CHUYÊN đề hội THẢO các TRƯỜNG CHUYÊN VÙNG DHĐBBB lần THỨ VIII năm 2015 môn TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG CHUYÊN QUẢNG TRỊ

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
AND THE ISSUE OF INTEGRATING GRAMMAR
INTRODUCTION
The field of language teaching has undergone many shifts and trends over the last few
decades. Numerous methods have come and gone (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In recent decades,
to compensate for the limitations of the traditional language teaching methods, the
implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been encouraged to help
develop students’ English abilities appropriately in context (Littlewood, 2007) and
communicative competence in authentic contexts (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). This is due to the
awareness of English being the most widely spoken language in the world and used in various
areas such as technology, science, and business. Since the introduction of CLT, there has been a
lot of progress in English language teaching all over the world. The teaching has moved from the
presentation, practice and production to pre-, while- and post-stages, in which four skills (i.e.
reading, listening, speaking and writing) have been focused on and reflected.
However, teaching grammar has lagged behind the integration of pre, while and post
stages. The issues of “whether grammar should be taught or not” and “how to teach grammar”
have long been the focus of debate by many linguists and educators worldwide for the last 50
years. In the history of language teaching, grammar, as a subsystem in a network of other
linguistic sub-systems and sub-skills (Newby, 2003), has been attached different roles in the
language classroom and addressed by a number of linguistic theories and methodologies. The way
grammar has been considered has a direct and decisive influence on pedagogical grammars,
learning processes and many other areas involved in foreign language teaching. However, it
reaches little consensus, not only about the particular items to be taught, but about when, or how,
or even where to teach or learn. Indeed, one controversial aspect of CLT is the role of grammar
instruction. Krashen’s (1982, 1985) Monitor Theory suggests that grammar instruction is
unnecessary and has a very minimal effect on second language acquisition (SLA). Pica (2000)
argues that communicative teaching that focuses mainly on meaning with very little attention to
forms are not adequate to prepare learners for attaining native-like proficiency. Therefore, the role
of grammar in CLT needs to be justified.
Nowadays, many teachers are still wondering the way to fully integrate teaching grammar
when applying CLT. Although grammar instruction has recently been associated with contextual

teaching, we need to go beyond this movement to bring grammar instruction fully to life and to
make it purposeful and communicative. The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to
1


CLT and the issue of the implementation of grammar instruction with regard to communicative
language teaching.
ORIGIN OF CLT
The communicative approach could be said to be the product of educators who had grown
dissatisfied with the audio-lingual and grammar-translation methods of foreign language
instruction. They felt that students were not learning enough realistic, whole language. They did
not know how to communicate using appropriate social language, gestures, or expressions; in
brief, they were at a loss to communicate in the culture of the language studied (Larsen-Freeman,
2000).
CLT emerged in the early 1970s as a result of the work of the Council of Europe experts.
However, it can be traced to the work of Chomsky in the 1960s, when he advanced the two
notions of “competence” and “performance” as a reaction against the prevalent audio-lingual
method and its views. These two concepts were developed later on by Hymes, into a
“communicative competence” which refers to the psychological, cultural and social rules which
discipline the use of speech (Hedge, 2000).
CLT is best considered as an approach rather than a method. Accordance with the
communicative theory, communicative approach emphasizes the learning process, emphasizing
the interdependence of language and communicative relationship. Therefore, the communicative
approach is the core of the teaching process, the process of communication (Richards & Rogers,
1986).
In Vietnam, CLT has gained approval since it was first implemented in the early 1990s.
As Le (1999) revealed, two essential factors encouraging the use of CLT in Vietnam are the
support from government policy and Vietnamese teachers’ favorable view of this approach. A
new set of locally-written textbooks was introduced in 2002, and now pilot textbooks since 2013,
following the introduction of a new national curriculum which stated that communicative skills

should be the goal of teaching of English in secondary schools and that formal knowledge of the
language should only be seen as the means to an end (MOET, 2006).
CHARACTERISTICS OF CLT AND MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT IT
The fundamental principle of CLT is to enable learners to understand and use the target
language for communication. Two basic assumptions underlying this approach to language
learning are that the core of language learning is the development of communicative competence

2


and that the starting point for language learning is not grammatical rules but context, function,
meaning and the appropriate use of the language.
Richards and Rogers identify the distinct characteristics of communicative language
teaching as:
“Language is a system for the expression of meaning. The primary function of language is
for interaction and communication function of language. The structure of language
reflects its functional and communicative uses. The primary units of language are not
merely its grammatical and structural features, but categories of functional and
communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.” (1986:71)
In other words, the characteristics of CLT can be briefly described as followed:
* This approach calls for radically different ideas of language teaching. One major shift is
that language learning has become student-centred. Lessons are planned in such a way that all the
students can engage in interactive activities.
* Authentic and meaningful communication should be goal of classroom activities. Group
work and pair work are employed to promote communication and getting the meaning across.
Authentic materials, such as newspaper articles, radio programmes, video-tapes, train-timetables
etc., are used to bring the real world elements into the classroom. Situations are simulated but
interaction and task complete within real-time are genuine. Role-plays centre on communicative
functions.
* Fluency is an important dimension of communication. The objective of language

learning is to communicate; attempts to communicate are encouraged at the very beginning.
Errors are unavoidable but accuracy is judged in context rather in structures and forms. Errors
which are concerned with structures are not corrected openly and simultaneously because the
main concern is fluency and getting meaning through communication. Learning is a process of
creative construction and involves errors.
* Structurally (grammatically) sequenced curricula were a mainstay of language teaching
for centuries. CLT suggests that grammatical structure might better be subsumed under various
functional categories. CLT pays considerably less attention to the overt presentation and
discussion of grammatical rules than traditionally practiced.
The theory of language teaching underlying the Communicative Approach is holistic
rather than behavioristic (Richards & Rogers, 1986). CLT gives priority to the semantic content
of language learning. That is, learners learn the grammatical form through meaning not the other
way around. Thus, “learning activities are selected according to how well they engage the learner

3


in meaningful and authentic language use (rather than merely mechanical practice of language
patterns)” (Richards & Rogers, 1986:72).
Although CLT is accepted and is most widely used by many applied linguists and teachers
as the most effective approach among those in general use, there are still a number of
misconceptions about what it involves. Thompson (1996) listed 4 common misconceptions about
CLT. They are:
(i) CLT means no teaching of grammar
(ii) CLT means teaching speaking only
(iii) CLT means pair work, which means role play
(iv) CLT means expecting too much from teacher
As can be seen, one basic misconception (and also the most persistent and most damaging
one) is that CLT means no explicit teaching of grammar. Thompson (1996) refers to Krashen
(1988) that language acquisition cannot take place just by remembering rules of grammar, but

language learning takes place unconsciously by exposure to it. Without reverting to traditional
way of grammar teaching, Thompson suggests that an appropriate time of class should be given to
grammar teaching. He recommends a “retrospective way” to grammar teaching. He says learners
first be exposed to a simple understandable language context, it helps learner understand function
and meaning of that language context. Once the context is understandable, grammatical forms are
introduced afterwards. Thompson makes it clear CLT does not mean exclusion of grammar
teaching completely.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHING GRAMMAR
The term grammar has been interpreted in different ways, oftentimes causing confusion in
the language-teaching field. However, as Batstone (1994) claims, grammar is an immensely broad
and diverse phenomenon which embodies three interdependent dimensions: form, meaning and
use. This perspective on grammar, where forms are presented in direct association with meaning,
views grammar as an integral part of the language. Grammar is a device for constructing and
conveying meaning without which, effective communication would be impossible. Grammar is
essentially about the systems and patterns used to select and combine words… By studying
grammar, the structure and regularity which is the foundation of language is recognized and
learners gain the tools to talk about the language system (de Silva Joyce & Burns, 1999).
Grammar teaching has been subject to as many changes as any other aspect of language. It
seems that the emphasis has moved from the teachers’ task in teaching grammar to the learner’s

4


task in learning it and putting it into use, shifting the debate from what grammar is to how it can
best be taught to help students achieve this goal.
Teaching grammar has a positive influence on noticing grammatical forms, preventing
fossilization, using grammar creatively, and encouraging classroom participation.
If learners are continuously exposed to a certain grammatical structure in formal
instruction, they are more likely to notice the structure and realize the difference between
grammatically correct speech and their current speech. Thus, the students’ observation will help

them to use the structure in communication automatically (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).
Another advantage of teaching grammar is to prevent fossilization, which means “a
broken, ungrammatical, and pidginized form of a language” (Newby, 1998:2). He asserts that
purely meaning-based instruction, which does not focus on grammar, can facilitate this
fossilization because some complicated structures cannot be acquired by natural conversation.
In addition, teaching grammar also helps learners to use language more creatively.
Littlewood (2007) also asserts that if students who study English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
learn grammar, “they can not only use set phrases or insert alternative words into fixed patterns,
but also make choices within the grammatical system itself” (p.17). For instance, an EFL learner
who is taught how to use a noun phrase could inquire, “Would you like a cup of tea?” or “Would
you like a piece of cake” by inserting an alternative. Moreover, if the student learns how to use an
infinitive verb, the student will be able to inquire, “Would you like to buy these cakes” (p.17). For
these reasons, teaching grammar can give students opportunities to use a second language more
creatively.
Lastly, teaching grammar has a positive influence on EFL students’ spontaneous
classroom participation. For instance, EFL learners who are already familiar with grammar
instruction can speak English with confidence only when they are convinced that their speech is
grammatically correct. Specifically, EFL learners can be strongly motivated when they can
“prepare notes before inviting oral responses” (Littlewood, 2007:3).
PROBLEMS IN GRAMMAR TEACHING
Grammar teaching is an extremely important part of foreign language teaching but there
exist two universal problems. One is that it is ineffective: during class, teachers explain grammar
rules one by one, and students seem to understand and they have done many related exercises, but
when they speak and write, they still make many grammatical mistakes. The other is that the
students feel that grammar teaching is very dull and boring. Therefore they have no interest in
learning. Larsen-Freeman (2000) suggests that teachers and students must change their beliefs in
5


grammar. Teachers can not regard grammar as fixed and rigid rules, but should consider it as a

skill, and must teach students grammar like the four skills. Teachers should cultivate students’
ability to use grammar structures accurately, meaningfully and appropriately.
If grammar instruction is appropriate for a class, the teacher’s next step is to integrate
grammar principles into a communicative framework, since the fundamental purpose of language
is communication. Unfortunately, grammar is often taught in isolated, unconnected sentences that
give a fragmented, unrealistic picture of English and make it difficult for students to apply what
they have learned in actual situations (Batstone, 1994).
Many teachers only focus on forms and infusing knowledge of grammar by repetitious
instruction, but neglect training the students’ ability to communicate and use the English
language. They often spend most of their time explaining dull, complex grammar rules. The
practice of attaching great importance to form but underestimating language communication has
long been involving in our ELT.
Whether communication serves language or language serves communication has been the
point of issue.
GRAMMAR TEACHING IN CLT
The teaching of grammar in CLT has always stirred controversy among researchers.
Traditionally, grammar was taught by rules and supported by examples, then presented as a
systematic correlation. As far as the grammar-based approaches, they are built on the assumption
that through teaching grammar exclusively, the learners will be able to fully master the target
language. The most renowned grammar-based approaches are traditional translation and audiolingual methods. Though they differ in many respects, these methods share the assumption that
language is best learned through the explicit grammar instruction. However, many researchers
have attested to the fact that language teaching cannot be limited solely to grammar teaching. This
is so because the explicit teaching of grammar does not result in fluency. Therefore, these
approaches have been put into question with the advent of the communicative movement (LarsenFreeman, 2000).
There is a widespread belief that CLT does not include any grammar. However, Spada
(2007) argues that the thought that CLT “means an exclusive focus on meaning” is a myth or a
misconception (p.275). In fact, that widespread belief that CLT eclipsed attention to grammar is
only partly true, since although CLT syllabuses are organized according to categories of meaning
or functions, they still have a strong grammar basis (Thornbury, 1999:23), that is to say, the

6


functions into which CLT syllabuses are organized are connected with their correspondent
grammatical points.
Unlike the grammar-based approaches, the CLT is based on the idea that language is best
learned through communication, not via the mechanical presentation of grammatical forms.
Hymes’ theory of communicative competence (1972) has been very influential in the
development of CLT, which puts the development of students’ communicative competence as its
primary goal. As a result, the CLT has disregarded the explicit use of grammar rules in teaching
grammar. This has led to a shift from form-focused instruction to meaning-focused instruction
(Thompson, 1996). However, this fact is also one of the points of criticism of the CLT that most
of scholars worldwide agree with. They are afraid that such concentration on language behavior
may result in negative consequences in the sense that important structures and rules would be left
out (Pekoz, 2008). The exclusive focus on grammar instruction has also been found to be
inadequate to develop learners’ ability to perform in oral communication.
There is a mixture of beliefs regarding grammar instruction. Some scholars support the
exclusion of grammar learning, while other researchers emphasize the need to include grammar
teaching in CLT.
In Krashen’s (1982, 1985) hypothesis of acquisition versus learning, he believes that
acquisition happens naturally, provided that learners receive sufficient comprehensible input, and
that only acquired knowledge can lead to fluent communication. Also, Krashen’s Monitor
Hypothesis proposes that explicit form teaching only serves as a tool for monitoring learners’
language. That is, learners learn grammatical rules only to monitor the correctness of their
language use, which is in addition to what has been acquired. However, the advocates of explicit
grammar instruction argue that it is inadequate to acquire a second language, if meaning is the
only focus.
Some teachers think that form-focused instruction and communicative activities, where
the focus is on meaning, should be separated. They believe that drawing students’ attention to
grammar, while they are engaging in meaning, may have harmful effects. However, some

scholars argue that form-focused instruction and communicative activities should be combined.
Students pay more attention to target forms, and the forms become more memorable, if students
learn them in context (Pekoz, 2008).
Psycholinguistic experiments show that, regardless of language acquisition of children, or
adults in SLA, their awareness of grammar acquisition and understanding of the project is carried
out according to a certain order. Therefore, communicative grammar teaching practice is often
used to focus on teaching how to make the students, in a specific context, achieve specific
7


communicative functions, such as: inquiry, instruction, order, refusal, request, etc. The
communicative competence asserts that knowledge of a language not only lies in knowing the
grammatical forms of that language, but also of knowing how to use them appropriately in
different communication contexts. Therefore, many educators have argued that communicative
approaches should revisit its goals and thus incorporate both form and meaning (Hymes, 1972).
Furthermore, Canale and Swain (1980) presented a model of communicative competence
which includes four sub-categories, namely grammatical, sociolinguistic discourse and strategic.
They consider someone competent in English should demonstrate both rules of grammar and use.
Discussing the role of grammar within any communicative approach can be controversial,
due to these misconceptions and also to the influence of Natural Approaches, which ascribed no
grammar role in language learning. However, when explaining the role of grammar specifically in
CLT, some of that controversy may be solved if we do not talk about one single type of CLT but
about two main types, the shallow-end approach and the deep-end approach to CLT (Thornbury,
1999).
The shallow-end approach to CLT is based on the thought that in order to make the learner
use language in a communicative situation, it is necessary first to learn the grammatical rules and
then apply them in that communicative situation; on the other hand, the deep-end approach to
CLT is based on the belief that grammar is acquired unconsciously during the performance on
those communicative situations, so it would be useless to teach grammar previously and explicitly
(Thornbury, 1999:18-19).

In the shallow-end to CLT, grammar is taught in a way that we can define as inductive:
learners are not presented with a list of grammatical rules that they have to learn by heart
(presentation-practice-production cycle) but rather, the teacher provides them with examples from
which the learners will have to infer the rules by themselves. By means of this consciousnessraising (as Rutherford (1996) calls), the teacher makes the learners relate the new grammatical
concepts to other grammatical information that they already have, both from other grammatical
concepts in the target language or even from grammatical information which appears in their first
language. By provoking a consciousness-raising in the learners they take into account their
general framework of knowledge which is already acquired, so the new grammar is as familiar to
the learner as possible and it is not presented as something strange or unattached to previous
knowledge.
Contrarily from the shallow-end approach, the deep-end methodology claimed that
grammar should be acquired unconsciously. The cycle of input-intake-output reflected in this
theory assumed no role for grammar, as it would affect the final aim of communication. This
8


model has had a great influence on English Language Teaching (ELT), and there is still a belief
that the teaching of grammar might be harmful for communicative competence, as it claims that
conscious reflection about grammar affects negatively input processing and performance. The
reaction, in deep-end approaches, was not to teach grammar, as learners would be unable to
integrate it within communication processes.
Indeed, there have been a number of applied linguists who have argued strongly and in
theoretically persuasive terms that explicit grammar teaching should be avoided. One line of
argument is that grammar teaching is impossible because the knowledge that a speaker needs in
order to use a language is simply too complex (Prabhu, 1987). Another is that grammar teaching
is unnecessary because that knowledge is of a kind which cannot be passed on in the form of
stable rules, but can only be acquired unconsciously through exposure to the language (Krashen,
1988).
However, the exclusion of explicit attention to grammar was never a necessary part of
CLT. It is certainly understandable that there was a reaction against the heavy emphasis on

structure at the expense of natural communication. But there have always been theorists and
teachers pointing out that grammar is necessary for communication to take place efficiently
(Batstone, 1994).
CLT suggests an alternative way of acquiring grammar: through the study of authentic
texts. It is clear enough that students need a basic understanding of structures which will enable
them to generate language. Teachers have to adopt a ‘hybrid’ approach on grammar and CLT.
This implies they need, at least, an outline of ideas about grammatical progression and a selection
of texts to support the development. One way to present grammar communicatively is through
structured input activities which direct learners to pay attention to the target language through
arranging input from the instruction. The basic notion of these activities is how learners encode
grammatical forms through meaningful context. The purpose of structured input activities is to
raise learners’ awareness of the target structures with meaning (Pekoz, 2008).
All in all, language is not only a set of formal systems, but it is a set of systems, and it is
perverse not to focus on questions of form when this is desirable. Some points of grammar are
difficult to learn, and need to be studied in isolation before students can do interesting things with
them. It is no use making meaning tidy if grammar then becomes so untidy that it cannot be learnt
properly. Brumfit (1978) points out that the teaching of functions and notions cannot replace the
teaching of grammar. Larsen-Freeman (2000) states that a more satisfactory characterization of
teaching grammar, harmonious with the above assumptions, is that teaching grammar means
enabling language students to use linguistic forms accurately, meaningfully and appropriately
9


(279-280). Savignon (2002) maintains that learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates
to their communicative needs and experiences. For this reason, grammar and communication
arenot mutually exclusive, but interdependent. Brown (2007) agrees with the indispensable role of
grammar in CLT and he presents principles of integrating grammar and communication.
Grammar should be “embedded in meaningful and communicative context” and it should meet
students’ communicative goals. In addition, teachers should not “overwhelm students with
linguistic terminology” but rather help them improve both fluency and accuracy (p.349).

HOW TO INTEGRATE GRAMMAR FOR CLT
The question of how to integrate grammar in CLT has received a lot of attention form
many scholars, educators and teachers. Many examples of this integration have been made.
Grammar is important in communication. With the correct grammar, we can express our
ideas clearly and meaningful. Therefore, schools do not only focus in communication teaching,
but also grammar. Grammar teaching, like teaching the four skills, should involve pre-, whileand post-stages in an attempt to provide integrated learning environments (Pekoz, 2008).
In the pre-grammar stage, the teacher should bring grammar instruction to life, stimulate
interest in the topic, and raise awareness by providing a reason for learning. The while-grammar
stage should facilitate noticing of the new grammar point, and provide meaningful input through
contextual examples, pictures, and texts. Finally, the post-grammar stage should provide an
opportunity to put grammar to use, and relate grammar instruction to real life situations. The main
distinction between the while- and post-stages is that the while-stage involves the clarification of
the meaning, whereas the post-stage focuses on the productive aspects of the new structure
(Larsen-Freeman, 2000).
In order to teach the simple present passive tense, Sidabutar (2012) clarifies these steps
to integrate grammar for CLT as followed:
- First, in Pre-grammar stage, the teacher asks the students to tell about their daily
activities. After telling their daily activities, the teacher asks: “who prepares your breakfast every
morning?” (The teacher tries to get responses like breakfast is prepared by my mother every
morning).
- Second, in While-grammar stage, the teacher asks the students to tell their own daily
activities and turns attention to the statements like “the dishes are washed, the floor is swept, the
room is cleaned”. The teacher asks questions to get the passive voice structure. Following this,
the teacher asks clarification check questions such as: “What is the difference between she cleans

10


the room and the room is cleaned?”; “When do you think we need the second structure?”…. The
teacher asks the students to make the pattern of the simple present passive voice on the board.

- Third, in Post-grammar stage, the teacher gives the hand-out to be filled out and asks
students to ask the class members to answer the questions: “Who is prepared breakfast?, “What is
watched by a child?, “Who is scolded by a teacher?”… After that, the teacher assigns an
incomplete writing task and asks them to complete it using the simple present passive tense as in
the following: your sleeping time is too much, but you like to do it and sometimes you forget to do
your assignments. Write a letter to tell how to manage time well even though you like sleeping too
much.
As can be seen from the above example, the teacher provided meaningful input though
context and provided an opportunity to put grammar to use and relate grammar to real life
situations. The way to integrate grammar for CLT, according to Sidabutar (2012) is by using pregrammar, while-grammar stage, and post-grammar stage.
In the consensus view of CLT, it is now fully accepted that an appropriate amount of class
time should be devoted to grammar. However, this has not meant a simple return to a traditional
treatment of grammar rules. In CLT, the focus has now moved away from the teacher covering
grammar to the learners discovering grammar. Wherever possible, learners are first exposed to
new language in a comprehensible context, so that they are able to understand its function and
meaning. Only then is their attention turned to examining the grammatical forms that have been
used to convey that meaning. The discussion of grammar is explicit, but with guidance from the
teacher, it is the learners who are doing most of the discussing, working out as much of their new
knowledge of the language as can easily and usefully be expressed. The learners have an
opportunity to talk about what they are learning. While looking explicitly at grammar may not
lead immediately to learning, it will facilitate learning at a later stage when the learner is ready to
internalize the new information about the language (Sidabutar, 2012).
The communicative approach to language teaching stresses the importance of
communication and interaction among the pupils and between the teacher and the pupils to learn a
foreign language. Rather than repeating mechanically dialogues or grammar rules learnt by heart,
the CLT encourages pupils to use the target language in semi-authentic contexts. This approach
also values the pupils' personal experiences outside the classroom as a way to facilitate their
learning in the lesson. Some common tasks in the CLT are pair or group work, discussions about
different aspects of students’ lives, games, role-play … (Savignon, 2002). In CLT, students need
grammar, not for its own sake, but in order to scaffold them into achieving a particular activity.

Sidabutar (2012) suggests that grasping the point of need is the most effective way in teaching
11


integrated grammar in CLT such as when students need the grammar in preparation for a
particular activity, as they are doing the activity and need brief input from the teacher on a
particular form or after the activity in order to refocus their attention on key patterns or
vocabulary needed to complete the activity.
Another example to illustrate the integration of grammar in CLT comes from Pekoz’s
(2008) suggestion in teaching the structure: used to.
- In the Pre-grammar Stage, the teacher discusses the topic "changes in people over the
years". Then, the teacher shows two pictures of a woman. One picture was taken 20 years ago and
the other one is new. The old picture shows her playing the guitar while the new one displays her
painting pictures. The teacher then asks them to compare the two pictures.
- In the While-grammar Stage, the teacher tells students that they are going to learn a new
structure (for the purpose of noticing) but does not mention the name of structure (for
motivational purposes). Then, the teacher makes a transition from the context created in Pregrammar Stage to the grammatical point by showing the same pictures and telling the picture
differences with “used to” and “simple present tense” (i.e. “She used to play the guitar as a hobby,
but now she doesn't, she paints pictures as a hobby now”, etc.). After that, the teacher creates
other contexts for the teaching of grammatical point through some other picture comparisons,
discussions, stories, or reading/listening texts. The teacher asks some questions to ensure that the
meaning is clear. For example: Did she often play the guitar in the past? Does she play the guitar
now? Did she often paint pictures in the past? Does she paint pictures now? Did she have long
hair in the past? Does she have long hair now?... Finally, the teacher asks the students to
formulate the rule on the board for the given sentence providing help if needed.
- In the Post-grammar Stage, the Brainstorming activity is used. The teacher asks students
to think back to when they were a child and asks the following questions: “What are the
differences and similarities between your life then and now? Think about where you lived, your
likes/dislikes, your holidays and your family, and fill in the following lines with appropriate
sentences”.

Your life as a child ………..............
Your present life…………………....
After that, the teacher forms pairs of students and gives a role play to each student. The
role playing students are supposed to be old friends meeting after a long time. They are supposed
to communicate and note the differences in each using either their imagination or the role play
cues. Finally, the teacher asks students to write a story about the following topic for the school
magazine, “Imagine that you have been asleep from 2007 till 2050. You have just woken up to be
12


shocked about everything around you. Compare your old and new lives and write your story
using ‘used to’.”
As can clearly be seen form this example, CLT gives opportunities to the students to
construct their knowledge by themselves. O’Neill (2000) states that “good communicative
teaching is learner-centered, not teacher-centered” (p.13). The teacher only stimulates the students
to construct the knowledge by giving example or clue. In addition, “the classroom and the
behavior of teachers and learners in the classroom should be as similar as possible to the behavior
of people in the ‘real world’ outside the classroom” (O’Neill, 2000:14), because what the students
learn will be applied in their real life.
CONCLUSION
In conlcusion, in this 21st century, the world has ‘shrunk’ and we are living in a global
village where the need to communicate in a common language tongue is ever stronger. It can’t be
denied the important role that CLT plays in the modern methodological world. CLT is no doubt
an excellent tool for increasing fluency. However, the issue of integrating grammar effectively in
Communicative approach is always a thought-provoking question attracting scholars, educators
and teachers worldwide. In case of Vietnam, there should have an empirical research on the way
teachers in English integrate grammar in their lesson plans when implementing CLT and on the
effectiveness of this integration. However, in my opinion, if the nature of most of the
examinations is still grammar-based, it is difficult for teachers to apply this integration effectively
and for students to get better results when exams are designed to test only linguistic competence

rather than communicative competence. As a result, it is difficult to take full advantage of the
benefits CLT brings to its learners in the modern world. As we know, no single teaching method
deals with everything that concerns the form, the use and the content of the target language.
Despite the advantages of teaching communicatively, having a variety of teaching methods is
necessary. Therefore, the best solution in this case is that we can’t throw away the traditional
teaching method completely but need a combination to create the most suitable method/approach
for Vietnamese learners, or use a new grammar teaching approach that combines both
perspectives, namely focus-on-form instruction.
**************
Ngô Quang Minh Hải
Trường THPT chuyên Lê Quý Đôn - Quảng Trị

13


REFERENCES
1. Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
3. Brumfit, C. J. (1978). Review of D. A. Wilkins's Notional Syllabuses. ELT Journal XXXIII/l: 79-82.
4. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing. Applied Linguistics (1): 1–47.
5. de Silva Joyce, H., & Burns, A. (1998). Focus on grammar. Sydney: NCELTR.
6. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press.
7. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In: J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds). Sociolinguistics.
Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269-293.
8. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
9. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
10. Krashen, S. (1988). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
11. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Le, V. C. (1999). Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. Paper presented at the Fourth International

Conference on Language and Development, “Partnership and Interaction”, Hanoi.
13. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language
Teaching, Vol. 40 (3), 243-249.
14. Newby, D. (1998). ‘Theory and Practice in Communicative Grammar: A Guide for Teachers’ in R. de
Beaugrande, M. Grosman, B. Seidlhofer, (eds.) Language Policy and Language Education in Emerging Nations,
Series: Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol. LXIII, 151-164.
15. Newby, D.A. (2003). Cognitive and Communicative Theory of Pedagogical Grammar. Habilitationsschrift: KarlFrancens Universität Graz.
16. O'Neill, R. (2000). Communicative Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Pekoz, B. (2008). Integrating Grammar for Communicative Language Teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 1-5.
18. Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology. System, 28, 1–18.
19. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and
analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
22. Rutherford, W. E. (1996). Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London, New York: Longman.
23. Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In Savignon
S. J. (Ed.), Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (p.1–
27). New Haven: Yale University Press.
24. Sidabutar, J. (2012). Grammar for Communicative Language Teaching. Kamis (12), 27-29.
25. Spada, Nina (2007), “Communicative Language Teaching: Current Status and Future Prospects.” In: Cummins,
Jim & Davison, Chris (Eds.). International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Part 1. New York:
Springer, 271-288.
26. Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, Volume
50/1, 9-15.
27. Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Longman: Pearson Education Limited.

14