Quan điểm của giáo viên và sinh viên đối với các vấn đề ngữ pháp được trình bày trong giáo trình Tiếng Anh chuyên ngành Hóa học tại Trường Đại học Sao Đỏ

i
DECLARATION

I, Trần Hoàng Yến, certify that this thesis is the result of my own research and the substance
of this thesis has not, wholly or in part, been submitted for a degree to any university or
institution.


Hanoi, September 2011
Trần Hoàng Yến

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis has been in development for nearly a year, and during that time I have benefited a
great deal of support from a number of people.
First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Tô Thị Thu
Hương, who has provided me inspiration to do this research, given me interesting lectures and
whose concern, enthusiasm and whole- hearted guidance encouraged me much in the
fulfillment of this thesis.
Secondly, I am grateful to all my colleagues for their kindness and assistance to me in the data
collection process. I would like to express my thanks to all the teachers and students of the
classes I have visited in order to gather information for my class observation.
Thanks to my husband, who has given me so much love, patience and encouragement, who
spent hours working with the computer to help me with computer data entry and processing in
the dark midnight hours.
These people deserve all the credit. I alone am responsible for any failings.
Eventually, the study has been completed to the best of my knowledge; however, mistakes and
shortcomings are unavoidable. Therefore, I am looking forward to receiving comments and
suggestions from any readers for the perfection of the course work.



Hanoi, August
Trần Hoàng Yến

iii
ABSTRACT

It is clear that the development of language teaching, especially grammar teaching has
brought about great challenges in teaching English in all Vietnamese schools in general and at
Sao Do University in particular. However, the way teachers teach grammar and the way
students learn grammar are not similar.
This study was conducted to seek answers to the question of what teachers’ and
students’ view toward grammar presentation in the course book “English for Chemical
engineering” at Sao Do University. The finding from the study indicated that a balanced
between explicit instruction in which a target form is presented formally together with
information about how it is used, followed by practice and implicit instruction in which
students’ attention may be drawn to a target form and they may be have to induce the rule or
system underlying its use should be encouraged. In other words, a blend of both traditional
and communicative approaches to grammar could be a good solution to the question of
grammar teaching at our university.
This study is nothing but a first step towards a more rigorous study of the issue of the
grammar teaching at our university and other training centers where English is taught as a
curriculum subject.

iv
LIST OF THE TABLES

Chart 1: What do you think of the role of grammar in learning English?

23
Chart 2: How do you find grammar presentation in the course book “English
for Chemical engineering” at Sao Do University?

24
Chart 3: How difficult do you find grammar points in the course book “English
for Chemical engineering” at Sao Do University?

25
Table 1: How do you think about these grammar points in the course book
“English for Chemical engineering” at Sao Do University?

25
Table 2: Students’ style preferences for grammar learning

27
Chart 4: What do you think of the role of grammar in teaching English?

30
Chart 5: How do you find grammar teaching?

31
Chart 6: Do you spend much time on teaching grammar?

31
Table 3: Teachers’ style preferences for grammar teaching

32




v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration
i
Acknowledgements
ii
Abstract
iii
List of tables
iv
Table of contents
v
PART A: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale
1
2. Aim of the study
2
3. Research questions
2
4. Research methodology

3
5. Scope of the study
3
6. The setting and background
3
7. Design of the study
4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. What is grammar?
5
1.2. How is grammar viewed?
7
1.3. What is the role of grammar in English language teaching?
9
1.4. Two approaches to grammar teaching
13
1.5. The importance of understanding teachers’ and students’ views to grammar
teaching and learning
17

vi
1.6. The role of course book in language teaching and learning
18
1.7. Summary
19
CHAPTER II: RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

2.1. Introduction
21
2.2. Research question
21
2.3. The participants
22
2.4. Methodology orientation: questionnaire
22
2.5. The procedure
22
2.6. The finding
23
2.6.1. Students’ views
23
2.6.1.1. Students’ awareness of the importance of grammar learning
23
2.6.1.2. Students’ evaluation of current grammar presentation in the
course book “English for Chemical engineering” at Sao Do university
26
2.6.2. Teachers’ views
29
2.6.2.1. Teachers’ awareness of the importance of grammar learning
29
2.6.2.2. Teachers’ evaluation of current grammar presentation in the
course book “English for Chemical engineering” at Sao Do university
32
2.7. Summary
34
PART C: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

1. Summary of the findings
35
2. Suggestions for grammar presentation in the course book “English for chemical
engineering” and grammar teaching at Sao Do University
35
3. Limitations of the study
38

vii
4. Recommendations for further research
39
5. Conclusion
39
REFERENCES
41
APPENDIX 1
I
APPENDIX 2
III



1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
In this part, I would like to present the rationale, the aims and objective, the research
and methodology adopted for this study, the scope, the setting and background of the study
and the design of the study.
1. Rationale
Grammar teaching has been has been a focal point of foreign language teaching and it
has aroused a great deal of controversy and even debate among educational researchers,

linguists, methodologists and teachers. Currently, there are several points of view on grammar
teaching issues.
In Vietnam, foreign language in general and English teaching in particular is said to be
grammar-focused, and for many English language teachers, teaching English means teaching
grammar. There are good reasons for this. This can be traced back to the national
examinations which measured candidates’ linguistic or grammar competence in written form.
Therefore, the teaching of English is still directed towards preparing students for such sort of
examinations. In this process, students are supposed to learn whatever teachers “give”. That’s
why not only knowledge but also learning styles are imposed on students by teachers.
Unfortunately, research findings have proved that students come to a language class with
particular profiles of interests, intelligence, learning habits, purposes and so on. All these
learner factors may affect their learning styles and learning process.
Because of learner variables, the departure of this study is the claim that function and
presentation of the grammar explanation is a complex issue and a single approach will be far
from being satisfactory in all teaching situations. An investigation into teachers’ and students’
views towards grammar presentation in the course book “English for chemical engineering” is
an attempt to deal with this under-researched area.
Another reason is related to my personal profession. Although teaching grammar
seems “synonymous with teaching foreign language”, (Rutherford, quoted in Celce-Murcia
and Hilles: 1988: 1) teachers have different attitudes and approaches to grammar in the
classroom. There are teachers who view grammar teaching as unnecessary while there are
teachers who obsessed by it (Canh, 2004). From my personal observation and professional

2
experiences as a five year English teacher at Sao Do University, I have realized that how to
make grammar teaching satisfactory to students is really a great challenge facing every
English teacher. For several years, I have been haunted by the question of how to deal with
grammar more effectively at our university. The answer to this question would be good help to
me as well as to my colleagues.

2. Aims of the study
With the above-presented rationale, the specific aims of the study are:
• To investigate into teachers’ views towards grammar presentation in the course book
“English for chemical engineering” at Sao Do University.
• To investigate into students’ views towards grammar presentation in the course book
“English for chemical engineering” at Sao Do University.
• To find out in what ways the teacher can make their grammar teaching more suitable to
students’ expectations and learning styles.
It is hoped that the findings from this study will help English teachers in Vietnam,
especially those who are engaged in grammar teaching. The study can highlight the extent to
which current grammar teaching at our university meets the students’ expectations and style
preferences. The findings of the study will also contribute to our understanding of how
grammar should be treated in the context of Vietnamese schools or training centers where
English is taught as a foreign language.

3. Research questions
To achieve the aims and objectives of the thesis, the following research questions were
proposed:
1) What are the teachers’ views on grammar presentation in the course book “English for
chemical engineering” at Sao Do University?
2) What are the students’ views on grammar presentation in the course book “English for
chemical engineering” at Sao Do University?

3
3) In what ways can the teachers make their grammar teaching more suitable to students’
expectations and learning styles?

4. Research methodology
The main method utilized in this study was a survey using questionnaires, one for
teachers and one for students (research questions 1 and 2). In addition to that, interviews with

teachers helped to support data collected from questionnaires and provide insights into ways
that teachers can take to make their grammar teaching even more suitable to students’
expectations and learning styles (research question 3).
Data collected from the questionnaires and interviews were analyzed qualitatively (for
themes and recommendation using Hatch’s (2002) “interpretive model”) and quantitatively
(for descriptive statistics).

5. Scope of the study
As it has been stated above, the study is designed to explore teachers’ and students’
view towards grammar presentation in the course book “English for Chemical engineering” in
order to make some methodological recommendations for grammar teaching. The study is,
therefore, explorative by nature.
Given the aims of the study, I limited myself to focus on the first year students of
Chemical engineering and Food science at Sao Do University.

6. The setting and background
Sao Do University is a famous university in Hai Duong province located in Chi Linh
town. The school is over 40 years of foundation. It has more than 500 teachers and 15.000
students. It is known all over country with electrical and mechanical field. Chemical
engineering and Food science Faculty is a young one- only 5 years old. The number of
students is only about 300 students. The students related to this study are 50 students of the
first year. The program of English for Chemical engineering consists of 45 periods.

4
The program composes of 4 parts: Reading is to provide students with general
knowledge of chemistry. Vocabulary is to provide students with new words that occur in the
reading parts. Practice is to give students some kinds of exercise to help students understand
the text (reading part) well. Grammar is to provide students with some main structures, forms
and grammatical points that happen in the text.

7. The design of the study
The thesis contains three parts.
Part one, the introduction, provides an overview of the study with specific reference to the
rationale, the aims, and the methods, the background of the study and the significance of the
study.
In part two, there are two chapters. Chapter one is aimed at exploring the theoretical
background for the thesis. This chapter will focus on three main points: types of grammar,
approaches to grammar, and learners’ style preferences. The chapter first examines the notion
of grammar, different types of grammar such as prescriptive grammar, descriptive grammar,
and pedagogical grammar. In this chapter, I would like to discuss various perspectives on
grammar as well as two major approaches to grammar: explicit and implicit. Finally, the
chapter discusses the necessity to take into consideration the learners’ style preferences to
narrow the gap between teaching and learning and to make the classroom lessons more
learner-centered. Chapter two is devoted to a detailed description of data analysis and a
thorough discussion of the findings of the study. In this chapter, some explanations and
interpretations of the findings are explored.
Part three, the conclusion of the thesis, presents the summary of findings and some
pedagogical suggestions, which are proposed for the teachers teaching grammar at Sao Do
University in general and at other schools in particular. Those suggestions are related to
teaching techniques and grammar tasks that are thought to be relevant and applicable to the
teaching of grammar at my university. The limitations of the study and some
recommendations for further research are also discussed in this chapter.
The appendices are the last part of the study, following the references.

5
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

Traditionally, grammar has been concerned almost exclusively with analysis at the level
of the sentence. Thus a grammar is a description of the rules that govern how a language’s

sentences are formed. The study of grammar consists, accordingly, of looking at the way
words are arranged or patterned to make sentences. By contrast, recent views of grammar are
expanded to cover both texts and words are organized according to rules. This chapter
provides a review of various perspectives on grammar and grammar teaching. The chapter
begins with a discussion of different ways in which grammar defined. Since most language
teaching textbook and grammars are still firmly grounded in the sentence grammar tradition,
for the purpose of this study, I will assume grammar to mean grammar at the sentence level.
The definitions of grammar are followed by a presentation of different view of grammar,
which include prescriptive, descriptive and pedagogic views of grammar. Again, grammar
mentioned in this study is pedagogic grammar. The chapter ends with a review of various
approaches to grammar in the language classroom as well as factors affecting the
methodological choice for grammar teaching.

1.1. What is grammar?
The first challenge with which I am encountered is how to define the term “grammar”.
This is because different linguistic schools define grammar in different ways depending on
their particular field of interest:
●A traditional grammarian might see grammar as the “parts of
speech” together with a set of rules governing how they be combined, often
accompanied by pointers as to what is considered “correct” and “incorrect” usage.
●A structural linguist might see grammar as the sum total of sentence patterns in
which the words of a particular language are arranged.
●A philosophical/ cognitive linguist might see grammar as our innate knowledge of
the structure of language.

6
●A functional linguist might see grammar as a resource used to accomplish
communicative purpose in specific contexts.

Defining grammar, then, is not a straightforward matter and it is important to clarify

how the term is being used in any particular contexts. For my purpose in this study, I
will look at the five definitions which I think might be more relevant to this study,

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (quoted in Harmer: 1987:1) defines
grammar as “the study and practice of the rules by which words change their form and are combined
into sentences”.
It is obvious that there are two basic elements to which attention should be paid to: the
rules of grammar; and the study and practice of the rule.
According to Fromkin et al. (1990:12): “the sounds and sound patterns, the basic units of
meaning such as words and the rules to combine them to form new sentences constitute the
grammar of a language. These rules are internalized and subconsciously learned by native
speakers.”
From this definition, grammar is the name given to the knowledge of how words are
arranged to form sentences. The definition also clarifies that grammatical rules is learned in a
natural way by native speakers, but how non-native speakers learn the grammar constitutes
rules to combine words to make sentences, what are the sentences used for? These are the
questions that need to be elaborated.
Another scholar, Bastone, (1994) divides grammar into product: the component parts or
rules that make up the language, and process: the ways in which grammar is deployed from
moment to moment in communication. Bastone (ibid) purport that while of no doubt the rules
are important to the learner, simply knowing them is by no means a guarantee of being able to
formulate or interpret complicated utterances in the rush of real-time communication.
Obviously, Bastone takes a more sociolinguistic view of grammar, which views grammar is
not just rules, but more importantly, rules of use. This means that “there are rules of use
without which the rules of grammar would be useless.”(Hymes: 1972:45).

7
Richards, Platt and Platt (1992: 161) in their Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching & Applied Linguistics, define grammar as
“a description of the structure of a language and the way in which linguistic units such as words and

phrases are combined to produce sentences in the language. It usually takes into account the meaning
and functions these sentences have in the overall system of the language. It may or may not include the
description of the sounds of a language.”
For Richards and his colleagues, grammar is descriptive, rather than prescriptive and it
implies both meanings and functions. Their view of grammar reflects, firstly, the dynamics of
language, and secondly, the social and personal nature of language. Grammar is the way
people of the particular language community use to get meanings across, not the way people
are prescribed to use the language.
All the three definitions view grammar as meaning, but they share a common drawback,
which confine grammar to just sentences. Widdowson (1990:81) claimed that “Grammar is
not just a collection of sentences patterns signifying nonsense, something for the learner’s
brain to puzzle over.” For Widdowson, grammar means the relationship between three things:
grammar, words and context. In other words grammar should be viewed as linguistic rules
functioning in alliance with words and context for the achievement of meaning.
Hughes and McCarthy (1998) view grammar as discourse not as sentence and coined the
term discourse grammar. They argued that “grammatical statements that do not take account
of such contextual features are inadequate and unable to support grammar teaching
effectively” (p.265).
How grammar is defined is very important since it will influence the way grammar is to
be taught. For the purpose of the study, I use the definition of grammar proposed above by
Richards, Platt and Platt (1992:161) in their Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &
Applied Linguistics.

1.2. How is grammar viewed?
The evolution in language pedagogy from Audiolingualism towards a more
communicative approach has also brought with it a great change in the way grammar is

8
viewed and taught. Traditionally, grammar was considered solely as prescriptive aspects as
well. In this section, a presentation of major views on grammar will be made.

Prescriptive grammar:
Prescriptive grammar “prescriptive” what is correct that is what people should say. For
example: for the sentence like “This is how you cook an omelet” prescriptive grammar teaches
that a personal pronoun such as “you” should never be used in writing. It is noteworthy that
modern grammarians who have mostly avoided prescriptive grammar are likened to physicists
by Cook (1991). The job of the former is to describe what the rules of language are just as the
job of the latter is to say what the laws of physics are. Also according to Cook (ibid.)
“prescriptive grammar is all but irrelevant to the language teaching classroom. Since the
1960s, people have believed that you should teach the language as it is, not as it ought to be”
(original emphasis).
Descriptive grammar:
Descriptive grammar simply reports the language as it exists. Descriptive grammarians
acknowledge that language is living and as every living thing, subject to change. To put it
another way, how it is used is constantly changing “not in major way, but slowly and almost
imperceptibly L1 users of the language are making utterances or writing sentences which a
generation before would have been considered incorrect” (Woods: 1995: 5). For example “It is
I” may be defended and “It is me” rejected by prescriptive grammar purists but so countless
people have said the latter for such a long time that it becomes correct. The former seems to
sound unnatural and stilled though it cannot be said that it is plainly wrong. Woods (ibid.)
goes on to point out that the problem which learners of English as a foreign language are
confronted when using descriptive grammar books is that it is a long time from being aware of
the occurrence of such changes in the language to accepting these changes as the proper use of
the language. This is also the case with native speakers. Not all of them favor the changes that
are occurring in the language. Moreover, there is often a “time-lag” between when something
is accepted in the spoken language and when it is acceptable in the written language.
However, the acceptance period for native speakers is much shorter because they are
surrounded by the media and they have to difficulty knowing when such changes have general

9
acceptance while L2 speakers do not have this benefit and have to rely on the rules written in

the grammar books. In this way even descriptive grammar books can become prescriptive.
Pedagogical grammar:
Unlike prescriptive and descriptive grammars the term “pedagogical grammar” does
not refer to any particular type or school of grammar. Rather it refers to the kind of knowledge
about grammar needed by the teacher and the way this is made available to the students in the
form of lessons or materials. In other words it is grammar to be used in teaching. Nunan
(1991:153) states “pedagogical grammars are intended to provide those involved in language
teaching (including learners) with information on the language for the purposes of teaching
and learning, syllabus construction, materials development and so on. While they may reflect
current theories of grammatical description and analysis, pedagogical grammars do not
necessarily follow a particular grammatical theory or school of thoughts”.

To sum up, prescriptive grammar is what we should say, descriptive grammar is what
we do say and pedagogical grammar is what we – teachers of a foreign language – teach.
Pedagogical grammar differs from prescriptive and descriptive grammars in terms of (a) the
degree of technicality; (b) the scope, selection, sequencing and presentation of material; and
(c) the relevance to teaching and learning. The grammar, which is defined as the knowledge
about grammar needed by the teacher and the way this is made available to the students in the
form of lesson or material. Since pedagogical grammar is the result of a process of filtering
and interpretation at different levels, pedagogical grammar teaching involves the form, the
meaning and the use.

1.3. What is the role of grammar in English language teaching?
Prior to the 1970s the necessity of formal grammar teaching met almost no
disagreement. It was a common place that a major portion of curriculum was devoted to
learning grammatical terminology, memorizing rules doing exercises, practicing drill or so on.
However, many different and even contradictory views emerged during the latter half of the

10
twentieth century. These different views about language and language learning process below,

I will examine several arguments for and against grammar.
Pro-grammar perspectives:
Many linguists and researchers have advocated grammar instruction in ESL and EFL
language teaching and learning. For instance, the communicative competence model of Canale
and Swain (1980) clearly illustrates the significance of grammar. In this model grammar is
seen as one component of communicative competence. Without grammar, learners can
communicate effectively only in limited number of situations. Referring to the importance of
grammar teaching, Smith (2001) worries that if we do not pay attention to grammar nor create
opportunities for learners to improve their grammar, they are likely to stand the risk of
fossilization “or reach a point where they can cope with level of communication that is
demanded of them by making use of their existing grammatical resources and communication
strategies and probably with sufficient not to see the need to develop their linguistic abilities
any further”.
What is more, Rutherford and Smith (1988) report that grammar teaching can be
beneficial to learners in the sense that it raises learners consciousness concerning the
difference and similarities of L1 and L2. Therefore, grammar teaching can be used as a
“linguistic map” with road signs to help students as they explore the “topography” of the new
language.
The list of supporters of grammar is still ongoing. Hannan (1989) argues that grammar
is highly valuable as an important part of the study of language, of ideas and of writing. Also,
he points out that grammar reflects the power and order of the human mind and, besides, it
helps us to understand the diversity of human culture. Like Hannan, Lewis (1986), Garner
(1989) gives strong support to grammar teaching. Garner 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 of importance in language study in general
and in language teaching and learning in particular.
Anti-grammar perspectives:

11
One of the biggest challenges to the necessity of grammar teaching comes primarily

from Krashen, whose insistence on the primacy of acquisition has tended to downplay the
value of deliberate grammar teaching. In Krashen and Tarrel’s influential Natural Approach it
is claimed that learners need to be exposed to a lot of comprehensive and meaningful input at
a level just above their own for acquisition to take place. The study of grammar has only a
secondary 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 (the Monitor Hypothesis) (Krashen and
Tarrel:1983)
Fanatics of Natural Approach argue that reliance on grammatical syllabus, no matter
how contextualized it is, cannot be sufficient, that a grammatical focus may interfere with any
attempt to communicate. It thus appears to be the case that “we not only don’t have to use a
grammatical syllabus in encouraging acquisition, it is better not to even try” (ibid: 72). Put
another way, grammar can be acquired naturally from meaningful input and opportunities to
interact in the classroom and grammatical competence can develop in a fluency-oriented
environment without conscious focus on language forms.
Admittedly, some learners acquire second language grammar naturally without being
taught. Immigrants to the United States (especially young ones) who attain proficiency in
English on their own can be a good example of naturalistic acquisition (Lightbown and Spada:
60). But this is not true for all learners. Among the same immigrant group are learners who
may achieve a degree of proficiency, but whose English is far from accurate.
On the other hand, Krashen’s acquisition hypothesis seems to be merely his own
personal observation without supporting evidence. Gregg (1984: 79-100) criticizes that:
“Krashen himself seems to be aware of this: The idea that we first learn a new rule, and
eventually, through practice, acquire it, is widespread and may seem to some people to be
intuitively obvious… It was, I thought, exactly the way I learned languages myself…” Thus
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 learning, opposed to Krashen’s claim that learning need not precede

12

acquisition. Furthermore, studies of learners in immersion classrooms (e.g. Swain 1985) show
even after ample exposure to the target language learners continue to make a lot of
grammatical errors. With regard to the value of form-focus teaching two important questions
may arise. The first is whether it is possible with teaching to assist learners who cannot
achieve accuracy in English by themselves and the second is it possible to speed up students’
natural learning of grammar through instruction. A number of research findings (see Larsen –
Freeman: 1997 and Schwabe: 1989) prove that teaching assists to improve learners’ accuracy
which is normally absent when these is no focus on form. As far as the second concerns
Pienemann (1984) demonstrates that subjects who received grammar instruction progressed to
the next stage after two- week period while it took untutored students several months to do
that .This provides evidence of the effect of teaching over learning acquisition to run its
natural course.
I find it essential to teach grammar in our university, at least in Vietnamese schools.
These are reasons for this position. Firstly, Vietnamese students are not learning English just
for basic oral communication. Motivated students will continue to learning English in the
universities because they need it to read and write in this language for academic purposes. For
these students, grammar is more crucial. Secondly, the English language examinations that the
students have to take (and to pass) contain a lot of grammatical elements although these exams
have been improved a great deal.
In order to decide whether the focus on grammatical forms becomes more or less
important, various learner factors such as age, learning styles, proficiency level, purpose of
learning, exposure to the target language, etc…should be taken in to consideration. Celce-
Murcia (quoted in Shrum and Glisan: 1994) points out that students are already literate and
therefore have established expectations concerning language instruction. After all, we need to
remind ourselves why students come school. The answer lies in getting “right knowledge”.
Instead of letting them swim in the ocean of knowledge we should provide them with a
“swimming jacket”-formal instruction- to facilitate their learning .Why should we refuse
teaching them grammar?

13
Next, it is worth mentioning that Krashen’s view that the effect of grammar learning is
peripheral and fragile and that conscious knowledge of grammar is available only as a
monitor, or editor may be true to ESL context where immigrant learners are extensively
exposed to the target language but it is not applicable to the ESL context. At our university,
students learn English as a foreign language outside the natural linguistic environment;
grammar teaching must still have an important place in the classroom. We can not expect our
students who learn English for probably not more than three lessons a week to acquire the
target grammar naturally although some students might have access to various sources of
authentic English at home. I stand for Celce-Murcia’s (1992:406-407) point of view that
“Generally, only young, prepubescent learners, and then only those with good access to native-speaking
peers and sufficiently rich and varied native speaker input, can- in the absence of formal grammar
instruction- learn a foreign or second language-with native- like proficiency and accuracy”.

1.4. Two approaches to grammar teaching
As it is mentioned above one of the key issues in foreign language teaching which has
met with little agreement is how to teach grammar. Whether the learner should be taught to
approach the learning task consciously as an intellectual exercise, or whether he should be
encouraged to avoid thinking about the language and absorb it intuitively? Stern (1992)
proposes to call the former teaching strategy “explicit” and the later “implicit”. These
approaches are often contrasted with each other when questions about grammar arise. When
we talk about an explicit approach to grammar we are talking about stating directly, usually at
the beginning of a particular activity, what the grammar is. For example, “Today we are
looking at the third conditional.” On the other hand, an implicit approach to grammar is one
where the students are ‘led’ to the grammar through a series of steps – this is what is meant by
the ‘discovery technique’. In other words, the ‘discovery technique’ aims to lead students
towards a generalized grammar rule or pattern.
Explicit Grammar Teaching:
Proponents of explicit grammar teaching argue that second language learning is, for
many people, a cognitive process leading to and explicit knowledge of the language

(knowledge about grammar,- understanding the rule). According to Ellis and Gaies (1988)

14
explicit knowledge is important in a number of respects. First, it enables learners to be more
grammatically accurate by monitoring what they speak or write. Second, explicit knowledge
can help learners to acquire implicit knowledge (knowledge of grammar-knowing the rules in
an intuitive way which enables them to be accessed quickly and easily for purposes of
communication). If learners understand how grammatical feature functions, they will be more
likely to notice it when they are listening or reading. In brief, explicit grammar teaching has
the advantage that learners are in control during practice and they do not stand the rich of
drawing an incorrect conclusion in terms of how the target language is working.
With regard to advantages of explicit grammar teaching it is worth mentioning here
some convincing research finding. Scott (1989) analyzing data from oral and written tests
taken by students of French found that in general students who were taught the target
structures explicitly performed better than those to whom an implicit method was applied.
Other evidence centers on a focus on form are error correction and feedback. Tomasello and
Herron (1989) compared two methods for correcting students in the language classroom and
found that learners performed better it transfer errors received immediate correction by form-
based cognitive comparisons. This result corresponds to White’s (1987) claim that specific
grammar teaching and correction can in fact be beneficial for acquisition. This result is aligned
with what Lightbrown and Spada’s (1999) claim as mentioned above.
However, a problem with explicit grammar teaching is that it advocates a direct and
overt role on the part of the teacher. As a consequence, this practice designates a rather passive
role on the part of the students. Interaction for them is supposed to take place after the and
after a great deal of structural drills of the grammatical items. In River’s (1983) terms, “skill-
getting” is emphasized before “skill-using”. It can be said that in an explicit method of
grammar teaching, grammar seems to be viewed more as a product although it gives the
learners a clear framework and there may be systematic learning.
Furthermore, explicit grammar teaching which is characterized by direct teacher
explanation followed by related manipulative exercises is accused of failing to view language

as a whole (Corbett). (many of us have probably experienced this kink of grammar teaching,
since a number of textbooks tend to present grammar in this faction). Unfortunately,

15
manipulative drills in most of the textbooks are taken away from the real contexts or put in
shallow and artificial ones, so these drills become rather meaningless to students (Walz:
quoted in Shrum and Glisan: 1994). This is echoed by Samad who claims that teaching and
learning grammatical structures have traditionally involved repetitive drills that have a
reputation for being meaningless and decontextualized. The reason for this is that students
merely repeat the pattern of certain drills without understanding the meaning of the sentences.
It is understandable that such language activities might be boring to a number of students. It is
generally acknowledged that language is context- sensitive and context is important as it
allows students to see how and why different forms and meaning exist. Only by presenting
grammar in context will our students develop a better understanding of meaning and language
functions.
Another made for excluding explicit grammar teaching in language teaching is that “it
is unnatural method of acquiring or learning a language.”(Samad). The scholars explicit
instruction on grammar to master the grammatical system of the language.
In short, explicit method of grammar teaching has some effectiveness such as it gives
students systematic explanation of grammatical points and encourages them to look upon
learning as an intellectually challenging and worthwhile task. But the problem with second
language teaching in which explicitness is stressed is that students become passive recipients
of knowledge, over-conscious of the rules and lacks an intuitive native speaker-like
competence.
Implicit Grammar teaching
At the opposite end of the axis of grammar teaching stand implicit grammar teaching
supported by Krashen (1982) and Dulay and Burt (1973). As mentioned above, defenders of
implicit grammar teaching believe that students can acquire language naturally like children
acquiring their mother tongue if they are provided with sufficient comprehensible input.
In fact, proponents of the implicit approach to grammar teaching argue for several

advantages over explicit grammar teaching. One of these advantages is that students are highly
motivated and more involved in learning. Motivated learners are ones who discover rulers for
themselves and by discovering grammar rules they remembers them better than those who are

16
overwhelmed by grammatical explanations since discovering grammatical rules gives the
learners a highly sense of achievement.
However, Herron and Tomasello (quoted in Shrum and Glisan: 1994) suggest that
implicit approach cannot guarantee that the learner will discover the underlying concepts or
that the induced concepts will actually be correct.
Apart from this the implicit approach can be frustrating to adolescents or adult
learners, many of whom have already become analytical with regard to the rules that govern
their native languages. “…most adult learners including EFL learners seem to benefit from
teacher- direct grammar instruction that is presented to correspond to their specific
needs.”(Nachiengmai: 1997). These learners intuitively desire to accelerate the learning
process by deliberately comparing and contrasting their own native rules to govern the foreign
language.
I am in support of the idea that it is unwise of a language teacher to strictly adhere to
this or that method of instruction as each method has its own effectiveness and ineffectiveness.
It is my own opinion that employing explicit approach towards grammar teaching a teacher
may find it easy to control his class and the lessons are efficient as but explicit grammar
teaching may be rather boring to both the teacher and the students. On the contrary, implicit
strategy is relatively rewarding. Nothing could be more exciting and thrilling than being given
the key to open the door to the treasure of English language. But it is time consuming doing it
yourself rather than standing aside looking the teacher does it. Hence, the teacher’s
explanation may serve as shortcut to acquire a new grammar. I stand for Garner (1989:2009)
that “the teacher should be able to explain, when it is appropriate, a point of grammar
accurately… to non-native learners”. Teachers should also be very careful about when and
how they should explain grammatical rules. Otherwise, he may make the matter worse in the
sense that his too fast and unclear explanation causes confusion rather than comprehension. In

some situations let our student explore or discover grammatical rules for themselves from our
helpful hints such as information guides, examples and diagrams. In my own teaching I find
combination of the two approaches desirable. For example I often present a structure in
context without grammatical explanation (to allow implicit strategy) then bring out the rules

17
through elicitation from student and finally give them a substantial amount of time for practice
of the structure (explicit).
In the final analysis while it is advantageous for learners to have access to both ways
of teaching, it should be borne in mind that some learners may have a preference for more
explicit way of learning whereas other prefer more implicit approaches. Hartnett’s (1985)
findings suggest that deductive strategy is more effective for student with left-brain dominance
and that inductive strategy is as effective or more effective for those with right-brain
dominance. As a teacher we should be aware of different techniques which provide the
opportunity for both implicit and explicit learning and respect the preferences of learns.
Obviously, it is hard to say which approach to grammar: explicit or implicit is better. I
have argued that both are of equal value. It is the teachers who have to make a choice when to
teach grammar explicitly and when implicit taking info account factors affecting the learners.

1.5. The importance of understanding teachers’ and students’ views to grammar
teaching and learning
According to Giao et al (2004), a foreign language in general, and English in
particular, is a compulsory school subject and one of the national examinations. Students have
to take to get the high school certificate. Besides that a high profit in English and a good
command of English is an opportunity for further study, especially for future employment.
Nevertheless, a majority of Vietnamese students at high school, even at university lack a
sufficient good knowledge of grammar to pass the grammar- based and norm- referenced
examinations.
According to the traditional grammar- translation method, classes are taken students’ mother
tongue with little active use of the target language. Grammar rules were explained in their

mother tongue and students are expected to learn them by heart and make up sentences
according to these rules. The teachers are always the controller the students’ activities in the
class while the students are only passive listeners and do what the teachers tell them to do.
This prevents them from producing the language. We cannot completely deny the application
of the traditional approach to grammar teaching as Giao et al (2004) remark. That means, the

18
lessons are mainly teacher-centered, with teachers’ detailed explanations and instructions, with
teachers’ questions and requirements for learners mechanical responses on the language items
to be taught. In fact, teachers feel more confident when using grammar- translation method
because it does not require much on the part of teacher. Moreover, despite the boredom of the
traditional grammar lessons, the students seem to produce more correct sentences and score
high marks in the final tests. As a result, students will able to read and write books in English
once they have mastered the grammar rules of English language. However, they have little
chance to communicate with each other. They speak with difficulty through they know the
rules very well. When they practice English, they are always afraid of making mistakes. If the
teachers want to make a change toward the communicative approach, they may have to cope
with difficulties related to both themselves and their students.
It is common to see in the traditional language classroom that students feel tense,
anxious and frustrated although they seem to concentrate on learning. In addition, the teachers
also feel nervous when their students have difficulty answering their questions, partly because
of the teachers’ over expectation, and partly because of difficult questions. At the end of the
lessons, they both feel exhausted. The reasons for this have been pointed out by Canh (2001)
as that of an inexperienced teacher does activities with unclear and complicated instructions or
goals about a target grammatical structure. He also pointed out that communicative language
teaching will help to solve these problems above.

1.6. The role of course book in language teaching and learning
Course books are an important component in most language programs. In some
situations they serve as the basis for much of the language input learners receive and the

language practice that occurs in the classroom. They may provide the basis for the content of
the lessons, the balance skills taught and the kinds of language practice the students take part
in. in other situations, the textbook may serve primarily to supplement the teacher’s
instruction. For learners, the course book may provide the major source of the contact they
have with the language apart from input provided by the teacher. In the case of inexperienced
teachers course books may also serve as a form of teacher training- they provide ideas on how