Nghiên cứu thực trạng dạy và học ngữ pháp trong các tiết Language focus trong sách giáo khoa mới Tiếng Anh 10 (Ban cơ bản) tại trường THPT Đội Cấn, Vĩnh Phú

1

L;VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
*****************



PHÙNG THỊ HUÊ


THE REALITY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
GRAMMAR IN LANGUAGE FOCUS PERIODS IN THE
NEW “ENGLISH 10” (BASIC STREAM) AT DOI CAN HIGH
SCHOOL IN VINH PHUC
NGHIÊN CỨU THỰC TRẠNG DẠY VÀ HỌC NGỮ PHÁP
TRONG CÁC TIẾT “LANGUAGE FOCUS” TRONG SÁCH
GIÁO KHOA MỚI “TIẾNG ANH 10” (BAN CƠ BẢN)
TẠI TRƯỜNG THPT ĐỘI CẤN, VĨNH PHÚC


M.A. Minor Thesis
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10



Hanoi - 2010

2

VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
*****************



PHÙNG THỊ HUÊ

THE REALITY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
GRAMMAR IN LANGUAGE FOCUS PERIODS IN THE
NEW “ENGLISH 10” (BASIC STREAM) AT DOI CAN HIGH
SCHOOL IN VINH PHUC
NGHIÊN CỨU THỰC TRẠNG DẠY VÀ HỌC NGỮ PHÁP
TRONG CÁC TIẾT “LANGUAGE FOCUS” TRONG SÁCH
GIÁO KHOA MỚI “TIẾNG ANH 10” (BAN CƠ BẢN)
TẠI TRƯỜNG THPT ĐỘI CẤN, VĨNH PHÚC

M.A. Minor Thesis

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10
Supervisor: Hoàng Thị Xuân Hoa, Ph.D

Hanoi - 2010


6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION …………………………………………………………………… …….i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………….………….ii
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………….iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………….iv
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………… …vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………….viii
PART I: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………1
1. Rationale of the study……………………………………………………………….1
2. Aims of the study…………………………………… ……………………………2
3. Research questions………………………………………………………………….2
4. Scope of the study…………………………………………………….…………….3
5. Significance of the study……………………………………………………………3
6. Method of the study…………………………………………………………………3
7. Design of the study………………………………………………………………….4
PART II: DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………….………….5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………… …………5
1.1. Definitions of grammar……………………………………………….… ……… 5
1.2. Role of grammar in English language teaching and learning…… ………………6
1.2.1. For-grammar perspectives …………………………………………….……7
1.2.2. Against-grammar perspectives …………………………………………… 7
1.3. Explicit and Implicit approaches to grammar teaching………………………….…8
1.4. Deductive and Inductive approaches to grammar instruction ……………… … 10
1.5. Grammar teaching in the major teaching methods……………………………… 12

1.6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………… ……14
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………….………………………15
2.1. Overview of the current situation of teaching and learning English


7
at Doi Can High School. ………………………………………………….……….15
2.1.1. The school context ……………………………………………………… 15
2.1.2. The new textbook English 10 (the standard textbook)
and its Language Focus section……………………………… ……… …16
2.2. Methodology…………………………………… ………………………………16
2.2.1. Research questions……………………………………… ………………16
2.2.2. Subjects of the study ………………………………………………………17
2.2.3. Data collection instruments…………………………………….………….18
2.2.3.1. Survey questionnaire……………………………………………………18
2.2.3.2. Classroom observation ………………….…………………………….19
2.2.3.3. Interview………………………………………………………………….20
2.2.4. Data collection procedure………………………………………………….20
2.2.5. Data analysis procedure……………………………………………………20
2.3. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 21
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ………………………………22
3.1. Findings from questionnaires for the teachers and the students ………… … 22
3.1.1. The teachers‟ and the students‟ perceptions on the importance
of grammar teaching and learning…………………………………………22
3.1.2. The teachers‟ and the students‟ opinions about the grammar parts
in the new English textbook………………………………… …… ……23
3.1.3. The teachers‟ methods of teaching grammar
in the Language Focus lessons……………………………………………24
3.1.4. The students‟ ways of learning grammar
in the language focus lessons …………………………………………… 28

3.1.5. Difficulties in teaching and learning grammar in the Language
Focus lessons as perceived by the teachers and the students …………… 30
3.2. Findings from class observations ……………………………… ………………33
3.3. Findings from interviews………………………………………………………….34
3.3.1. Findings from interviews with the teachers ………………………… ….34
3.3.2. Findings from interviews with the students ……………… …………… 35
3.4. Discussion of the findings ……………………………………………………… 35


8
3.5. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 37
PART III: CONCLUSION …………………………………………… ………………39
1. Summary of the study …………… …………….………………………………….39
2. Pedagogical implications ……………………….………………………………… 39
3. Limitations of the study …………………………………………………………….41
4. Suggestions for further study………………………………………………… … 41
5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………… 42
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………… ……………… 43
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………… I
Appendix 1: Grammar items in the Language Focus sections
in the new textbook English 10 …………………………………………… I
Appendix 2: Survey questionnaire for the teachers ………………………………….…III
Appendix 3: Survey questionnaire for the students ………………………………… VII
Appendix 4: Class observation transcripts 1-4 …………………………………………X
Appendix 5: Interview questions ………………………………………… ………XXV
Appendix 6: Interview transcripts ……………………………………… ……… XXVI

9
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The teachers‟ and students‟ perceptions on the importance of grammar English
teaching and learning
Table 2: The teachers‟ and the students‟ opinions about grammar parts in the new English
10 textbook
Table 3: The level of difficulty of the grammar exercises to the students as perceived by
the teachers and the students
Table 4: Teachers‟ methods of presenting grammar
Table 5: Teachers‟ ways of giving grammar instructions
Table 6: Teachers‟ grammar practice activities – Frequency of use
Table 7: The teachers‟ techniques of dealing with students‟ errors
Table 8: Factors Influencing the way the teachers teach grammar
Table 9: Students‟ level of understanding of grammar structures presented in the
Language Focus lessons
Table 10: The students‟ impressions of grammar lessons
Table 11: Students‟ preference for the teachers‟ grammar presentation methods
Table 12: Students‟ favourite grammar practice activities in the Language Focus lessons
Table 13: the teachers‟ difficulties in teaching grammar in the language focus lessons

Table 14: the students‟ difficulties in learning grammar in the language focus lessons









10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MOET: Ministry of Education and Training
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

11
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
It cannot be denied that English has nowadays become a common means of

communication of human being all over the world. Integrating into that trend of the global
integration, Vietnam has been more and more active to train active and dynamic
Vietnamese, who can use English fluently for communicative purposes. That is the reason
why in 2002, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has set out new aims for
English language teaching for secondary education as well as introduced new series of
English textbooks from grade 6 to grade 12.
The new English textbooks for high school students are divided into two sets: the
advanced and the standard. They are claimed to adopt the latest teaching and learning
approaches: communicative approach and learner-centered approach and aim at developing
both language skills and language knowledge for students. 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.
Since their nation-wide implementation in the school year 2006-2007, a great deal
of research have been carried out to evaluate these new textbooks as well as to find out
how these textbooks are actually implemented or the difficulties that teachers and students
at high schools have to face when teaching and learning by the new textbooks. However,
most of these studies have dealt with the teaching and learning of the four language skills
which are believed to be new for both teachers and students. There is still a lack of
research on the teaching and learning of language elements in the Language Focus part.
More importantly, the question whether teachers actually teach grammar communicatively
or in the traditional methods has not been answered yet. Therefore, it is necessary to carry
out more research on how teachers and students teach and learn grammar in the actual
classroom.
Moreover, after two years of teaching English by the new English textbooks at Doi
Can High School, the researcher observed that the teachers and learners there faced a


12
number of difficulties not only in teaching and learning the four language skills but also in

teaching and learning grammar during the Language Focus lessons.
Stimulated by the above reasons, the researcher has decided to conduct this study.
It is hoped that this study will discover the reality of teaching and learning grammar in
Language Focus lessons at Doi Can high school in order to contribute some immediate
solutions.
2. Aims of the study
The aim of this study is to examine the current teaching and learning of grammar in
Language Focus lessons in the new standard textbook English10 at Doi Can High School.
In order to achieve the aim, the study seeks to find out:
(1) The teachers‟ and students‟ perceptions on the importance of grammar teaching and
learning
(2) How the teachers and the students deal with grammar in the Language Focus lessons
(3) Whether the teaching and learning of grammar correspond with the new teaching
method underlying the new textbook
(4) The teachers‟ and students‟ perceived difficulties in teaching and learning grammar
in the Language Focus lessons
3. Research questions:
To achieve the aim and objectives of the study, the following research questions were
proposed:
1. How do the teachers and the students at Doi Can High School perceive the
importance of grammar teaching and learning?
2. How do the teachers teach and the students learn grammar in the Language Focus
lessons?
3. Does the teaching and learning of grammar in the Language Focus lessons match
the new teaching methodology underlying the new textbook?
4. What are the difficulties in teaching and learning grammar in the Language Focus
lessons as perceived by the teachers and students?


13

4. Scope of the study
As mentioned earlier, there are two sets of the new English textbooks for grade 10:
the advanced and the standard sets. This study is only aimed at investigating the reality of
teaching and learning grammar in Language Focus lessons in the standard set.
This study is limited to the teaching and learning reality with regard to teaching and
learning grammar in Language Focus lessons. The investigation of teaching and learning
language skills and pronunciation will be beyond the scope of this study.
This study is a detailed survey at Doi Can High School in Vinh Phuc. Therefore,
the findings of the study are not intended to be generalized to other school contexts. Indeed
the findings may not apply beyond the actual participants in this particular study.
5. Significance of the study
This study helps to identify the problems and suggests ways of improving them;
therefore, it is hoped that this study will be beneficial in many ways. First, participants in
the study (the teachers and the learners at Doi Can High School) will benefit immediately
from the experience of reflection. Secondly, the findings of the study will contribute
information to textbook writers and educators to determine curricula and program
direction.
6. Method of the study
The study was designed to use both quantitative and qualitative methods. Then,
various instruments were used to collect the data for the study from different sources:
- survey questionnaires to investigate the teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards
grammar, their teaching and learning habits and their difficulties in teaching and learning
grammar in Language Focus lessons.
- class observations to get information about both the teachers‟ methods of teaching and
students‟ ways of learning grammar in the classroom.
- interviews with the teachers and students to get in-depth information about the teachers‟
and the students‟ suggestions to improve the teaching and learning of grammar in the
Language Focus lessons in the new English 10 - the standard textbook.

14
7. Design of the study
The study is divided into three parts: Introduction, Development and Conclusion.
The Introduction presents an overview of the study including the rationale, aims,
scope, significance, methodology and design of the study.
The major part of the study, the Development, is divided into three chapters.
Chapter one provides theoretical background for the study. Chapter two presents the
methodology of the study and the last chapter is devoted to analyzing and discussing the
findings of the study.
The Conclusion part provides a brief summary of the findings in correspondence
with the four proposed research questions as well as offering some recommendations for
better grammar teaching and learning. The limitations of and suggestions for further study
are also discussed in this chapter.
Besides, the survey questionnaire for the teachers and students, the classroom
observation transcripts and the interview transcripts are included in the Appendices.

15
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Definitions of grammar
Concerning the terms “grammar”, several researchers have attempted to define it.
Apparently, depending on one‟s theoretical orientation, different people define grammar
differently.
The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (as cited in Harmer, 1987, p.1)
defines grammar as “the study and practice of the rules by which words change their forms
and are combined into sentences.” There are two basic elements in this definition: the rules
of grammar; and the study and practice of the rules. Here grammar constitutes a subset of
rules relating to word formation (morphology) and sentence formation (syntax).
Huddleston (1984) shares the similar view when seeing grammar as consisting of
morphology and syntax. According to him, morphology deals with forms of words while
syntax deals with the ordering of the words to form sentences (p. 1)
As can be inferred from the two definitions above, grammar is conventionally seen
as the study of morphology and syntax of sentences.
Cobbett (1984) regards grammar as “constituting rules and principles that help a
person to make use of words or manipulate and combine words to give meaning in a proper
manner. It concerns with form and structure of words and their relationships in sentences”.
According to Fromkin and Rodman (1998), "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" (p.14).
There are several similarities among two above-cited definitions. The first thing is
that according to these authors, grammar is assumed to be a guide through which words are
put together to make correct sentences. Secondly, grammar is composed of rules not only

relating to word formation (morphology) and sentence formation (syntax) but also
concerned with the meaning of the sentence (semantics) and the sound system (phonology)
within a language.


16
However, one drawback that all four definitions above (in both the first and second
categories) have in common is that grammar has been concerned almost exclusively with
the analysis at the level of the sentence. I am in favour of Widdowson (1990) with the
claim that “grammar is not just a collection of sentence patterns signifying nonsense” (p.
81).
For Thornbury (1999), grammar is not just rules on how to combine words at the
sentence level, but it also takes into account the role of context in which a sentence is
made. He says that “when we process language we are not only trying to make sense of the
words and the grammar, we are also trying to infer the speaker‟s (or writer‟s) intention” (p.
6).
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)
For the purpose of the study, I use the definition of Richards, Platt, and Platt (1992)
in their Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics:
Grammar is 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 meanings and
functions these sentences have in overall system of the language. It may or
may not include the description of the sound of a language. (p.161)
In this definition, grammar is viewed as descriptive, which refers to the structure of
a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers. Moreover, this definition shows
both linguistic and social features of grammar as it refers to not only rules to make correct

sentences but also meanings and functions of such sentences in the language, which is
necessary for the teaching and learning of foreign language.
1.2. Role of grammar in English language teaching and learning
Along the history of second language teaching, the role of grammar has been an
issue of controversy. According to Richards (2002), it is “perhaps the most controversial
issue in language teaching” (p. 145). Thornbury (1999) asserts that “in fact, no other issue


17
has so preoccupied theorists and practitioners as the grammar debate, and the history of
language teaching is essentially the history of the claims and counterclaims for and against
the teaching of grammar” (p. 14). The debate has brought about an extreme split of
attitudes, namely, those who hold that grammar should receive a central attention in
language teaching and those who hold that grammar should not be taught at all.
1.2.1. For-grammar perspectives
Many scholars in the field of language teaching and learning emphasize the role
grammar plays in language learning. For instance, Savignon (1991), one of the leading
advocates of communicative language teaching, emphasizes that “communication cannot
take place in the absence of structure, or grammar” (p. 268). In agreement with Savignon,
in their communicative competence model, Canale and Swain (1980) clearly view
grammar as one component of communicative competence and without grammar, learners
can communicate effectively only in a limited number of situations.
After reviewing ideas on the role of grammar teaching, Nunan (1991) came to a
conclusion that "grammar exists to enable us to 'mean', and without grammar it is
impossible to communicate beyond a very rudimentary level.” Furthermore, Wilkins (as
cited in Nunan, 1991, p. 152), one of the architects of communicative approach to language
teaching, also points out that “acquiring the grammatical system of the target language is
of central importance, because an inadequate knowledge of grammar would severely
constrain linguistic creativity and limit the capacity for communication”.
The list of supporters of grammar is still going on. Long and Richards (1987) assert

that grammar plays a central role in the four language skills and vocabulary to establish
communicative tasks. Brown (2007) points out that “grammatical competence occupies a
prominent position as a major component of communicative competence” (p. 348)
For Palmer (1984), the central part of a language is its grammar, and this should be
of “vital interest to any intelligent educated person. If it has not been of such interest, then
the fault must be in the failure to recognize its importance within this essentially human
activity” (p. 9).
1.2.2. Against-grammar perspectives


18
Due to the fact that many language learners know the grammar rules of a language
well, but they cannot communicate effectively in that language (Hinkel & Fotos, 2002),
several scholars do not believe that grammar teaching will have any impact on
communicative purposes and therefore neglect it. Prabhu (1987), for example, believes that
development of competence requires the creation of conditions in which learner engage in
an effort to cope with communication, not a systematization of planned grammatical input.
The strongest advocate of this view is Krashen (1983, 1987), who is famous for his
learning and acquisition hypothesis and his Monitor theory. Based on his learning and
acquisition hypothesis, Krashen argues that from learning the learners obtain conscious
knowledge of grammar which is not responsible for actual L2 performance. On the other
hand, acquisition is the underlying process which is responsible for the actual performance
and this can only happen unconsciously through natural exposure to comprehensible
inputs. What‟s more, according to his Monitor theory, consciously-learned grammar can
only function as monitoring and monitoring overuse will only disturb the flow of
production. Consequently, this grow-up holds that formal and conscious study of grammar
should be strongly rejected if the objective of learning the language is productive
competence. However, Krashen has received many strong criticisms from other researchers
as his acquisition theory seems to be merely based on his own observation without
supporting evidence.

In conclusion, grammar plays a very important role in language teaching, even
though there was a time when grammar was severely rejected, but as Richards (2002) says,
in recent years grammar teaching has regained its rightful place in the language teaching
and “grammar is too important to be ignored” (p. 145). The debate is now not on whether
grammar competence is important but rather on how to teach grammar. Therefore, the rest
of this chapter is devoted to presenting two core approaches to grammar teaching and
critically looking into the teaching of grammar in some major teaching methods.
1.3. Explicit and Implicit approaches to grammar teaching
As mentioned earlier, the issue related to grammar is not whether to teach it but
how to teach it. Concerning the latter, two distinctly different approaches to teaching


19
grammar have emerged over the years. These are the explicit and implicit approaches to
grammar teaching. According to Scott (1990), the implicit approach emphasizes that
students should be exposed to grammatical structures in a meaningful and comprehensible
context in order that they may acquire as naturally as possible the grammar of the target
language. In contrast, Scott (1990) describes the explicit approach as insisting upon the
value of deliberate study of a grammar rule in order to organize linguistic elements
efficiently and accurately. In DeKeyser‟s words (1994), implicit teaching of grammar
means that no rules are formulated; explicit means rules are formulated (either by the
teacher or the student, either before or after examples/practice) (p. 188)
On the one hand, scholars who support an implicit approach to grammar
instruction, argue that students will develop “naturally” all the grammar competency they
need to communicate effectively if they are exposed to comprehensible, meaningful
linguistic input. Indeed, Krashen and his colleagues (Krashen, 1987; Krashen & Terrell,
1983) led the evolution against explicit grammar instruction. The distinction that Krashen
makes between “learning” (a conscious process) and “acquisition” (a subconscious
process) forms the basis of his theory of implicit teaching strategies. He maintains that
second language acquisition can take place in the classroom without the explicit study of

grammar if students are exposed to enough comprehensible input. Moreover, according to
him, the conscious study of grammar does not aid in the natural acquisition process as
“…grammar exercises…can be valuable as tool to encourage learning. However, it should
be kept in mind that while their function is important, very little acquisition will take place
during their use” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p. 146).
However, Krashen‟s hypothesis has been criticized by many scholars as it is not
validated by experimental evidence. Moreover, Celce-Murcia (1991) warns that the
implicit approach “can lead to the development of a broken, ungrammatical, pidginized
from of the target language beyond which students rarely process” (p. 162). Such learners,
she explains, are often said to have fossilized in their acquisition of the target language.
On the other hand, there are many advocates for the explicit method of grammar
instruction. Mclaughlin (1990) supports the value of explicit grammar teaching by
distinguishing between controlled processing and automatic processing in learning a


20
foreign language. He stresses that language skills are learned and become automatic only
after the use of controlled process. In other words, students develop automatic control of a
grammatical structure after passing through a deliberate, conscious stage of learning
grammatical rule and their application. In addition, Sagvinton (1991) points out that while
involvement in communicative event is seen as central to language involvement, this
involvement necessarily requires attention to form or explicit language teaching.
The benefits of explicit approach over the implicit approach have been reported in a
number of research studies over the past two decades (Dekeyser, 1994; Scott, 1990; López,
2004; Andrews, 2007). The results from these studies show that students who were taught
the target structures explicitly performed better than those who received the implicit
method of instruction.
In short, it is hard to say which approach to grammar teaching is better. The writer
of this thesis is in support of explicit approach as she thinks that it is useful and suitable to
the teaching and learning situation in Vietnam where getting students exposed to

comprehensible input is hardly achievable.
1.4. Deductive and Inductive approaches to grammar instruction
While evidence for the need for formal instruction has been established through
such research studies, there is still some controversy regarding how and how much
instruction is necessary. From this debate, a broad distinction is often made between
deductive and inductive approaches (Thornbury, 1999).
 Deductive approach
Deductive approach is often called rule-driven learning (Thornbury, 1999). In this
approach, a grammar rule is explicitly presented to students and followed by practice
applying the rule. The deductive approach maintains that a teacher teaches grammar by
presenting grammatical rules, and then examples of sentences are presented. Once learners
understand rules, they are told to apply the rules given to various examples of sentences.
Giving the grammatical rules means no more than directing learners‟ attention to the
problem discussed. However, deductive approach to grammar teaching receives less
support than inductive approach. As Ellis in Richards (2002) reported, there has not been


21
convincing empirical verification as well as theoretical validation that the acquisition of
grammar structures involves the process of learning the rules and practicing them through
gradual automatization of production. Even so, deductive approach is often used by many
teachers due to its advantages such as time-saving for teachers and respect for students‟
expectations about classroom learning.
 Inductive approach
In contrast to deductive approach, inductive approach, which is labeled as rule-
discovery learning, starts with examples from which a rule is inferred (Thornbury, 1999).
The procedure is similar to the process of children acquiring their mother tongue. First,
learners are exposed to comprehensible language input and they will acquire the system of
the rules subconsciously through peripheral attention to language forms. Eisenstein (as
cited in Long & Richards, 1987) maintains that the inductive approach tries to utilize the

very strong reward value of bringing order, clarity and meaning to experiences. This
approach involves learners‟ participating actively in their own instruction. In other words,
this approach attempts to highlight grammatical rules implicitly in which the learners are
encouraged to conclude the rules given by the teacher
Brown (2007) says that in most contexts, inductive approach is more appropriate
because of several reasons. First, it is more in keeping with natural language acquisition
and conforms easily to the concept of interlanguage development. Second, it allows
learners to get a communicative feel for some aspects of language and builds more intrinsic
motivation through discovery learning. Even though inductive approach has several
advantages, it is obvious that it will work well only in the setting where there is sufficient
language input. In the context of English as a foreign language like in Vietnam, where
English is not used outside the English class setting, providing sufficient comprehensible
input constitutes a hard challenge for teachers. In addition, there is another important
decision that teachers have to make when using an inductive approach to teach grammar as
Celce-Murcia (2001) points out that “if a teacher has chosen an inductive approach in a
given lesson, a further option exists – whether or not to give or have students articulate an
explicit rule” (p. 263).


22
In conclusion, the deductive approach is related to the conscious learning process,
while the inductive approach relates to the subconscious learning processes similar to the
concept of language acquisition. Whether grammatical rules are taught inductively or
deductively rely much on the cognitive style of the learner and the language structure
presented (Brown, 2007). Therefore, the language teacher‟s job is to identify which
approach is appropriate for which grammar items and for which learning styles. And
sometimes, the question is not which one to choose but how well the two approaches are
combined. As according to Corder (as cited in Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 264)
What little we know about …second language learning …. suggests that a
combination of induction and deduction produces the best result. The old

controversy about whether one should provide the rule first and then the
examples, or vice versa, is now seem to be merely a matter of tactics to which
no categorical answer can be given”
Indeed, the combination of two approaches to presenting grammatical rules both
provides students with more active learning environment and prevents them from inducing
inaccurate rules for themselves.
1.5. Grammar teaching in the major teaching methods
Along the history of language teaching methodology, different teaching methods
have perceived grammar differently, especially its role and its teaching methods. In this
study, the researcher intends to present the teaching of grammar in four major teaching
methods, namely Grammar-Translation method, Direct Method, Audio-lingual Method and
Communicative Language Teaching approach.
The Grammar-Translation Method derived from traditional approaches to the
teaching of Latin and Greek in the nineteenth century. This method used grammar as the
starting point for instruction. The class under this method began with explicit grammar
rules presentation, followed by practices involving translation into and out of the student‟s
mother tongue (grammar is taught deductively). Students‟ native language is the language
of instructions and mistakes and errors must be avoided at any cost. The syllabus used was
structural syllabus (Richards and Rogers, 2002). Briefly, in this method grammar is
considered essential in foreign language teaching and there is an attempt to teach it in an


23
organized and systematic way. The best point of this method is that it helps learners
produce grammatically correct sentences and is easily used in large-sized classes; however,
learners taught with this method find it difficult to communicate in real life and tend to be
passive recipients of knowledge.
The Direct method emerged to challenge the way Grammar-Translation Method
focused exclusively on written language. The basic premise of the Direct Method was that
one should attempt to learn a second language in much the same way as children learn their

first language. The method emphasized oral interaction, spontaneous use of language, no
translation between first and second languages, and therefore rejected explicit grammar
teaching. Grammar is taught inductively in the target language by asking and answering
questions between teachers and students in small and intensive classes (Richards and
Rogers, 2002). An advantage of the Direct method is that learning in the target language
enables students to think in the target language. Beside, it may be advantageous to a
teacher using this method not to know his students‟ native language. However, the
complete avoidance of students‟ native language may lead to the misunderstanding of rules
and frustration from students.
Evolving from the work of structural linguists and behavioral psychologists, the
Audio-lingual approach proposes that language performance consists of a set of habits in
the use of language structures and patterns. Grammar is taught inductively with little or no
grammatical explanations. Dialogues and drills form the basis of audio-lingual classroom
practice. After a dialogue has been presented and memorized, specific grammatical
patterns in the dialogue are selected and become the focus of various kinds of drills and
pattern-practice exercises. The focus of instruction rarely moves beyond the sentence level
(Celce-Murcia, 1991). It is important to prevent learner from making errors because errors
lead to the formation of bad habits. When errors occur, they should be corrected
immediately by the teacher. The strong point of this method is that students can develop
listening and speaking proficiency at the same time they learn new structures; however, the
explicit use of the target language often leads to time consuming and students might get
bored with mechanical repetition or become well-trained parrots.


24
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which views language as an instrument
of communication, has been the dominant language teaching methodology since the mid-
1970s. There exist two versions of CLT: weak version and strong version. The weak
version of CLT argues that an explicit focus on forms has an important –but not primary-
role to play in second language learning and aims at using grammar and vocabulary to

achieve communicative goals. Whereas, the strong version of CLT rejects grammar
teaching when they argues that attention to forms is not necessary; learner can acquire an
implicit understanding of grammar by using the language in a system of meaningful tasks.
Concerning the teaching of grammar, Celce-Murcia (1988, p.27) introduces four stages of
a grammar lesson in the light of CLT: Presentation, Focused practice, Communicative
practice, and Teacher feedback and correction. In the presentation stage, a grammar
structure is introduced inductively or deductively. In the focused practice, the learners
manipulate the structure in question so as to gain control of the form for communication.
The next stage is communicative practice in which learners practice the target structure by
engaging in communicative activities such as information gap, role-play, discussion….
Although teacher feedback and correction is the final stage, it must take place throughout
the lesson as Celce-Murcia (1988, p.28) states that “during the second part of the lesson,
correction should be predominantly straightforward and immediate. During the third part,
however, communication should not be interrupted. Instead, teachers should take not of
errors and deal with them after the communicative exercises.”
1.6. Conclusion
In this chapter, the researcher has presented a number of issues related to the
research questions. These include the definitions of grammar, the roles of grammar in
language teaching, two approaches to grammar teaching, two approaches to grammar
instruction as well as the teaching of grammar in some teaching methods. This literature
review serves as the theoretical framework for the researcher to build up two sets of
questionnaires, then to analyze the data collected as well as to suggest some pedagogical
implications for the teaching and learning of grammar at Doi Can high school. The next
chapter will provide the readers with the information about the context and methodology of
the study.


25
CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1. Overview of the current situation of teaching and learning English at Doi Can

High School.
2.1.1. The school context
Doi Can high school was founded seven years ago as a result of the increasing
demand to go to school of the students in the area. At the time of foundation, there were
few students choosing to learn in this school because most of the students chose to study in
a more prestigious school not far from this school. However, the school has gradually built
up its prestige; more and more students applied study in the school. The school has 28
classrooms, a small library and a computer-equipped room.
Concerning the students, when entering grade 10, they can choose to pursue one of
three streams: the Natural Science Stream, the Social Science Stream and the Basic
Stream. English is one of the compulsory subjects for students in the high school. Students
who choose the Basic Stream or the Natural Science Stream study English in three periods
and those who choose the Social Science Stream learn English in five periods a week (each
period lasts forty five minutes). All students at Doi Can high school had studied English
for four years at the secondary school and they used the new English textbooks designed
by the MOET. There is a fact that most of the students at Doi Can high school choose to
pursue the Natural Science Stream; therefore, English is not their favorite subject. They
learn English just to pass the school exams.
In terms of teaching materials, the textbooks used for teaching English at the school
are “English 10, 11, and 12” by the MOET. These new English textbooks are divided into
two sets: the standard textbooks and the advanced textbooks. The standard textbooks are
intended for students studying in the Basic stream and Natural Science Stream. The
advanced textbooks are for those who study in the Social Science Stream. These textbooks
are designed to aim at developing students‟ communicative competence.
With regarding to teaching staff, there are six teachers of English whose ages range
from 23 to 47, two males and four females. Among them, four older teachers graduated
from College of Pedagogy of Vinh phuc and took part in a four-year course to get a
university degree. These teachers have a great deal of teaching experience, but they are
familiar with the Grammar-Translation teaching method. Two younger teachers, aged 23

26
and 26, graduated from Vietnam National University, College of Foreign Languages. All
the teachers are enthusiastic and supportive to their students and to one another.
2.1.2. The new textbook English 10 (the standard textbook) and its Language Focus
section
 The new textbook English 10 (the standard textbook)
The new textbook English 10 was developed based on the new national curriculum.
The book is claimed to adopt a theme-based syllabus. However, this syllabus may be more
appropriately described as a „multi-strand‟ one since there is almost everything in it: topics,
tasks, functions, notions, skills, grammar, vocabulary and sounds. The methodologies the
book is claimed to follow are the “learner-centered approach and the communicative
approach with task-based teaching being the central teaching method” (English 10,
Teacher‟s Manual, p.12). This textbook is accompanied with cassette tapes, student‟s
workbook and teacher‟s manual.
There are 16 teaching units and six review units in the book. Each teaching unit
covers one topic and is structured into five sections: Reading, Speaking, Listening, Writing
and Language Focus. Each section is supposed to be taught in one period of 45 minutes.
The sixteen topics are derived from six themes: You and me, Education, Community,
Health, Recreation, The world around us.
 The Language Focus section in the new textbook English 10:
The Language Focus section in the new textbook English 10 includes two parts:
Pronunciation and Grammar and Vocabulary. The Pronunciation part focuses on practice
of sounds (vowels and consonants). These sounds are firstly practiced in isolated words
and then repeated in sentences. The Grammar and Vocabulary part aims to consolidate the
target forms covered in the unit. There are usually from one to three grammatical items
introduced in each unit. These grammatical items are practiced in exercises such as
sentence completion, sentence writing, change of verb forms, word formation and so on.
Most of the exercises in the grammar parts are the structural ones. Grammatical items in
the Language Focus section are presented in the appendix.

2.2. Methodology
2.2.1. Research questions


27
In order to find out the reality of teaching and learning grammar in the Language Focus
lessons at Doi Can high school, the research focuses on answering four following
questions:
1. How do the teachers and the students at Doi Can High School perceive the
importance of grammar teaching and learning?
2. How do the teachers teach and the students learn grammar in the Language Focus
lessons?
3. Does the teaching and learning of grammar in the Language Focus lessons match
the new teaching methodology underlying the new textbook?
4. What are the difficulties in teaching and learning grammar in the Language Focus
lessons as perceived by the teachers and the students?
2.2.2. Subjects of the study
The subjects of the study consisted of 6 teachers of English and 135 students at Doi
Can high school in Vinh Phuc.
Six teachers (aged from 24 to 46) who are currently teaching English at Doi Can
high school were chosen as the subjects of the study. Among these teachers, four were
teaching grade 10 at the time of delivering the questionnaire; two teachers taught tenth
graders the previous academic year. Four teachers with more than ten years of teaching
experience graduated from College of Pedagogy of Vinh phuc and took part in a four-year
course at university to get a part-time degree. The two teachers, who have taught English
for two years, graduated from Vietnam National University, College of Foreign
Languages. None of them has Master of Art degree.
The target population of the students consisted of 450 grade 10 students at Doi Can
high school in Vinh Phuc. These students, aged from 16 to 17, belonged to ten classes.
They had already learnt English from grade 6 to grade 9 at secondary school by the new

series of English textbooks before entering high schools. At high school, they all pursued
the Basic Stream and studied English by the new standard English 10 textbook. Each class
has three English lessons a week. There is an important fact 73% of these grade 10
students got the marks under five in English test in the high school entrance exam The
researcher employed a cluster random sampling technique to select the sample for the
study. The reason was that it was difficult and time-consuming to select a random sample


28
of individuals and gather these subjects because they had been already assigned to different
classes with different timetables. In this case, according to Fraenkel and Wallen (2003),
cluster random sampling was more feasible. Besides, with regard to the sample size,
Fraenkel and Wallen (2003) noted that “samples should be as large as researcher can
obtain with reasonable expenditure of time and energy. A recommended minimum number
of subjects is 100 for a descriptive study”. They also pointed out that a common error made
by beginning researchers is randomly selecting only one cluster as a sample, which
provides unreliable results. With the above reasons, the researchers decided to randomly
select three classes. First, she wrote the numbers of classes from 10A1 to 10A10 on ten
cards respectively and put them in a hat. After mixing the cards thoroughly, she randomly
took out three cards. The numbers chosen were 10A2, 10A5, and 10A10. The total
numbers of students from these three classes were 135 students.
2.2.3. Data collection instruments
The researcher intended to collect the same information about the reality of
teaching and learning grammar in the Language Focus lessons at Doi Can School from
three sources: questionnaire, classroom observation, and interview with the hope to
guarantee the reliability and the objectiveness of the study.
2.2.3.1. Survey questionnaire
To gather data for this study, two questionnaires were administrated to the
respondents: one for the students and the other for the teachers. The questionnaires were
tested with a sample of three teachers and fifteen students for feedback on interpretation

and any ambiguities. After analyzing the data in the piloted study, the final and formal
questionnaires were established.
 Survey questionnaire for the students
The questionnaire designed for the students was distributed to them in the middle
of the second term. All questions and their items were written in Vietnamese to make sure
that the students have a clear understanding of the questions and answers before they give
out their choices. Furthermore, using their native language the students were able to
express their thought more easily in open-ended questions. The questionnaire consisted of
two parts. One was intended to collect personal information of the participants, such as