observations; (c) a questionnaire aíìer applying CR and (d) a test. The results o f the study
reveal that (1) students had a positive attitude towards the necessity of English grammar
learning; (2) the tradỉtional methods were mainly used in this school and (3) CR activities
vvere effective on ỉmproving students' grammaticaỉ competence. As far as the study
suggests, it can be concluded that CR activities can be an effective tool for the
improvement of Engiish grammar teaching practices.
ABBREVIATIONS
MOET: Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training
CR: Consciousness-raising
CC: Communicative competence
GC: Grammatical competence
LC: Linguistic competence
CLT: Communicative language teaching
L2: Second language
L l: First language
SSLE: Second School Leaving Examination
TNDƯSS: Tran Nhat Duat ưpper Secondary School
T: teacher
Sts: students
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
D ECLA R A TIO N
i
K NO W LE DGE M E NTS ii
ABSTR ACT iii
LIST OF A BBR EV IA TIO NS iv
PA RT I. IN T R O DU CTIO N 1
1. Rationale for the study 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 3

4. Signiíìcant of the study 3
5. Method of the study 4
6. Organization of the study 5
PA RT II. DEV E LO PM EN T 5
C hap ter 1: LITER A TU R E REVIEVV 6
1.1 Com munỉcative com petence and gram m atical com petence

6
1.1.1 Communicative com petence 6
1.1.2 Grammatical competence 8
1.2 Methodology for teaching gra m m ar 10
1.2.1 Pro and Anti-Grammar Perspectives
10
1.2.2 The Evolution of Language Teaching M ethodology

12
1.2.3 Consciousness-raising approach
17
C hapter 2: RESEARCH M E TH O D O L O G Y 21
2.1 Background of the stu d y 21
2.1.1 The course 21
2.2.2 The students 21
2.2.3 The teachers 22
2.2 Research questions 23
vi
2.3 Research ap p roach 23
2.4 P a rticip a n ts 25
2.5 Instruments 25
2.6 D ata collection pro ced ures 27
2.7 D ata anaiysis p rocedures 29

2.8 S u m nia ry 29
C hap ter 3: THE PRACTICA L STUDY 30
3.1 Prelim inary investigation 30
3.1.1 Interviews 30
3.1.2 Class observations 32
3.2 In tervention 34
3.2.1 The design and aims ofC R activities 34
3.2.2 Procedures o f the CR lessons 34
3.3 E valu atio n 36
3 .3.1 Data presentation of the evaluation questionnaires 36
3 .3.2 Data presentation of the quizzes and the test 4 0
3.4 S um m ary 39
C hap ter 4: DISCUSSION O F TH E FIN D IN G S
40
4.1 Research question 1 40
4.2 Research question 2 40
4.3 Research question 3 41
PART III: CO NCL U SIO N 41
1. Conclusion 41
2. R ecom m endations 42
3. Lỉm itations of the study and suggestions for ĩu rth er study

43
4. Suggestions for the fu rth er stu dy
44
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
1
PA RT I: IN TR OD U CTIO N
1. R ationale of the study

English has become a common means of communication of human beings all over
the world. Integrating into that trend of the global integration, Vietnam has been more and
more active to train hard-working and dynamic Vietnamese, who can use English íluently
for communicative purposes. Much effort has been spent on improving Vietnamese students’
competence to be able to communicate in English. The most signiíicant solution can be the
implementation of the new series of English books started in 2 0 0 6 by the Ministry of
Education and Training (MOET) for secondary high school which claimed to develop both
language skills and language knowledge for students. There are two types of textbook sets:
the advanced and the Standard ones. Each unit in the new English textbooks consists of five
parts: Reading, Speaking, Listening, Writing and Language Focus, among which the
Language Focus sections are to consolidate students’ pronunciation and grammar.
Once the new textbooks have been implemented, the teaching approach has also
changed. However, the teaching approach of grammar has always been the most complex
and controversial aspects. It has taken a long but not easy time for teachers to change their
traditional ways of teaching to so-called communicative approach. But after several years
applying communicative language teaching (CLT), although seeing a lot of its advantages,
many teachers have wondered vvhether CLT is really effective, suitable and practical in
Vietnamese context, which rarely has “the opportunity to take part in meaningíul
communication interaction with highly competent speakers of the language, i.e. to respond
to genuine communicative needs in realistic second language situations” (Canale and
Swain (19 8 0 ), cited in Canh, 2 0 0 0 ); and in which most of the national examinations whose
sole objective is to measure candidates’ linguistic or grammatical competence in vvritten
form. Especially, in the context of a mountainous upper secondary school in Yen Bai
province, teaching English is not a simple task because of many reasons. Firstly, the
students in this school have a low level of English; every student with the English score at
the school entrance examination above zero can enter the school. Secondly, the size of the
class at the school is big with average of over 4 0 students in one class, which makes
teachers diffícult to take control. Furthermore, other problems are compounded by poor
living conditions, poorly-fumished classrooms, scarce access to supporting materials and
facilities, limited access to the target language. As a result, many students fail to make

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

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

herself actually experienced traditional methods and saw their advantages on tests and
disadvantages on communication; she then tried the communicative methods vvith a lot of
difficulties in a mountainous school and deeply wanted to take some actions for
improvement. However, teaching of grammar is the most controversial and each teacher
has their own reasons to choose a suitable grammar teaching approach for their own
4
context. Thereíore, the activities which the researcher applied may be appreciated in this
context but unappreciated in others and the results need a reílective phase for action during
the next circle.
This study employed both qualitative and quantitative data collection Instruments
including interview, class observation, questionnaire and test.
Firstly, a review o f literature was conducted, critically examining the various
theoretical issues conceming communicative competence, grammatical competence, and
approaches on grammar teaching, especially consciousness- raising approach.
Secondly, an intervievv was conducted with some guided questions. The
interviewees were given the questions before for better preparation of ideas and thoughts.
Because the questions gathered information o f a rather diffícult topic to the students and it
involved a great recall of grammar teaching and leaming experiences, they obviously
needed time to prepare. The prepared questions also kept the intervievver as an
inexperienccd researcher ííom losing tract. Besides, students’ interviews were taken to
provide preliminary data on their thinking for the researcher to identify their difficulties
and their desires tovvard grammar teaching and leaming beíore CR activities were applied.
Furthermore, to identify once again the problem, class observation was etnployed
to investigate teaching approaches in grammar lessons and students’ ways of leaming in
class, and to compare betvveen what the students said and the fact. Three grammar lessons
taught by three different teachers were observed and then transcribed in details to identify
gaps betvveen what the students said in the intervievv and what actually happens in class.
The grade 10,h Language Focus lessons, not other lesson skills, were chosen because the
researcher prefers a real picture of grammar teaching and the grammar teaching cannot be
conducted carefully in any lesson, but only in Language Focus lessons.

Then, a questionnaire after eight lessons applying CR was carried out to provide
triangulated data on students’ grammar leaming preference and their reactions to CR
activities.
Last but not least, quantitative data of a quiz after each lesson and a test after all
eight lessons applying CR were analyzed to confirm the effect o f CR activities on students’
grammatical competence.
5
6. O rganization of the study
This study consists of five parts: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology,
Results & Discussion, and Conclusion.
• Part one: Introduction - presents the rationale, aims, signiíìcance, scope,
methodology, and organization of the study.
• P art two: Development
C hap ter one: Literature Review - provides a theoretical basis for the study.
C hap ter two: Research Methodology - includes an overview of the approach used
in conducting the study. It also provides a thorough description of the data collection
procedure as well as the analytical procedure.
C hapter three: The Practical Study
C hapter four: Discussion of the íìndings - reports the íĩndings of the study and
discusses the prominent aspects.
• P art three: Conclusion - presents the conclusions of major íindings,
recommendations, limitations for the study, and suggestions for further studies.
6
PA RT II: D EVELO PM EN T
CHA PTER ONE: LITER ATURE REVIEW
Grammar teaching methodology and consciousness raising approach needs to be
theory driven. Tliis chapter reviews prominent literature to support the research. The
principal areas to be discussed are communicative competence, grammatical competence,
CR approach and CR activities.
1.1 Com municative competence and gram m atỉcal com petence

1.1.1 Com municative competence
The íĩrst challenge with which the researcher has to be encountered is how to
detlne communicative competence. As far as her restricted knovvledge, the term was
originally coined by Hymes (1966), reacting against the perceived inadequacy of
Chomsky's (1965) linguistic competence with the distinction between
competence and
performance. For Chomsky, linguistic competence (LC) was deíĩned as the innate system
o f linguistic knowledge possessed by native speakers of a language. This is in contrast to
linguistic períbrmance which refers to the actual use of a language. According to Chomsky,
it is the 'ideal' language system that makes it possible for speakers to produce and
understand an iníìnite number of sentences in their language, and to distinguish
grammatical sentences from ungrammatical sentences. This is unaffected by
"grammatically irrelevant conditions" such as speech errors. LC includes components such
as phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics and morphology.
For Hymes, competence is integral to attitudes and values conceming language and
other codes of communication. Here is reíerence to "social factors" which he exempliíìes
as positive productive aspects of linguistic engagement in social life: “there are rules of use
without which rules of grammar vvould be useless” (Hymes, 1972). Hymes was interested
in what degree o f competence speaker/hearers needed in order to give themselves
membership of particular speech communities. Hymes examined what factors-particularly
socio-cultural ones in addition to "grammatical competence" are required for
speaker/hearers to participate in meaningful interactions. He asserted that a sentence must
not only be grammatically correct but it must be appropriate in reaction to the context in
which it is used as well. For Hymes, what an individual needs to know in order to be
communicatively competent in a speech community is to understand the rules of use,
7
vvhich determine “when to speak, when not, and as to talk about with whom, when, where,
in what manner” (Hymes, 1972, p. 277)
As much as there has already been much debate about linguistic competence (LC)
and communicative competence (CC) in the second and íòreign language teaching

literature, the outcome has always been the consideration o f c c as a superior model of
language following Hymes’ opposition to Chomsky's LC.
Other linguists strongly coníìrin Hymes’ theory. Canale and Svvain (1980) deíìned
c c in terms of three components: grammatical competence: (words and rules),
sociolinguistic competence (appropriateness), strategic competence (appropriate use of
communication strategies) and in 1983, Canale reíìned the above model, adding discourse
competence (cohesion and coherence). Canale and Svvain (1980, pp. 35-36) imply c c
could be used as a signiíìcant basis to helping students produce target language as a Central
feature o f their social interaction. They State that one o f the many aspects of c c which
must be investigated, more rigorously, before a communicative approach can be
implemented fully in the areas of second language teaching and testing is: development of
administratively feasible cỉassroom activities that can be used to encourage meaningful
action in target language use. That is the reason why c c is considered One of the most
important theories that underlie the communicative approach to foreign language teaching.
Savignon (1985, p. 130) also views c c as:
' the ability to function in a truly communicative setting that is a dynamic
exchange in which LC must adapt itself to the total information input, both
linguistic and paralinguistic o f one or more interlocutors. c c includes GC
(sentence level grammar), socio-Iinguistic competence (an understanding of the
social context in which language is used), discourse competence (an understanding
of how utterances are strung together to form a meaningful whole), and strategic
competence (a language user's employment of strategies to make the best use of
what s/he knows about how a language works, in order to interpret, express, and
negotiate meaning in a given context).’
Bachman (1990) divides c c into the broad headings of "organizational
competence," which includes both grammatical and discourse (or textual) competence, and
"pragmatic competence," which includes both sociolinguistic and "illocutionary"
competence. Through the iníluence of CLT, it has become widely accepted that c c should
be the goal of language education, Central to good classroom practice. This is in contrast to
8

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

language are aưanged. A cognitive linguist might see grammar as our innate knowledge of
the structure of language. A íunctional linguist might see grammar as a resource used to
accomplish communicative purposes in speciĩic contexts. According to Brumíit & Johnson
9
(1979), a grammar describes and attempts to account for the ability of the speaker to
understand an arbitrary sentence o f his language and to produce an appropriate sentence on
a given occasion. Bastone (1994) divides grammar into product: the component parts of
rules that make up the language, and process: the way in which grammar is depỉoyed from
moment to moment in communication. These authors do not only consider the vital role of
grammar in writing but also in speaking. Widdowson (1990) also cỉaims that “Grammar is
not just a collection of sentence pattems signiíying nonsense, something for the leam er’s
brain to puzzle over.” For him, grammar should be viewed as linguistic rules ílinctioning in
alliance with words and context for the achievement of meaning.
As impressive as the various deíĩnitions of grammar, grammatical competence is
deíìned in diíTerent ways. One of the most significant deílnitions is “grammatical
competence is One among four components of communicative competence” (Canale and
Swain, 1980) such as above reference. Thombury (1999) writes that from "a leamer's
perspective, the ability both to recognize and to produce well-formed sentences is an
essential part of leaming a second language" (Thombury, 1999, p. 3), but points out that
there exists a lot of controversy and debate on how this ability is best developed and
achieved. GC is a massive íìeld, and the syllabus outlines the grammatical content to be
taught and is usually represented in the course books vvhich then in tum are the basis for the
language teachers' decisions in regards to what to focus on and what to teach in a grammar
context. More speciíìcally, GC íocuses on command of the language code, including such
things as the rules of word and sentence /ormaíion, meanings, speỉling and pronunciation
(Gao, 2001) (my emphasis). The goal is to acquire knowledge of, and ability to use, forms of
expression that are grammatically correct and accurate (Díaz-Rico & Weed, 2010; Gao,
2001). Grammatical competence acts to promote accuracy and Ịỉuency (my emphasis) in
second language production (Gao, 2001), and increases in importance as the leamer
advances in proíĩciency (Díaz-Rico&Weed, 2010). Fotos (1994) also has the same idea.

In short, GC is not an opposite extreme of cc but it is an important part of cc. It is
the students’ ability to recognize the distinctive grammatical structures of a language and
then to use them to communicate effectively, accurately and íluently. However, to
motivate students successfully, it depends a lot in teacher’s methods. More importantly,
grammar needs to be taught in context. As Larsen-Freeman (2000) points out, we need to
pay attention to the three dimensions o f grammar: form, meaning and use. Simply teaching
10
grammar rules and/or having student memorize verb conjugations will not help students
acquire grammatical competence.
1.2 Methodology for teachỉng grammar
Methodology in language teaching has been characterized in a variety of ways.
Within methodology is a distinction often made between methods and approaches, in
which methods are held to be íixed teaching systems with prescribed techniques and
practices, and approaches are language teaching of different ways in the classroom.
Teachers may follow the same approach but use various methods to reach the íĩnish.
To make an analysis of grammar teaching methodology, let’s start the point with
Ellis (2002)’s questions: 1. Should we teacher grammar at all?
2. If we should teach grammar, how should we teach?
1.2.1. Pro and A nti - g ram m ar perspectives
To answer for the first question, it is simple “Yes” or “No” but the controversy is
not really simple. A lot o f linguists and researchers have supported grammar teaching. The
c c model o f Canale and Swain (1980) consists o f four components: grammar competence,
discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence, which clearly
illustrates the signiíìcance of grammar as one component o f c c . Smith (2001) also worries
that if we do not pay attention to grammar nor create opportunities for leamers to improve
their grammar, they are likely to stand the risk o f “fossilization”.
Rutheríord and Smith (1985) report that grammar teaching can be beneíìcial to
leamers in the sense that it raises leam ers’ consciousness conceming the differences and
similarities of LI and L2. Therefore, grammar teaching can be used as a “linguistic map”
with the road signs to help students as they explore the “topography” o f the new language.

Hannan (1989), Lewis (1986) and Gamer (1989) also gi ve strong support to
grammar teaching. Hannan argues that grammar is highly valuable as an important part of
the study o f the Ianguage, o f ideas and o f writing. Gam er believes that grammar gives us a
means to analyze and describe our language.
To sum up, the rationale for teaching grammar is multifaceted and grammar is
acknowledged to be important in language teaching and leaming. When teaching a íbreign
language, grammar cannot be neglected because if the leamers do not study grammar, they
do not have the base to use a language. Unless leaming of grammatical system is begun,
the leamers will have no foundation on which íurther leaming can be based once they are
11
in the language community. It must be the aim to create the conditions for communicative
and grammar facts to be leamed simultaneously.
One of the biggest challenges to pro-grammar perspectives comes from Krashen,
who has intended to downplay the value of deliberate grammar teaching. The study of
grammar has only a second role in the language program with the goal to produce optimal
monitor-user, programmers who can use grammar as a supplement to acquisition when
they have time, when the focus is on form, and when they know the rules. In Krashen and
Tarrel (1983)’s Natural Approach, grammar can be acquired naturally from meaningful
input and opportunities to interact in the classroom and GC can be developed in a íluency-
oriented environment vvithout conscious focus on language forms. O f course, some
leamers may acquire second language grammar naturally without being taught such as
immigrants to the United States, who attain proíìciency in English on their own can be a
goođ example o f naturalistic acquisition (Lightbovvn and Spada, 1999), but this is not true
for all leamers.
Gregg (1984) criticizes Krashen’s acquisition hypothesis that “ Krashen himself
seems to be aware o f this: The idea that we first learn a new rule, and eventually, through
practice, acquire it, is widespread and may seem to some people to be intuitively
obvious It was, I thought, exactly the way I leamed languages myselí ”. Gregg sees
himself as a typical example of the process which consists of knowing the rules, being
aware of them and ending up with an ability to talk about them. This is a perfect process of

acquiring through leaming, opposed to Krashen’s claim that leaming need not precede
acquisition.
Personally, I think it is important to teach grammar in secondary schools, especially
in Vietnamese settings because of these two reasons: Firstly, the English language
examinations that secondary students have to take have a lot of grammatical elements in
spite of the fact that these exams have been improved. Secondly, students are not leaming
English just for basic oral communication, motivated students will continue to study in the
universities for academic purposes.
1.2.2. The Evolution of Language Teaching Methodology
Linguists and those involving in language have seen a lot of exciting developments
in language teaching. Some have been at the level of syllabus design; others are concemed
12
vvith niethodology as we are seeing the growth o f new procedures and techniques, many of
which challcnge our traditional views o f what should happen in the classroom.
The history of language teaching methodology is the history of never-ending search
for effective teaching methods with different approaches, especially for grammar, a focal
point which has aroused a great deal of controversy among educational researchers,
linguists, methodologists and teachers. Opinions differ not only with reference to whether
or not to teach grammar, and if so, how to teach it. Language teaching methodology has
changed in approaches and so do methods o f grammar teaching. What follows is a brief
description of grammar is taught.
From a traditional point o f view, the goal should be to teach language from a
formal perspective. Since the mid to late 19th century, the dominant trend was a non-
communicative approach. With the Grammar Translation Method, grammar was taught
deductively, by studying grammar rules and translating from L2 to LI and vice verse.
Richards and Rodgers (1986) noted that it is a method without theory or without any
literature.
The Direct Method was introduced by the German educator Wihelm Vicktor in the
early 1800s as a reaction to the Grammar Translation Method, based on the belief that
language could best be taught by its vivid use in the classroom. There is no translation

anymore and the silent study of literature was replaced by actual use o f spoken language
practice, and explicit and deductive grammar instruction was replaced by an implicit and
inductive approach. It emphasized the importance of listening and speaking the íòreign
language. Lessons begin with a dialogue in the target language. Meaningful contexts for
leaming, inductive teaching o f grammar and avoidance of translation are among these
principles. “The Direct Method provides an exciting and interesting way of leaming a
language through activities” Rivers (1981) made comments.
The Reading Method was a reaction to the impracticality of the direct method. In
this method, reading was viewed as the most usable skill to have in a foreign language and
developed for both practical and academic reasons. Stem (1983) gave a comment that the
reading method grew out of practical educational considerations in America in the 1920s.
Despite criticism against this method for not paying adequate to speaking, it has gained
interest in the teaching of languages for speciíìc purposes such as reading scientiíĩc
literature.
13
The Audio-lingual Method derived from structural linguistics in the us in the
1950s, laid emphasis on mimicry of forms and memorization of certain sentence pattems
which are used intensively instead of grammatical explanation or talking about the
language. Question and answer in open class or close pairs to practice a particular form can
be also argued to have its basis in the Audiolingual method. “In the early sixties audio-
lingualism had raised hopes of ushering in a golden age of language leaming.” Stem
(1983) assessed this method.
The mix between transformational grammar and cognitive psychology created
Cognitive-code leaming. As Krashen (1982) states, it is the case with Grammar Translation,
the assumption of cognitive code is that conscious leaming can be accomplished by
everyorie, that all rules are leamable, and that conscious knowledge should be available at
all times. Grammar was acquired inductively. The most important of these ideas was that
leaming must be meaningful and relatable to an individual’s cognitive structure if it was to
become a permanent part of his or her understanding of the world. Language leaming
thereíbre is “an active, intelligent, rule-seeking, problem solving process in which leamers

are encouraged to reílect upon and discuss the way the target language operates” (Nunan,
1991, p. 233).
Another prominent method is Community Language Leaming vvhich was primarily
concemed with converting the classroom into a warm and supportive “community” in
which leamers were helped to move from complete dependence on the teacher to complete
autonomy. It is referred to as an aíĩectively-based method. For Brown (1994b): what is
íĩrst needed is for members to interact in an intemational relationship in which students
and teacher join together to facilitate leaming in a context of valuing and prizing each
individual in the group. Although it has been attacked for its non-directiveness, lack of
cohesion, its valued contributions assumes that leaming takes place best in an environment
of mutual trust, mutual support and cooperation between teacher and leamers and among
leamers themselves.
Other language teaching methods that iníluence a lot are The Silent Way,
Suggestopia, Total Physical Respond and Natural Approach. Each method has its own
advantages and disadvantages; the problem is that how teachers choose or combine
appropriated and relevant methods to the aims and objectives of their language course,
their leamers and their own teaching context.
14
CLT, which aims at íocusing on communicative proficiency by replicating
contextual features o f real communication in the classroom, has been the dominant
language teaching methodology emerged in the mid 1970s and 1980s. However, different
and even contradictory views emerged during the latter half of the twentieth century.
As Winddowson (1990) mentions “Knowing a language does not mean to
understanđ, speak, read or write sentences, it means to know how sentences are used to
communicate effect.” Since the purpose is to accept language as a tool for communication,
the teachers should tum this principle into action by using íiinctional syllabus in their
language class.
CLT is grounded on a theory o f language as communication. The goal of CLT is to
create a realistic context for language acquisition in the classroom in order to develop what
Hymes (1972) reĩerred to as “communicative competence”. His theory of c c o f what a

speaker needs to know in order to be communicatively competent in a speech community.
Another linguistic theory o f communication favored in CLT is Halliday’s íìinctional
account of language use. The focus of CLT is on functional usage and leamers’ ability to
express their own ideas, feelings, attitudes, desires and needs. Open-ended questioning and
problem-solving activities and exchanges of personal information are utilized to enable
leamers to develop leamers’ cc. In this approach, “skill” has become more important than
“content”. “A competent speaker not only knows how to use linguistic form coưectly, but
is also able to use language appropriately with respect to context, interlocutor, and register.
Hymes (1972) argues.
Since then, teaching methods have changed from “accuracy” to “íluency”. A view
of teaching language as communication is a view in which meaning and the use to which
language is put plays a center part. “Master of language use” is the way teaching students
how “to mean” as well as how “to form”. Knowledge of how the language functions in
communication does not automatically follow from knowledge of sentences. Once we
accept the need to teach language as communication, vve can obviously no longer think of
language in terms of only sentences. We must consider the nature of discourse, and how
best to teach it. Teaching materials in the past have been largely derived from the products
o f theoretical sentence grammar. We now need materials that derive from a description of
discourse; materials that affect the transfer from grammatical competence, knowledge of
sentences, to what has been called cc, knowledge o f how sentences are used in the
15
períbrmance of communicative acts of different kinds. New series of secondary textbooks
provide us, the teachers, what we have expected for a long time. With the design of
grammar lesson lastly after reading, listening, speaking and writing, grammar which
appears in different contexts is Consolidated in some other forms of exercises. Teachers
only need to design some suitable techniques such as using games, songs to make it
more interesting. GC remains in a perceptual State of potentiality unless it is realized in
communication. The study o f discourse might indicate the nature of such rules, and give us
some clues as to Ỉ10W we might approach teaching them.
The diĩílculty is that the ability to compose sentences is not the only ability we

need to communicate. Knowing what is involved in putting sentences correctỉy is only one
part of what we niean by knowing a language, and it has very little value on its own: It has
to be supplemented by a knovvledge of what sentences count as in their normal use as a
mean of communication. Teacher’s role in CLT is supporting and assisting the students in
their production of acceptable responses rather than towards assessing and correcting.
Teacher should be alert to sense vvhen and where help is needed and what form it should
take. “I, the teacher, am here to help you, the leamers succeed and progress in your
leaming, not to judge, scold or make you feel inferior” (Ur, 1998). Leamers’ activation
depends on teacher’s organization. A well-designed grammatical activity should be based
on task that has clear objectives and entails active use of the structure being practice; and it
should maintain leamers’ interest and motivation through careful choice of topic, with
different kinds of suitable activities.
Unlike the traditional methods of leaming and teaching, in a CLT approach,
leamers are required to take part in a number of meaningíul activities with different tasks.
This is to improve leamers' cc by encouraging them to be a part of the lessons themselves.
Our students can use the foreign language to deíĩne, classify, generalize, promise, predict,
describe, and so on. They can aware of how the language is used for the particular kind of
communication they are concemed with, special the nature o f different communicative
acts, the way they are realized, the way they combine in diíĩerent varieties of language use.
This way can enable leamers to manage the new structures and develop their
communicative skills at the same time. However, the question is whether CLT is
appropriate to local contexts and cultures, and how it might be adapted and used by
teachers and leamers in relevant ways. Communicative needs are diversiíied in diíĩerent
16
settings or c c can mean different things for different groups of foreign language leamers.
One size doesn’t fit all. Canh (2000, p. 77) finds out:
‘Although Vietnamese teachers take a positive view of the communicative
approach to language teaching, they find it difficult to use this approach for their
pedagogical practice. There are various reasons for this constraint in using
communicative methods but the most important ones are the diữìculty in creating

“realistic second language situations” for their students who have no real-life
conimunicative needs in the target language on the one hand, and the pressures to
prepare their students for the discrete-point examinations, on the other To
facilitate innovations in teaching methodologies, there must be some macro-
changes, the most significant of which is to reform the testing system

Communicative teaching should be supported by communicative testing It is
crucial that teachers should be made to be aware that Canale and Swain’s (1980)
model of communicative competence is not applicable to every context’
A common misconception is that CLT does not include the teaching of grammar
(Thompson, 1996). Some teachers believe that it is good to limit their students only in
doing something like improving the communicative competence of their students. They
pay little attention to the grammatical structure of their students’ speaking. This is only one
side o f the coin. We all know that grammar is not only the core of a language, but a
theoretical tool in regulating language. Those above- mentioned teachers ignore this idea;
they pay their attentions only to the communicative function o f the language and reject
grammar.
AU in all, “to have an effective period of grammar teaching, teachers must bear in
mind that the purpose of teaching grammar is to help the students ỉeam the language, and
the teachers must be wary o f making grammar end o f their teaching. Teachers should also
consider altematives to traditional grammar instruction, such as grammar consciousness-
raising tasks" (Fotos & EIlis, 1991; Fotos, 1994). For Fotos (1994), grammar CR task can
be a valuable technique in promoting GC in communicative classroom: can understand
grammar structures and use them in communication. Teachers should also leam “how to
treat grammar more communicatively in the classroom and how to match grammar
instruction with leam ers’ needs as well as their preferences” (Canh, 2004, p. 147).
1.2.3 Consciousness-raising approach
CR is often claimed to hold a 'middle-ground position' betxveen two extreme
approaches to teaching L2 grammar (Yip, 1994, p. 124; see also Nunan, 1991, p. 151). At
one end of the scale is the zero approach advocated by Krashen's vvork, at the other

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

CR can indeed help to prevent the fossilization of eưors where the language would provide
only negative evidence to the leamer (Rogers, 1994) and can also accelerate the acquisition
ĐA! HỌC QUÓC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRUNG TAM THÒNG TIN ĨHƯ VIỀN
Ũ Ị 0 Â M Ề Ễ U
18
of grammatical structures in L2 leaming. He consequently sees grammatical CR as a
means of “illuminating the leamer’s path from the known to the unknovvn”.
According to Nunan (1991, p. 149), CR rẹịects the split between conscious leaming
and subconscious acquisition. However, it also contrasts with traditional grammatical
instruction in a number of important respects. Unlike traditional approaches to teach
grammar, CR fu!fíls a process rather than product role: it is a ĩacilitator, a means to an end
rather than an end in itself. Leamers must ‘notice the gap between their own production
and that of native speakers’ (Schmidt and Frota, 1986, cited in Nunan, 1991). One function
for CR is to assist leamers to ‘notice the gap’. Taking a rather diííerent line from Nunan,
Smith (1981) arguing that ‘traditional’ instruction is one type of CR.
CR can be realized in many different ways, and there are numerous Creative
techniques for sensitizing leamers to grammatical principles within a communicative
context. There are many ways of teaching grammar, and it is wrong to imply that teachers
are conữonted with two mutually exclusive choices when it comes to teaching grammar:
either avoiding the teaching of grammar altogether, or retuming to a ‘traditional’ form-
focus approach.
Ellis (1993) contrasts CR with practice activities. Among the characteristics of
CR he lists:
The ‘attempt to iso la te a speciíìc linguistic feature for íocused attention’ .
From the wealth of language data to which leamers are exposed we identify
particular features and draw the leamer’s attention speciĩically to these.
The provision of ‘d a ta which illustrate the targeted feature’ . It is our
contention that this data should as far as possible be drawn from texts, both
spoken and written, which leamers have already processed for meaning, and that

as far as possible those texts should have been produced for a communicative
purpose, not simply to illustrate íeatures of the language.
The requirement that leamers ‘utilize in te ỉỉe ctu a l
e ff o r t ’
to understand
the targeted íeature. There is a deliberate attempt to involve the leamer in
hypothesizing about the data and to encourage hypothesis testing.
(Original emphasis)
CR, then, can be seen as guided problem solving. Leamers are encouraged to
notice particular features of the language, to draw conclusions from what they notice and
to organize their view of language in the light of the conclusions they have drawn.