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

Using inductive consciousness-raising tasks in teaching grammar rules is ane of the possible solutions fo the problems diseussed above, because il nol only relieve teachers from the burd

VIETNAM NATIONAL DNIVERSITY, HANOGL

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDLES

'LA THANH HINH

THE IMPLEMENTATION GF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING

TECIINIQUE ON GRAMMAR TEACIIING TO A CLASS OF

SECOND-YEAR NON-MAJOR STUDENTS AT HANOI NATIONAL UNVIERSITY OF EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY

(Vận dụng thủ thuật xây dựng nhận thức ý nghĩa trong việc dạy ngữ phán cho một lớp sinh viên năm thú hai không

chuyên ở Trưởng Đại Học Sư Phạm Hà Nội: Điển cứu)

PROGRAMI M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology

Code: 66 14 10

VIETNAM NATIONAL DNIVERSITY, HANOGL

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDLES

'LA THANH HINH

THE IMPLEMENTATION GF CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING

TECIINIQUE ON GRAMMAR TEACIIING TO A CLASS OF

SECOND-YEAR NON-MAJOR STUDENTS AT HANOI NATIONAL UNVIERSITY OF EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY

(Vận dụng thủ thuật xây dựng nhận thức ý nghĩa trong việc dạy ngữ phán cho một lớp sinh viên năm thú hai không

chuyên ở Trưởng Đại Học Sư Phạm Hà Nội: Điễn cứu)

PROGRAMI M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology

Code: 6014 16

Supervisor: Phung [la Thanh, M.A

Hanoi, 2010

iv

TABLE OF CONTENT

TNERODUCTION

1.1 Rationales of the study

1.2 Rescarch problems and questions

1.3 Scope of the siuủy,

1.4, Methodology of the study

1.5 Significance of the study

1.6 Organization of the thesis

CILAPTER |: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Different pproachos to graunar tcaoling cec sec

L.L.1 Zero-grammar approach versus form-focused approachôs 1.1.2, Deduetive versus inductive approach

1.2.4, Conseiousness-raising versus practice

1.2.4.1 The role af practice in second language teaching

1.2.4.2 The role of consciousness-raising in sceond language Icaming 1.3 Studies on learners’ preferences to inductive consciousness-raising tasks

1.4 Studies on effectiveness of induclive consciousness-raising tasks

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1 The context and subjects

2.1.1, Teaching context

2.1.2 The suibjeefs of the study

2.1.2 The researcher role

3.2.1 Reasons for the preference of deductive learning wo DD 3.2.2 Reasons for the preference of induetive consciousness-raising 23

3.3 How different were students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising and

3.5 To what extent did students succeed in discovering the target miles? .26

3.5.1, Success rales from the analysis of worksheets a) 3.5.2, Success rates from the analysis of students’ self-reflection 28 3.5.3, Faihure rates in coitparison 29

3.5.5 Success rales amd the difficully degrees in comparison cel 3.6 To what extend, did they remember the rules that they had discovered by

3.6.2 Test results and success rates in COMpaTSOR sen cneenenneesneenaeereSd

C Limitations and suggestions for further research _ 36

APPENDICES

vị

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

Table 2 Subjects’ evaluations on the two types of learning in fens of 24

interestingness Table3 Subjects’ evaluations on the two types of learning with regards to | 24

difficulty Table 4 Subjects’ evaluations on the lwo lypes of learning wilh regards to | 25

usefiuness Table 5 Students” opinions about learning without practice 25 Table 6 Students’ success rates in discovering rules 26 Table 7 Rule discovering failure rates In comparison 2 Table§ Success rates of rule discovering and the difficulty degrees in 31

comparison

‘Table 9 ‘lest results and success raies in comparison 3

Chan! Students” success tate in discovering rales 2 Charl? Students’ self-reflection on their rules discovering 28

TNTRODUCTION

1 Rationales of the study

According to Ellis (2006: 101), grammar has held and continues to hold a

central place in language teaching Indocd, grammar has played an important part in Janguage education, explaining why grammar still has occupied a considerable space in current language course-book materials, Moreover, the question of how grammar should

‘be approached has been in the arena for discussion for a century, proving that teaching grammar is a matter of great concer by second language theorists In practice, a great arsiount of lime in language (caching syilatmses has also been spent on grammar, and fo xuany tcachers teaching a language mainly involves dealing with its grammar

In Vietnam, the approach to grammar teaching that has been favoured by most leachers of English is the deductive one, where teachers play the role of knowledge

providers and learners’ role is limited to receivers Such way of teaching grammar is not only tiring for teachers for they have to spend most of lesson time talking presenting, explaining, and vorreeting grammar practice excreises, bul zarners atso find if boring lo attend long-lasting lessons in silence, More importantly, deductive teaching does not foster learners” autonomy because of its teachar-led quality As a result of the deficit in sel Pstudying skills, leamers have to depend greally on the teacher for the main source knowledge, thus restricting thei learning success

Using inductive consciousness-raising tasks in teaching grammar rules is ane of the possible solutions fo the problems diseussed above, because il nol only relieve

teachers from the burden of speaking, enhance leamers’ autonomy and create motivating 1earning environment but it is also expected to be effective in terms of explicit

knowledge gains and retention in an inductive grammar lesson, learners actively work with one another most of the time and the teacher just interferes when help is needed,

‘hence enabling him/her to save a great deal af energy for presentation, Moreover,

themselves then they are making significant steps towards being self-relrant and

independent Furthermore, inductive consciousness-raising involves problem-solving activities, which are believed to be stimulating and motivating to the majority of leamers

In terms of effectiveness, inductive learning involves great mental effort, and learners arc actively engaged in the memning-making process, consequently they are more

attentive and attain greater retention of the knowledge acquired

‘Though grammatical consciousness-raising tasks have a firm base in second

Janguage acquisition rescarch and have become popular among theorists, they have not been widely used by practitioners There are several reasons accounting for this fact

Some tcachers arc afraid that carers may nol profer the idca of discovering rules by themselves for they nommally expect to get knowledge trom their teachers Some project that learners may feel frustrated when learning without practice Others are concemed if inductive consciousness-raising is effective for learners with low levels of English

‘because it is suggested by some rescarchers that learners nocd cnough proficiency to

perform consciousness-raising tasks ‘'his paper describes a study to investigate whether this expectation has any basis

2 Research problems and questions

‘The study purposes lo invastigaic leamers? preferenees between the inductive conscious-raising and the tracitional deductive approach to grammar teaching, reasons for their liking, their evalnations on two types of leaming, their opinions regarding

Joarning without practice, and the offecti s pf inductive consciousness-raising lasks

Specifically, the study aims to address the following questions:

1) Which types of learning (the inductive consciousness-raising or the deductive approach) did the students prefor before andl after the implementation?

2 What are the possible reasons for their preferences?

2 Tow different were students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising

and deductive Icarning?

4 What were students’ opinions about leaming grammar rules without practice?

5) To what extent did students succeed in discovering the target miles?

6) To what extend, did they remember the rules that they had discovered by

themselves?

3 Scope of the study

Consciousness-raising is a broad idea which can be applied to various fields of teaching and consciousness-raising itself can be either inductive or deductive The

consciousness-raising implemented in this study is grammatical consciousucss-raising, which is conducted inductively through six hypothesis making and testing steps

‘The implementation of consciousness-raising lasks, takes place wilhin [hrc

Jessons of grammar, The first two lessons involve the rules of meaning regarding present continuous tense and modal verb “would” ‘Lhe third lesson deals with formal rules of indirect question

‘The study primarily focuses on studying grammatical conscious-raising fom learners' perspectives It also investigates how effective grammatical conseiousness-

Taising is The two aspects of ffectivencss investigated arc learners’ ability lo discover the target grammar rules and their retention of explicit knowledge after the

implementation

‘The subjects irr foous are undergraduate students having the pre-inlcrrnedisle

evel of proficiency in English They are English non-major students at Hanoi National University of Education

4, Methodology of the study

"This is a study on grammatical consoiousness-Taising from leamers’ perspective The subjects were a graup of lwenly-ning Engtish nonemajor undergraduate studenks whose levels of English were pre-intermediate or below The implementation of three grammar lessons with consciousness-taising tasks was conducted in three consecutive weeks, Data were collceted before and after the implementation from pre-trcatment and post-treatment questionnaires, An additional data collection tool was a collection of

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

statistics

5 Significance of the study

Tn the Grst place, the research is expected ta inlensify the rescarcher’s

‘understanding of grammatical consciousness-maising, thus improving her own teaching

quality Secondly, it is hoped to inspire other teachers of English to carry out further

investigations into consciousness-raising, so that it can be cmployed cffectively and

widely in English language teaching

6 Organization af the thesis

“Phe first part, Introduction, briefly introduce the rationales, research questions, methodology scope and significance of the study

‘The main patt of this paper is designed with throe chapters as follows:

Chapter 1, the Literature Review, offers the theoretical background to this study

by reviewing different approaches lo grammar teaching and discussing a umber of

studies on leamers” prefzrences and effectiveness of grammatical consciousness-raising

Chapter 2, the Methodology reports the design of the study, the subjects, the

data collection insiruments used for this study and the statistical method to analyze the data,

Chapter 3, the Findings and Discussion, provides an analysis of the data, the

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Different approaches to grammar teaching

According lo Fllis (2002:167), the two main questions which have been debaled

in the field of language pedagogy are:

1) Should we teach grammar at all?

2) If'we should teach granmuar, how should we teach it?

‘The differences among various approaches to grammar teaching stem from how they address these two above questions

1.1.1 Zero-grammar approach and form-focused approachcs

Ellis (1985: 229) introduced three possible explanations for the first question: 1)

the non-inter face position; 2) the interface position and 3) the variability position

The non-intertace position advanced by Krashen (Ellis, 1985: 229) distinguishes

two types of knowledge: learnt knowledge and acquired knowledge Krashen (1982) (in

Ellis, 2002: 167) maintains that “formed instruction in grammar will not coniribute to

the development of acquired knowledge - the knowledge needed to participate in

authentic communication”: therefore, there is no point in grammar teaching,

On the contrary, the interlace position lends credence to grammar (caching

‘because these two types of knowledge are not entirely separate (Ellis, 1985: 234) A

weak interface position which has heen proposed by Seliger (1979) (in Ellis, 1985:234)

states that formal instruction facilitates acquisition Scliger believes the learnt

imowledge of grammar rule may make the internalization of the rule easier and may

facilitate the use of features which are acquited, bnt still only “shadow” (in Fils, 1985

234) A strong interface position states that two types of knowledge can interact, and explicit knowledge (leant knowledge) can tun into implicit knowledge (acquired

knowledge) through practice (Lillis, 1985: 235)

The variability position holds the idea that different kinds of knowledge are used

in different types of language performance; for example, formal instruction presumably

develops the type of knowledge that is required to undertake the kinds of tasks in

“discrete-point” tests (Ellis, 1985: 237) Therefore, Bialystok (1982) (in Ellis R., 1985:

244) suggests “instruction must consider the specific goals of the learner and attempt to

provide the appropriate form of inowledge to achieve those goals” As can be inferred frorn the above discussion, Ihe question of whether or nol grammar should be taughl

depends on leamers’ specitie needs

‘The three positions support very different approaches to language teaching (Bilis, 2006: 97) Non-interface position leads to such zero-grammar approaches as: the Natural Approach and ‘fotal Physical; while the interface position provides a strong base for

form-focused approaches Particularly, the weak interface position supports Lechniques that induce leamers to attend to grammatical feature, Examples of those techniques are

Content-based Instruction and 'Task-based Language Learning Whereas, the strong

interface position is the ground for Presentation-Practice-Production model (Ellis, 2006 97), Finally, the variability position supports the combination of various methods

appropriate to specific teaching contexts, which serves as the base for Context-based Language Teaching or Posl-method pedagogy

1.1.2 Deductive and inductive approaches

‘The answers for the question of how grammar should be laught are varied in

accordance with the various existing approaches to second language teaching, However, those approaches can be categorised under two broad terms: inductive approach and

deductive approach Thon the question can be simplified into whethor grammar should

be taught deductively or inductively

A deductive approach is “an approach to language teaching in which learners are taught rules and given specific information about a language” (Richard, Plail &

Piatt, 1992: 98), Dealing with the teaching of grammar, the deductive approach can also

‘be called ruls-driven leaming because in such an approach a grammar rule is explicitly presented to students and followed by practice applying the rule PPP model is a typical example of this approach (Richard, Platt & Platt, 1992: 98)

An inductive approach comes ftom inductive reasoning in which a reasoning

progression proceeds from particulars to generalities (Felder & Henriques, 1995) (i

Widodo, 2006: 127) In inductive language teaching, “learners are nat taught

grammatical rules or other types of rules directly but are left to discover or induce rules

from their experience of using the language” (Richard, Plall & Platt, 1992: 99)

Examples of approaches that make use of the principle of inductive learning are Direct

Method, Communicative approach, and Counselling Leaming (Richards, Platt & Platt,

1992: 99)

Of the two above approaches, which one is better? ‘'his question provakes a

Jong-standing debate among theorists and practilioncrs

Sheen (1992) (in Mohamed, 2004: 228) states that the deductive approach, where

the learners are explicitly taught the rules of particular features of the target language, is

the more effective mean of teaching grammar Norris and Ortega (2000: 527), after

investigating and comparing the effectiveness of sccond language instruction in

publications between 1980 and 1998, conclude that explicit instruction (referring to

doducti

instruction)

llowever, Brown (1994: 105) states that an inductive approach “comforts more

istruction) is more effactive than implicit one (referring loinduetive

easily to the concept of interlanguage development in which learners progress through

possible stages of rule acquisition.” Similarly, Bourke (1996) (in Mohamed, 2004: 228) believes that an inductive approach, whereby leamers are encouraged to look for

regularities for thornselves is more successful than the deductive one

There are a great mumber of researchers taking a middle ground in the debate

between inductive and deductive teaching supporters Lllis (2006: 98), for example,

beticves that “simple rules may hest ba taught deductively, while more complex rules may best be taught inductively” and that “learners skilled in grammatical analysis are likely to fare better with an inductive approach than those less skilled” Other ernpirical studics also show that some camers achicve better in deductive language lessons, while others perform better in inductive classes (Widodo, 2006; 129) The difference may be

due to the difference in learners’ cognitive styles which are associated with their

different neurological mechanisms (Eisenstein, 1987, in Widodo, 2006: 129) To sum up, both deductive and inductive presentations can successfully be applied depending on the cognitive style of the leamer and the language structure presented

1.2, Consciousness-raising

1.2.1 The concept of consciousness-ratsing

Linguistically, the term consciousness-raising, “consciousness-raising” is

understood as “the deliberate attempt ta draw the learner's attention specifically to

formal properties of the target language” (Rulhurford & Sharwood-Smith, 1985: 274)

Ellis (2002: 168) states that “consciousness-raising involves an allempt to

equip the learner with an understanding of a specific grammatical feature - to

develop declarative rather than procedural knowledge of it.”

Both definitions given by Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith (1985: 274) and Ellis, R

(2002: 168) are brief and broad ‘hey just mention the goals at which conscicusness-

raising aims bul do nat shaw how these aims can be achicved In their definition,

Richards, Platt & Platt (1992: 78) give more information on how to draw learners?

attention As they putit, consciousness-raising is “an approach ta the teaching of

grammar in which instruction in granunar (through drills, granunar explanation, and

other form-focused activities) is viewed as a way of raising learner’s awareness of

grammatical features of the language Vhis is thought to indirectly facilitate second

language acquisition A consciousness raising approach is contrasted with traditional

approuches (v the teaching of grammar, in which the goal is to insull correct

grammatical patterns and habits directly” (Richards, Platt & Platt, 1992: 78)

From the above definitions, il can hardly be figured out how consciousness-

raising is ditferent from other traditional grammar-based methods and it is also not clear

to indicate the position of consciousness-raising in the swing of language teaching

approach pendulum Thesz questions will be discussed further in the following scctions.

1.2.2, Consciousness-raising in relation to different approaches to grammar

teaching

1.2.2.1 The position of consciousness-raising in approaches to grammar teaching

Consciousness-raising is often claimed to hold a “middle-ground position”

‘betwoon two oxtreme approaches lo grammar teaching (Yip V., 1994: 124 and Nunan D., 1991: 151) At one end of the scale is the zero-grammar approach advocated by Krashen,

at the other end is traditional grammar based approaches Consciousness-raising stands for the pendulum swinging back but taking into account more recent findings of second Janguage acquisition research as well as benefits of communicative approaches

has lo be pointed aul, however, hal grarmmatical consciousness-raising camol

be considered simply as a movement “back to gramunar™ because it is characterized by several important differences to older approaches: first of all, it does not aim the

production of the target structure in the shart term but focuses on long-term learning

objectives, accepting that at the moment a structure is taught it may not be Leamable for

the learner (Yip V 1994: 125) Furthermore, grammar does not have to be taught in the

forma of sxgfidiL rulos; the leamner inay also be Tod to graramalical insights implicitly

Thirdly, the focus on meaning introduced by the commmicative movement is not

abandoned and texts that have been produced for communication are preferred over

concocted cxarnples (Willis 19 and Willis 1., 1996: 64)

1.3.2.2 Inductive and deductive comsciousness-raising

According to Bilis (2002: 172), cơnsciousni

raising can be cither inductive or

deductive In the case of induction, “the learner ix provided with data and asked to

construct an explicit rule to deseribe the grammatical feature which the data

ithistvate”; whereas, in the ease of deduction, “the learner is supplied with a rule which

is then used to carry out some task.” (Ellis, 2002: 172)

Mohamed (2004: 1) differentiates two types of cansciousness-raising tasks He

explains that “a deductive (ask provided explicit explanations of a grammar structure

while an inductive task required learners ta discover the grammar rules for themselves,

10

If consciomsness-raising activities are condncted indnetively, they are quit

similar to theories of discovery learning According to Hammer (1987: 29), “discovery

techniques are those where students are given examples of language and told to find out how they work to discover the grammar rules rather than be told them.” Richard, Platt &

Platt, (1992: 112) state that discovery camming based on the following prineiptes:

a) Learners develop processes associated with discovery and inquiry by

observing, inferring, formulating hypotheses, predicting and communicating

L2 Teachers use u teaching style which supports the processes of discovery and

inquiry 6) Texthaoks are nat the sole resources for learning

@ Conclusions are considered tentative not firal

4) Leamers are involved in planning, conducting, and evaluating their own

learning with the teacher plaving supporting role

1.2.3 Characteristics of consciousness-raising

Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith (1985: 280) state that “consciousness-raising is considered as a potential facilitator far the acquisition of linguistic competence has

nothing directly to do with the use of that competence”

Lillis (2002: 169) also points out that consctousness-raising is only directed at

explicit knowledge, with no expeclation [hat learners will usc 7 communic:

particular feature that has been brought to their attention through formal instruction He

e output a

contrasts the characteristics of a consciousness-raising task with characteristics of

¢ and concludes that the main di [farenee belween the lwo is “consciousness-

pra

raising does not involve the learner mm repeaied production” Below are consciousness-

7aising task characteristics listed in Lillis (2002: 168)

J There is an attempt to tsolate a specific linguistic feature for focused atiention

2 The learners are provided with data which: illustrate the targeted feature and

they may also be supplied with an explicit rule describing or explaining the

feature.

1E

3 The learners are expected to utilise intellectual effort ta understand tha

targeted feakire

4 Misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the grammatical structure

by the learners leads to cli

cation in the form of further data and description

or explanation

5 Learners may be required (although this is not obligatory; to, articulate the

rule describing the grammatical strucuire

1.2.4, Consciousness-raising versus practice

1.1.4.1 The role of practice In second language teaching

The role of practice in second language teaching is a controversial topic which

thas been on the arena for discussion for the past few decades

A strong interface position, which is implicit in traditional grammar-based

approaches, recognizcs the connection between practice and usc and maintains that

practice enables learners to use the structure they have been taught in communicative

siluations (Larson-Frooman D., 2003: 102)

However, Larsen-Freeman D (2003: 103) argues that “Jearners require ume to

integrate new granmatical structures into their interlanguage systems, for instance,

learners often produce forms that bear no resemblance to what has heen presented to

them of practiced.”

Ellis (2002: 170), an advocator of a weak interface position, after reviewing

empirical and theoretical studics, , also cass doubt on the cflicacy of practics Cor

“practice will not lead (o immediate procedural knowledge of grammatical rules,

irrespective of lis quantity and quality.”

Furthermore, Krashen (in Larsen-Freernan, 2003: 103), who advocates non-

intertace position state that “there are numerous studies that confirm that we can

develop extremely high levels of language competence without any production at all”

and “ihere is no direct evidence that output practice leads to language acquisition.’

1.2.4.2 The rote of consciousness-raising in second language learning

There is also no consensus on the role of consciousnzss in second language

learning As Schmidt (1990: 130) puts it, “

consciousness is one of skepticism” Seligers (1983: 187, m Schmidt, 1990: 129)

‘the most common attitude towards

devalues the role of consciousness and states thal “if ts at the unconscious level that

language learning takes place” Krashen (1981, in Schmidt, 1990: 130) insists on the

little use of conscious leaming in actnal language production and comprehension Gregg

(1984: 94), one of Krashen's harshest critics opposing Krashen's opinion that lcaming

can never become “acquisition”, also agrees on the fact that most language leaming is

URCOnSCIOUS

According to (Schmidt,1990: 131), consideration of the role of consciousness in

cognition and leaming has been respectable over the recent decades I'he most

prominent supporters of conscionsness-raising are Rutherford and Sharwood Rutherford

W & Sharwood-Smith M., (1985) cxamine the role of consciousness-raising in the light

of Universal Grammar They believe that “the sequence of language features as well as the pace they are learned in is given by the learner, not the curvicultan or the textbook

and the certain language features can only be learned in a fixed sequence” Henee, in

their opinion, the finction of grammar consciousness-raising is to highlight certain

grannnalieal fbatrmszs for the Icarner to develop Ins or her awareness of them, then when

he or she is ready to insert these specific features into the developing the second

Janguage system, they will acquire them Rutherford (1987: 25), furthermore, insists on

the fact thal Language le ners alroady have a broad knowledge of language of both

specific and universal kind to build on and he calls the language learning process “ar interaction of the universal with the specific” Lie consequently sees grammatical

consciousness-raising as a mcans of “illuminating the learner's path from the fowwn to the unknown”, in other words, “a facilitator for the accuusition of linguistic

competence”, as it is put in Rutherford & Sharwood-Smith (1985: 280)

Fotos (1994: 326) also agrees with Rutherford on the facilitating role of

consciousness-raising In her opinion, “the grammar consciousness-ruising task is nol

13

aimed at developing immediate ability to use the target structure but rather attempts to call learner allention to yrummatical features, raising their consciousness of them, and thereby facilitating subsequent learner noticing af the features in commumicative input.”

Lillis (2002: 171) shares the same idea that “consciousness-raising facilitates the

acquisition of granmatical knowledge needed for communication.” He claims

consciousness-raising is not only helpfull in the formation of explicit knowledge which

is of limited use in itself — as he believes, but also contributes to the acquisition of

implicit knowledge He points out two ways in which consciousness-raising facilitates

the acquisition of implicit knowledge

4) ft contributes to the processas of noticing and comparing and, therefore,

prepares integration This pracess iy controlled by the learner and will take place only

when the learner is developmentally ready

2) Revesults in explicit knowledge Thus, even if the learner is unable to integrate

the new feature as muplicit knowledge, she com consiruct an alternative explicit

representation which can be stored separately and subsequently accessed when the

learner ts developmentally primed to handle it Furthermore, explicit knowledge serves

to help the learner to contime to notice te feature in the input, thereby facilitating its

subsequent acquisition

He concludes thal “consciousness-raising is unlikely to result in mumediate

aequisition; more likely, it will have a delayed effect”

1.3 Studies on learners’ preferences of inductive conscioumess-raising tasks

There have been only few studies investigating grammatical consciousness-

raising from a leamer perspective

Ramulli (2001) conducted a study of learners” preferences between

consciousness-raising and traditional deductive approaches His study showed that the 1earners showed no clear prefarence though they acknowledged that conseiousness-

raising approach was morc interesting, Instead, most of Icarners took a practical

approach by expressing a preference far a teachmg method that sensibly combines the

1.4, Studies on the effectiveness of inductive conscious-raising tasks

“There are a number of studizs investigating the effectiveness of conscionsness- TRÌsing tasks (hercinaller to be referred as C-R tasks) in developing explicit knowledge

of second language

Hotos and Lillis (1991) compared the effects of teaching grammar by grammar explanations and by a C-R task on Japanese learners’ ability to judge the grammaticality

of sentenecs with dative (in Ellis, 2003: 163) They found that both methods resulted in

significant gains in understanding of the target structure

However, Mohamed (2001)'s study showed thal inductive C-R is more effective than deduetive C-R with groups of high intermediate leamers, This study suggests that

the effectiveness of C-R tasks may depend on the proficiency of leamers

According to Fllis (2003: 164), “leamers need sufficient profictency ta talk

metalingually about the target feature, and if they lack this, they may not be able to

benefit to the same degree from a C-R task” He suggests C-R tasks may not be well-

suited to young Ioarners and may not appeal to learners who are 5 skilled at, forming, and testing hypotheses about the language The problem hare relates to whether learners are able to verbalise the target rules Sharwood-Smith (1981: 162) argues that the

articulation and learning of rules is not an clement of necessity in C-R, becanse “CR

can be accomplished without requiring of learners to talk about what they have become

aware of’

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

21 The context and subjects

2.1 The teaching context

‘The research was done in the Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education The Facully of English is in charge of teaching two lypes of students English-majored students are those who train to be teachers of English and the non- majors are those who leam English as a minor subject in their curriculum, The present study involved English non-major students who generally do not have strong motivation

to Icam English because their future jobs (as a teacher of math, philology, physics, chemistry and the like) have little thing to do with English But rather, they learn English just because iL is a compulsory subject in he university curriculum, Therefore, they da

ot have any communicative needs and passing the exam is their first and foremost goal

The coursc-book series uscd for English non-major students is Lifeline Students are supposed to finish two books Lifeline Elementary and Lifeline Pre-intermediate in

three lerms of filleen weeks Tn each week shu

dents have four class hours of Engtish Tn total, there are 180 class hours spent on two volumes of Lifeline, each of which consists

of 14 units In each unit, there are four main parts, namely grammar, vocabulary, reading,

din dis couse hook

sublests: a listening lest and a writing test (focusing on grammmuticnt structures) The

sceond midterm cxam is a spcaking test consisting of 3 parts, namely pictus description, topic presentation and free questions and answers, The end-term exam consists of 5@-multiple choice questions focusing on grammar knowledge

As itis inferred from the text book and the nature of the end-term exam, the

importance has been put on grammar knowledge

16

2.1.2 The subjects of the study

The subjects in this study were a group of twenty-nine second-year English non-

major students at Hanoi National University of Education ‘They were mathematics

major students who are assumed to possess logical minds: therefore, it was expected that hypothesis making and testing might work for ther

Furthermore, all of them were about nineteen or twenty year old, the age at

which people are usually recognized for their creativity and open-mindedness, which nicans they wore expected to have a more receptive view to now ideas as well as now methods of learning than older people

Their assumed level of proficiency in English was pro-intermnediate, but their

actual command of Enelish is quite heterogeneous According to their previous end-term test results, three fifths of them are able to attain pre-intermediate and the rest of two

fifth are just at elementary or lower levels As it was suggested by Ellis R (2003), their jow competences of English might not cnable them to talk metalingually about

grammatical features However, in the researcher’s opinion, it did not matter if they

were allowed to use their mother tongue to verbalisa the largel grammar rules,

‘As it was revealed irom the pre-treatment questionnaize, the most popular model

of grammar lessons that the subjects had experienced was the deductive one (with the rariking of 72.4%) while the Teast frequently scon one was inductive (caching with C-R tasks with 82.7% students rating C-R as the least frequently seen, This fact was not to suggest that all of them could be expected to prefer deductive learning when offered a choice because cach individual would undoubtedly have a differen Teaming style

However, the frequent experience of deductive leaming could affect their expectation about a grammar lesson: they would expect their teachers to explam everything and

night feel frustrated with being asked to consiruol their own rules

All of the above features of the subjects made up a complicated case that is worth insightful investigations With regards to the research questions, some of the features night be positive while the others might contradict the results

For the subjects were all undergraduate students the two terms “subjects” and

“students” is used interchangeably in this study

2.1.3 The researcher role

The

cher played a role of an insider, who had elose relationship with the subjects because she had been teaching them for one semester, Primarily she was a

practitioner rathsr than a researcher ler research aims were to gain insightful into her

teaching contexts and solve problems that she had cncountered

2.2 Procedure

‘The implementation and the data collection tock five weeks on the whele, In the first week, pre-treatment questionnaire sheets were delivered and collected Data from this first questionnaire was processed before the implementation of the three lessons In case the results showed that the majority of the subjects had already known about the target grammar rales, the contents of the three lessons would be changed ‘Ihe reason was [here was no pointin asking sludonts to discover the Tules thal thoy had already

mastered The three treatment lessons were conducted one by one in the three following, weeks consecutively ‘The students’ worksheets were handed out at the beginning and collected at the endl of cach lesson The post-treatment questionnaire was condscicd in

the fifth week, one week after the last treatment lesson

2.2.1, Pre-trealment questiannuire

The pre-treatment questionnaire was consisted of seven questions, with a mixture

of self-reporting, attitudinal and testing question types ‘The three first questions inquired students’ pas! grammar learning experionee and their opinions about the way of

gramanar teaching that they had most frequently experienced In the question number four students were asked to make a choice between the inductive and deductive

procedures of grammar teaching, The three last questions purposed to test their

knowledge about the target grammar rules

18

2.2.2 The treatment

According to Ellis R (2002: 172}, eansciousness-raising itself van be either

inductive or deductive The inductive way of implementing consciousness-raising is

using C-R tasks, where “ste (earner is provided with data and asked te construct an

explicit rule to describe the granmatical feature which the data illustrate’

Willis D and Willis J (1996: 69) list seven categories of C-R task types

identify and consolidate panerns or usages:

classifving tems accordaig to their semantic or structural

characteristics,

hypothesis building, based on some language data, and then perhaps

checked ugainst more data;

cross-language exploration:

reconstruction and deconstruction;

recall;

reference training

‘The C-R task type implemented in this sludy was the third one, the inductive

hypothesis building, Basing on that idea, the researcher designed three C-R grammar

1essons, cach of which conaisted of six steps

Step 1: setting the scene (learners listen to, or read, a text in order to grasp basic

meaning);

Step 2: comprehension questions (learners answer comprehension questions

following the listening or reading texts);

Step 3: noticing learners notice the form, and match form to meaning);

Step 4: making hypothesis learners generate their own hypotheses);

Step 5: checking hypothesis earners test their hypotheses with other examples);

Step 6: confirming hypothesis (learners confirm their hypotheses)

All three grammar lessons were adapted from text matenals in Lifeline Pre-

intermediate by Tom Hutchinson and New Headway Pre-intermediate by Liz and John

19

Soars Lesson one was about “the present continuous tenss with tre meammE” (se appendix 3) Lesson two dealt with using “would” to talk about past habits (see appendix 4), And finally the structures of indirect questions were the focus of lesson three

“he three above grammar items was chosen for the reason of convenience The matcrials available [or these grammatical features wore casicr o be adapted into C-R tasks than those for The others

‘There are six tasks (equivalent to six steps mentioned above) in each lesson, The teacher played a role as a guide who hiclped the students to understand the task

instructions Sometimes teachers had to explain the task instructions in Vietnamese so

that every sludent was clear about what to do The studanis worked in groups or pairs in tasks one, two, three and five; however, they were asked to work alone in tasks four and six, where they had to write down their hypothesis abont the rules individual work was required here to make sure the students themselves discovered the target rules rather

than simply copicd their classmates’ work

20

‘The fourth question aimed to elicit smdents’ opinion about learning without practice and the next question was to check whether students had, in fact, found out the rules or not

At the end of the questionnaire, there were some questions to test students’ explicit

knowledge of the target grammar miss

? ‘What are the possible reasons for their preferences?

2 Low different were students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising

and deductive?

4

5) To what extent did students succeed in discovering the target rules?

6

‘What wore students’ opinions about Icaming grammar rules without practice?

‘To what extend, did they remember the rulas that they tad discovered by themselves?

Data for almost all of the questions were calculated by percentage to compare the fecquency of distribution, The thitd question asked studonis lo evatuale how inferesting, difficult and useful were the three C-R lessons Each point in the scales of interestingness, difficulty and usefulness was given a number, with number four for the highest degree and rumber one for the lowest dogrec All the scores were recorded, thon the Moan and Standard Deviation for each lesson or each leamning type were caleulated for

comparison ‘he mean scores were interpreted under the following scheme:

3.26 4.00 Fery nnteresting/ difficult! useful

2.51 — 3.25: Somewhat interesting? difficult usefid

176-250 Somewhat boriny/ easy! useless

1.00 175: Very boring/ easy/ useless

2E

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Which types of learning (the inductive consciousness-ralsing or the deductive

approach) did the students prefer before and after the implementation?

Results from both pre- and post-questionnaires show that the percentage of

suidents (favouring tradilional deductive learning was higher than thal of those

supporting C-R tasks Before the implementation, the percentage of students who

preferred deductive leaming outweighed that of those who liked inductive learning

(62.1% as opposed to 37.9%), However,

students liking C-R increased from 37.9% to 43.8%, Though the gap was narrowed, the percentage of students who prefered the traditional deductive approach was still higher

fer the thrce treatment lessons, the rate of

than thal of dhase supporting C-R (51.7% as compared Lo 48.3%)

There was a difference between learners’ preferences of two types of learning

grammar Lowever, the difference is not so significant and it can be conchnded that

learners showsd no clear prefercness between Iearning with C-R tasks and the traditional deductive leaming, This finding was coincident with other research findings on the same question (Ranalli, 2001 and Mohamed, 2004)

3.2 What are the possible reasons for their preferences?

Table 1: Reasons for students’ preferences

Learning | Number | R1 R2 R3 t4 RS R6 | Others Deduetive 1s 66.7% | 16.7% | 40.0% 13.3% | 200% 31% 7%

Note: Ri It is clearer to follow

R2: itis easier ta understand the rules

R3: It is easier to remember the rules

R4: It is more interesting to learn.

RS: Itis more helpful for recalling and wsing the rules correctly

RG: itis more helpful for doing English tests

3.2.1 Reasons for the preference of deductive teaching

Regarding oxplanations for their proforences, studonis secmed like deductive

learning for all reasons Listed The most frequent reason (67.9%) quoted for traditional deductive lesson type was “it is clearer to follow”, whereas, the lowest figures (13.3%) was attributed to the reason of “itis more interesting to learn” These findings were in response to the earlier expectations that grammar rules presented by teacher were clearer

to follow but more boring to learn

From the students’ cvaluations on two types of learning in terms of difficulty, it

is obvious that learning grammar deductively is much easier than working with C-R

tasks (see section 3.3) This may be one of the reasons why they still prefer deductive Jearning while they highly valued consciousness-raising, in terms of interestingness and usefiuiness (see section 3.3)

One student reported another reason rather thart the six donc He/she

claimed that “learning in this way (refer io C-Rj turns me from ignorant to more

ignorard" thọc kiêu này khiến em đã đất lai cang ddr hon) it can be inferred this student

did not like C-R because her Tinted resource of English did not enabte her to work with

C-R tasks, thereby gaining nothing from the lessons The reason is “learners need

sufficient proficiency to talk metalingually abaut the target feature, and if they lack this, they may not be able to benefit to the sume degree from a CR task” (Ellis, 2003: 164)

In other words, learners’ level of proficiency affect their preferences in the sense that Jearners with a low level will nol be able to perfurm C-R tasks; and consequently, they

will not like learning with C-R

Another explanation for some students’ unfavourable attitude towards C-R

resulted from the faci thal C-R excludes practice; while in their botief, practice played a

23

very important role (see section 3.4 for the discussion of practice) Their mind was

engraved with the idea that learning and practice were always in parallel; therefore, it is difficult for them to accept the new idea of learning without practice

3.2.2, Reasons for the preference af C-R learning

‘Those who preferred C-R learning quoted five reasons, among which the two

most common ones were “it is easier to remember the niles” (85.7%), and “it is more

infcresting fo loan” (71.4%) None of thosc questioned thought “it is clearer to follow” C-R Jessons and a very low percentage of them (14,3%) believed learning with C-R

rules myself is very interesting” (cdm gide minh ue tim va quit tae vat dui vi Wean be

said that leaming with C-R tasks was prefered by some students due to its power of

motivating learners

Ta conclusion, the students who wore fond of the Iraditional deductive approach

to grammar teaching gave credence to the fact that it was clearer to follow and easier to understand These students did not like C-R because this way of teaching did not include practice and their low competence in English did not allow them to benefit much from C-R tasks which were thought to be mare challenging ‘I'he most common reasons for the students” profaronee of inductive conscionsness-raising wars altributert to ils power in-motivating learners and fhcililating their mentory eapacity

3.3 How different were students’ evaluations on inductive consciousness-raising and deductive learning lessons?

Learning | N Frequency of distribution Mean] SD

Very | Somewhat | Somewhat | Very

Types interesting | interesting | boring | boring

to be more interesting than deductive learning because the mean score for C-R was

lo 2.52, This reflected wha had

‘higher than for deductive learning, with 3.24 as appa

een expected about the motivating power of inductive consciousness-raising tasks

Learning | N Frequency of distribution Men] SD

Very | Somewhat | Somewhat | Very

Deduetive | 21 0 t0 " 0 248 |05118

GR 29 1 25 0 0 314 [03509

C-R leammg was evaluated as “somewhat difficult” (3.14) while deductive

learning was thought to be “somewhat easy” (2.48), This finding confirms the

expectation that doing inductive consciousness-raising tasks requires greater cognitive

effort