000034001 the teaching of english grammatical structures at nguyen duc canh secondary school in thai binh an experiment
B ack gro u n d to th e s tu d y
Recently, foreign languages have become indispensable to global development, connecting economic growth, cultural exchange, and political collaboration This interconnected landscape has increased the use of foreign languages, with English taking a dominant role, and has fueled a rising demand for language learning worldwide.
In Vietnam, learning English as a foreign language has expanded on an ever-wider scale and is recognized as an indispensable skill that most students aim to acquire, driven by society's needs in the process of industrialization and modernization Consequently, English, along with other foreign languages, has long been compulsory in the curricula of primary and secondary schools.
Like other secondary school subjects, English is a major subject at Nguyen Duy Canh Secondary School in Thai Binh The English program follows the aims and requirements for teaching and learning foreign languages in schools issued by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) The sixth-form guiding book for teachers (Education Publishing House, 2003) states that students should be taught to build and improve their basic knowledge of English so they can use it in the future, and that students are expected to achieve the main outcomes of the course.
- A n acceptable m astery o f basic knowledge o f English.
- T he ab ility to use English like a m eans o f com m unication.
- G eneral know ledge o f som e English speaking countries.
Grammar plays an essential role in language learning for beginners, especially school students Often described as the backbone of a language, grammar mastery helps learners comprehend English more clearly and reduce mistakes in both speaking and writing By studying grammar thoroughly, students build a solid foundation in English and gain the ability to use the language confidently as a tool of communication.
Nowadays, English teaching and learning employ a variety of methods and approaches to achieve the best results However, in many secondary schools in Thai Binh, teachers still rely on and regard the traditional grammar-translation method as the best way to present grammatical structures in class The teaching remains deductive, moving from form to use, with translation from English into Vietnamese as the main technique.
Vietnamese students often concentrate on memorizing grammar structures taught by teachers, absorbing only what is reviewed at the end of each semester to pass exams or excel in grammar tests As a result, most students struggle to speak fluently, held back by shyness and a lack of self-confidence since opportunities to practice speaking in class are rare.
In the current m ovem ent o f reform ing the teaching m ethod C om m unicative Language
Teaching with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an approach that has attracted interest from a wide range of experts and teachers CLT is not a method; rather, it emphasizes communicating in foreign languages (Thomson, 1996: 9) The aim of implementing CLT in English instruction is to help students develop communicative competence that aligns with the MOET’s requirements However, many English teachers in Thai Binh find it difficult to apply CLT because they themselves lack communicative competence and have limited training in CLT, with only a few receiving one or two weeks of training per year Other factors—such as large class sizes (often more than 50 students), the evaluation system, and textbooks—still push students to learn English in a less communicative way Consequently, deductive methods are favored, and teachers spend most of their time teaching grammatical structures, with little emphasis on developing communicative competence This does not meet the real demands of society Therefore, the researcher aims to study teaching approaches that can improve grammatical competence in both spoken and written English for secondary students, particularly at Nguyen Due Canh Secondary School.
A im o f th e s tu d y
Although numerous studies have explored applying communicative language teaching (CLT) to English instruction for university students, there is a gap in research on secondary-school learners, especially in Thai Binh Accordingly, this study asks whether an inductive CLT-based approach is more effective than a deductive grammar-translation method for teaching grammatical structures to secondary-school students, and it enunciates two aims: to compare instructional effectiveness between the inductive CLT approach and the traditional deductive method, and to examine the resulting learning outcomes of students under the two approaches.
/ T o evaluate the effectiveness o f teaching English gram m atical structures when applied inductive m ethod ill the Uglil o fC L T com pared to that w hen applied the deductive m ethod based on G l'M
This article offers practical recommendations for teaching English grammatical structures to students at Nguyen Due Can Li Secondary School in Thai Binh, and it presents five sample extra activities to be implemented over seven lessons, all grounded in the Form textbook.
This research is carried out with the follow ing hypothesis:
The students can im prove their gram m atical com petence in both spoken and w ritten com m unication with the inductive method.
Scope o f th e s tu d y
Effective communication hinges on integrating skills, a concept teachers should consider, yet this study concentrates on English grammar alone and does not address broader skill integration It seeks to determine whether teachers should apply an inductive approach or continue with a deductive method for teaching grammatical structures to secondary students in Thai Binh The recommendations emerge from a three-and-a-half-month experiment involving 90 eleventh-grade students and the researcher, an English teacher at Nguyen Due Canh Secondary School.
The researcher hopes that the study’s promising results can be applied to teaching grammatical structures to students at Nguyen Due Canh Secondary School and other schools in Thai Binh, so that the teaching and learning of English can be improved to meet the aims and requirements of MOET.
O v erview o f th e s tu d y
T he study consists o f five chapters, a list o f references, and appendices.
Chapter I presents the background of the study, highlighting the problems in teaching and learning English for teachers and students in secondary schools in Thai Binh It also sets out the study’s aims and scope and provides an overview of the research.
Chapter II reviews the relevant literature on grammar teaching, focusing on issues surrounding grammar, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM), and examines inductive and deductive approaches in the light of CLT and GTM It then discusses tests as a means of data collection, outlining how assessment tools contribute to empirical inquiry The chapter concludes by surveying previous research on the same topic, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of prior studies to frame the current investigation.
Chapter III outlines the study’s methodology and the procedures used to conduct the research and collect data It consists of three parts: the description of the subjects and their assignment, the data‑collection instruments, and the procedures followed to implement the study.
Chapter IV show s the results o f the study in details.
Chapter V summarizes the study’s major findings and outlines nine actionable recommendations to improve English grammar teaching and learning in Thai Binh’s secondary schools.
This chapter reviews relevant studies on grammar, the Grammar Translation Method (GTM), and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to establish the theoretical background for the study; it covers the main aspects of grammar instruction, compares GTM and CLT, and discusses deductive and inductive teaching methods, while highlighting tests as data-collection tools; it also surveys prior research and provides a concise summary of the chapter.
G ra m m a r
D efin itio n s o f g ra m m a r
Grammar plays a critical role in language learning, especially for beginners and school students It is the backbone of a language, and mastering grammar helps learners understand meanings faster and reduce errors in speaking and writing By studying grammar, students gain the essential knowledge to use the language confidently as a tool for communication Therefore, spending time on grammar—its rules and structures—builds a solid foundation for successful language learning.
Definitions of grammar vary among linguists The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines grammar as both the set of rules and the study and practice of those rules, focusing on how words change and how they are arranged to form sentences Harmer notes that grammar is the way words transform themselves and cluster to create sentences The grammar of a language describes what happens to words when they become plural or negative, and the word order used for forming questions or for connecting two clauses into a single sentence Richards et al describe grammar as a description of the language’s structure, detailing how words and phrases combine to produce sentences, and considering the meanings and functions those sentences serve within the language’s overall system; it may or may not include phonology, the sound system of the language.
Two definitions of grammar teaching should be distinguished in English language teaching: covert and overt Harmer (1987) defines covert grammar teaching as when grammatical facts remain hidden from learners even as they learn the language; for example, students may engage in an information-gap activity or read a passage where new grammar is practiced, but their attention is drawn to the task or the text rather than to grammar itself In covert teaching, teachers do not draw conscious attention to grammatical rules; they help students acquire or practice the language through use By contrast, overt grammar teaching provides explicit rules and explanations to learners, making the grammar of the language clear and accessible Therefore, overt grammar instruction is explicit and open about grammar, while covert instruction relies on students working with the language and hoping that grammatical knowledge is subconsciously absorbed to support overall language acquisition.
Under a deductive method, grammatical factors are overt because rules are taught explicitly and separated from the forms and uses of language; in contrast, when applying an inductive method, these factors are often covert, learned through examples rather than through explicit instruction Despite these differences, knowledge of grammar remains essential for language mastery, and this key point will be developed in the following section.
T h e ro le o f g ra m m a r
Recently, the emphasis in language teaching has shifted away from traditional grammar instruction toward the communicative approach, which focuses on language functions and communicative activities Proponents argue that mastering grammar alone does not necessarily help learners use the language effectively, because language is used to perform certain functions such as inviting, apologizing, introducing, suggesting, and expressing Therefore, instead of teaching grammar in isolation, we should teach these functions However, the challenge remains: the sentences that carry these functions are composed of grammatical elements, so function-based instruction must still address grammar In many secondary schools, English is taught as a foreign language with only about three class periods per week, which limits students' opportunities to practice functional language.
Many learners have limited time to practice, and they live in communities where their native language is spoken around the clock, resulting in little to no English-language environment Consequently, building a solid grammatical foundation becomes essential for them.
Grammar is the foundation and backbone of mastering the English language A key question is how to teach grammar effectively and what steps learners should follow to acquire it, so English study meets contemporary communicative requirements Effective instruction should integrate meaningful communication, practical usage, and systematic practice to help learners master grammar and improve overall fluency.
T he re la tio n sh ip b etw een g ra m m a r and c o m m u n ic a tio n
G ram m ar has trad itio nally had a central role in language teaching And according to
Kirkpatrick (1985) argues that the goal of communicative language teaching is to help learners become communicative, and even linguistically competent, as native speakers We also see from many other resources that grammar helps us communicate, and that “good” grammar means communicating well (Woods, 1995:31) Thus, we must look at how grammar relates to communication.
According to Carter (1991: 60–64), to meet the current communicative demand, grammar should be taught communicatively so English language learners can achieve both grammatical accuracy and contextual suitability Yet grammar and communication are often seen as paradoxical: traditional grammar tends to involve long lectures, while communicative use emphasizes learner freedom The field is full of dull theories and numerous practice exercises, whereas, in contrast, communicative approaches allow students to grasp knowledge in diverse ways, such as talking information and sharing ideas Therefore, Carter argues for integrating form-focused instruction within meaningful communication to balance grammatical accuracy with real-world language use.
(1991:20), to m ake g ram m ar relevant to E nglish teaching, especially CLT, it should:
- Relate to language in use.
- Be describ ed w ith reference to actu a l purposes a n d real contexts rather than p a rt o f a set o f decontextualised exercises.
- F ocus on Junction a s w ell as on fo rm s.
■ Be seen as a p a rt o f a w ider syllabus o f language study.
Summary: There is no doubt that grammar and communicative language teaching need not be enemies but can work together quite happily (Kirkpatrick, 1985) The question, however, is how to teach grammar and the procedures to reach the MOFiT targets as mentioned above In teaching reality, teachers of English at Nguyen Due Can h Secondary School have only applied GTM, but this thesis concerns not only GTM but also CLT, the most widely used approach, which the writer would like to study These topics will be discussed in the next parts of this chapter (2.3 and 2.4).
T he T ra d itio n a l G ram m ar- T ran slatio n M e th o d
D e fin itio n
The grammar-translation method arose from the traditional teaching of classical Latin and Greek and became the dominant language-learning approach through the 19th century, continuing in various forms to the present day It is based on grammar, literature, and translation rather than real-life spoken communication, viewing languages as systems of rules learned best by memorizing rules and bilingual vocabulary lists and applying them mainly in writing The teacher’s role is to explain grammar rules and word meanings in the students’ native language, organize practice, and correct mistakes, while the students’ role is to listen, memorize rules and vocabulary, and complete the prescribed tasks (Hubbard, et al., 1984:328).
The traditional deductive method of language teaching, rooted in classical studies of dead languages, centers on presenting rules, paradigms, and vocabulary, and then having students apply this knowledge through translation to and from their L1 as well as through grammatical analysis.
GTM is an established, time-tested method that remains widely used in many schools today To understand its role in contemporary teaching, this discussion outlines GTM's key characteristics (section 2.3.2) and analyzes its advantages and disadvantages (section 2.3.3).
C h arac te ristic s o f G T M
This approach emphasizes literature-based language learning, translation, and conscious grammar learning, with the primary goal of developing literary mastery in the second language Memorization serves as the main learning strategy, and classroom time tends to be spent discussing the language rather than practicing it in conversation, underscoring a focus on linguistic analysis over fluent speaking.
C lasses are taught in the m other tongue, with little active use o f the target language.
M any vocabularies are taught in the form o f lists o f isolated words.
Long elabo rate explanations o f the intricacies o f gram m ar are given.
G ram m ar provides the rules for putting w ords together, and instructions often focus on the form and inflection o f words.
- R eading o f d ifficult classical texts is begun early.
- L ittle atten tio n is paid to the content o f the texts, which are treated as exercises in g ram m atical analysis.
Little o r no attention is given to pronunciation.
The em p h asis is on accuracy o f gram m ar and translation.
A d v an tag es an d d isad v an tag es o f G T M
Grammar Translation Method (GTM) is a language-teaching approach based on detailed analysis of language data and the translation of sentences and texts, coupled with explicit grammar instruction It is often a quick and effective way to learn difficult or abstract vocabulary, and short explanations in the learner’s native language are typically more accessible for beginners than long explanations in the target language The method aims to help students read and appreciate foreign literature, and by studying the grammar of the target language, learners can become more familiar with the grammar of their native language, thereby improving their ability to speak and write in their own language Scholars such as Richard et al (1985), Hubbard et al (1984), and Brown (1995) discuss several advantages of GTM.
- The atm o sp h ere o f the classroom is not usually stressful for teachers because of the use o f m o th er tongue at any time.
- The teach in g o f g ram m ar and translation puts students in the problem -solving process.
- It brings th e d ire c t contact with the world and ideas o f great thinkers.
- T ranslation is essential for translators/ interpreters.
From their points o f view , som e disadvantages o f G TM are draw n when applying this method to EFL teachers and students as follows:
- C om m unicative skills such as listening and speaking cannot be im proved because of negligence.
- There is negative tran sfer from the m other tongue into the target language.
The grammar-translation method remains common in Vietnamese schools, especially in Thai Binh, because it requires fewer specialized teaching skills and its tests of grammar rules and translations are easy to construct and objectively scored In addition, the method’s emphasis on comprehensibility is seen as a fundamental first step in foreign language learning, with teachers using students’ first language to help them grasp words, phrases, sentences, or concepts in the target language (Grady & Dobrovolsky, 1993) However, Brown (1994) argues that most of the focus is on grammatical rules, memorization of vocabulary, various declensions and conjugations, translations of texts, and written exercises, not on teaching for oral or aural communication Consequently, motivation can be limited because students have few opportunities to use the target language, and classroom activities are not abundant or engaging, making it hard to incorporate role-play, problem-solving, discussion, and games—the strengths of the communicative approach.
C o m m u n icativ e ap p ro ach (C A )
T h e c o n cep t o f C A
Developed by British applied linguists, notably Wilkins, and later adopted by the Council of Europe, the communicative approach is built on both language theory and language-learning theory Its initial target audience consisted of European adults—European businessmen and EU administrators based in Brussels, with Luxembourg and other member states in view.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is widely regarded as the most commonly used approach for teaching and learning English today However, its implementation varies across teachers and contexts, producing a range of practices and adaptations Consequently, CLT is not a single, well-defined method but a flexible framework with wide variations that reflect different instructional goals and environments.
Although many researchers (Brown, 1994; David & Pearse, 2000; Halliday, 1994; Li, 1998, etc.) have discussed the communicative approach (CA), no explicit definition has been offered Nevertheless, the general understanding is that CA emphasizes communication in a foreign language and aims to develop students’ communicative competence through communicative activities such as games and role-plays Hubbard et al (1984, p 326) also indicate the same emphasis.
The communicative approach to language teaching starts from the language’s communicative purpose—what it is used for in real interaction It emphasizes attention to use over mere form or meaning, prioritizing authentic, functional communication in classroom tasks Materials are organized functionally to support real-life tasks rather than isolated grammar points In practice, it often adopts a deep-end approach to presenting new language: learners are first asked to cope with the communication task as best as they can before being given the necessary language forms to support their performance.
The com m unicative approach is a long process o f acquisition through exposure to and com m unicative use o f language, w ith m any inevitable m istakes It has the following main characteristics.
C h arac te ristic s o f C L T
II is believed that the characteristics o f CLT help the teacher and the students understand what is happening in a C L T classroom A ccordingly, the teacher can take advantage of this approach and prom ote h e r/h is students’ learning.
M any researchers (Bock, 2000; Larsen- Freem an, 1986; R ichards & R odgers, 1986;
T hom pson, 1996) and others are interested in CLT, but they only discuss CLT partially Li
(1998) collects the opinions from m any linguists and review s the characteristics o f CLT as follows:
- A focus on com m unicative function;
- A focus on m eaningful tasks rather than on language per se ( e.g gram m ar and vocabulary study);
- Efforts to m ake tasks and language relevant to a target g roup o f students through an analysis o f genuine, realistic situations;
- T he use o f m aterials from authentically
- The use o f group activities; and
- The attem pt to create a secure, non- threatening atm osphere.
The review show s that co m m u n icativ e function is co n sid e re d th e m ost im portant c h arac te ristic s o f C L T because the goal o f C L T is to h elp the stu d en ts gain the co m m u n icativ e co m p eten ce (see 2.5.1) (T he co m m u n icativ e fu n ctio n is the way we use a la n g u ag e to acco m p lish som e functions such as a rg u in g , persu ad in g , or p ro m isin g , etc) C L T co ncen trates on the co m m u n icative fu n ction sin ce it w as created on the fo u n d atio n o f the com m unicative lan g u ag e th eo ry in co n n ectio n w ith that o f the lan g u age learn in g theory.
More specifically, from C hristopher B rum fit’s point o f view (1988), som e characteristics should be reviewed to have a m ore understanding o f CLT They are:
A focus on the needs o f learners, and attem pts to define their needs (Learner- centeredness and N eeds Analysis).
An em p h asis o n the content o f the activity, rather on overt language learning (A co n centration on the m essage rather than on the m edium ).
A tendency to specify syllabuses in term s o f m eaning ('n o tio n a l' o r 'sem an tic' syllabuses) o f speech acts ( ‘functional’ syllabuses), rather than in term s o f structure/ lexis (Function, rather than form).
E n couragem ent and tolerance o f language variation in the classroom , even to the extent o f m ix in g m other tongue and target language use.
- Individualized w ork (R espect for learning styles and learning pace).
E rrors to lerated as a natural p art o f process o f language acquisition (Fluency rather than G ram m atical A ccuracy).
- A supportive environm ent, to encourage guilt-free participation, a reduction o f suspension o f the teacher’s judgm ental role.
- U se o f tech n iq u es, w hich encourage student participation in natural environm ents
- group and pair-w ork, role-play, sim ulation and inform ation-gap exercises.
- Presentation o f language item s in contexts o f typical use rather th an in isolation (U se, rather th an U sage; D iscourse, rather than th e sentence).
M aterials w h ich are either 'au th e n tic ' (i.e not o rig in ally intended tor language teaching at all,) o r w hich sim ulate authenticity.
- F or m uch if n o t all o f the tim e, a lack o f prediction by th e teach er o f exactly w hat language is to be used by learners, because they w ill be engaged in sim ulated
‘n a tu ra l’ language activity - w h eth er reading, listening, conversing o f writing.
Although Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has many inherent strengths, its application remains imperfect, particularly in teaching English grammar in secondary schools Teachers should be aware of these shortcomings so that the teaching and learning of English grammar can be improved Consequently, a balanced discussion of CLT’s advantages and disadvantages is needed to guide practice and promote more effective grammar instruction in secondary education.
T h e a d v an ta g e s an d disad v an tag es o f C A
Using the Communicative Approach (CA) in English teaching aims to help students gain communicative competence and benefits both teachers and learners Mannerly (1991, p 1) reports surprising results showing that students can learn to convey most of their feelings and ideas, illustrating the practical payoff of CA Together with many other linguists, he argues that CA has numerous advantages, which include enhanced ability to communicate in authentic contexts, improved classroom interaction, and greater overall effectiveness of language teaching.
T eachers d o not w aste tim e teaching students things that they d o not need to know
As its result, both students and teachers can save tim e and energy.
Functional com m unicative activities are m uch m ore interesting and useful for students than the sim ple drills in w hich all they have to do is to repeat some patterns.
It is m ore likely to produce the four kinds o f com petence: gram m ar, sociolinguistics, discourse, and strategy.
Students are offered the opportunity to use the language for their ow n purposes, to take part in com m unication.
Over the long term, a CLT-based approach should equip students with the practical skills needed to tackle real-world language tasks By prioritizing authentic communication and meaningful interaction, CLT closely approximates actual language use, enabling learners to transfer what they practice in class to everyday situations This alignment boosts learners’ confidence and communicative competence, preparing them to navigate real-world communication with greater fluency and adaptability.
Within CLT (Communicative Language Teaching), texts still address grammar rules, but classroom arrangements are often nontraditional, with students expected to interact primarily with one another rather than with the teacher, and error correction may be minimal or absent In this framework, the teacher’s two main roles are to facilitate overall communication among all participants and to participate as an active member within the learning–teaching group Drawing on the theory of CLT and the realities of teaching and learning English at Nguyen Due Canh Secondary School, this analysis highlights several disadvantages of applying the Communicative Approach (CA) to English education in that context.
It is only applicable to students w ho have m astered the basic vocabulary and g ram m ar rules.
Vietnamese classroom dynamics often reflect broader patterns in Asian education, where students are typically social and comfortable engaging with peers In many classes, students interact more with friends than with the teacher during lessons, which can challenge traditional teacher-centered instruction but also offer opportunities to boost learning through structured group work and peer-led discussions Effective strategies include setting clear expectations, facilitating collaborative activities, and guiding conversations so they stay focused on learning while respecting cultural norms of respect and collective participation.
Meeting the requirements of this approach is extremely challenging due to a shortage of qualified teachers It demands extensive professional training, strong linguistic competence, and the ability to implement the method effectively in the classroom Ensuring a steady supply of well-trained educators will be essential for successful deployment and consistent, high-quality instruction.
Despite its drawbacks, the Communicative Approach (CA) remains a valuable method in language teaching due to its positive impact on learning It makes learning more enjoyable by giving students frequent chances to use the target language in authentic communication Both students and teachers can monitor progress as learners practice real language use, making improvement tangible Taken together, these factors help learners build stronger language competence in both the target language and their native tongue.
D ed u ctiv e versus inductive m e th o d s
D eductive m ethod in the light o f trad itio n al g ra m m a r-tran sla tio n m ethod 15 2.5.2 Ind u ctiv e m eth o d in the lig h t o f co m m u n icativ e a p p ro a c h
Following form-focused language teaching, traditional grammar instruction has typically used a deductive method with lessons organized into three phases In the presentation stage, the teacher may write the forms of the new language item on the board and illustrate them with examples, since the form is the way an element of language is expressed in speech or writing The underlying rules are explained, both in the mother tongue and in the target language For instance, when teaching the structure “be going to do something,” the presentation stage often shows its forms—positive, negative, and interrogative—by providing examples that illustrate these patterns, after which the teacher underlines and explains the rules.
After that, the teacher may ask some students to give their own examples based on the rules, and then invite the rest of the class to share theirs as well After presenting these examples, the teacher reviews the responses, reinforces correct applications of the rules, and clarifies any misunderstandings through guided feedback and discussion.
Grammar instruction often begins with the teacher presenting all forms of a structure and explaining their uses, either listing every use or highlighting key uses and inviting students to provide their own examples to clarify them The lesson then proceeds through practice and production stages, which are largely based on drills and sentence production Students memorize the rule by engaging in meaningless mechanical drills, and later undertake recognition and production exercises both orally and in writing Critics note that little attention is paid to the value of the message, and that grammatical structures are not placed in real-life contexts; using the target language in authentic communication is not the goal of grammar lessons (Nunan, 1999) In other words, the emphasis is on getting the correct answer, and when students make errors or do not know an answer, the teacher supplies the correct one (Larsen-Freeman, 1985).
Traditional deductive grammar lessons focus on the direct presentation of grammatical rules, followed by memorization and practice with additional examples In many classrooms, students remain passive and only a portion participate in learning activities, while the teacher dominates the pace and content of the lesson Excessive time spent on explanations leaves little time for students’ active cognitive engagement and interactive practice, resulting in mostly one-way classroom interaction from teacher to students Consequently, learners taught by this method tend to excel at reading and studying but struggle to communicate in the target language.
2.5.2 Indu ctive m ethod in the light o f com m unicative approach
Grammar instruction today prioritizes a communicative approach that relies on inductive discovery of rules and principles, along with opportunities for group discussion This discovery-oriented inductive method teaches grammar by having learners infer patterns from data and practice them in meaningful communicative tasks, rather than through direct rule presentation Described by Nunan (1999) as the inductive method, this approach emphasizes learner discovery and collaborative practice as the core of grammar learning.
During the first phase, the teacher demonstrates meaning to the class by contextualizing grammar items—placing them in authentic contexts For example, when presenting the present continuous tense, the teacher may show students a picture and say, "Now, look at the picture This man is reading a book Two men are talking What are the other people in the scene doing?" This contextualized grammar instruction helps learners see how tense forms express ongoing actions in real-life situations, supporting comprehension and retention.
"Describe the picture" is the exercise, with the teacher asking, "What is the picture doing?" as students describe the image The teacher writes all the example sentences on the board and then invites the other students to comment on these examples, fostering discussion and the comparison of vocabulary and grammatical structures This approach encourages active participation, helps learners expand their descriptive language, and provides immediate feedback as peers and the teacher discuss the examples.
A fterw ards, w ithout the picture the teacher m ay ask some questions to check students’ m em ory and to practise speaking.
I "Is the m an reading a new spaper? "
St "N o, he isn 7 H e is reading a book ’’
T "T he tw o w om en are not reading W hat are they doing? ”
To begin, the teacher writes several examples on the board and then prompts students to produce the appropriate grammatical forms by describing what is happening in the classroom at that moment The key grammar points are introduced on the board only after extensive practice with the present continuous tense, ensuring students internalize the structure first Explanations are not always given; instead, understanding may be elicited from the students themselves The teacher provides model sentences, which the class copies, and students may be asked to write their own sample sentences based on these models.
Following the presentation phase, the teacher guides students into the practice and production phases During practice, learners engage with reading or listening materials that showcase the target grammar in a variety of contexts, and participate in question-and-answer activities that require them to produce the structures and gain further communicative exposure to the grammar points In the production phase, learners are given opportunities to use the target grammar themselves through meaningful speaking and writing tasks, consolidating their mastery of the structures.
Applying the inductive method within the communicative approach shifts the teacher’s role from a dominant figure to a facilitator of student‑led learning, with learners acting as more responsible managers of their own progress (Nunan, 1999) The teacher initiates activities but does not always interact directly; at times he serves as a co‑communicator, and more often creates situations that prompt communication among the students (Larsen‑Freeman, 1985) This approach shows learners how grammar enables them to derive meaning across progressively complex uses, empowering them not only to report events and states of affairs but also to express meanings, negotiate understanding, and participate in authentic communication.
17 editorialize, and to com m unicative their own attitudes tow ards these events and affairs (N unan, 1990).
T e sts as a m e an s to collect d a ta
Language researchers rely on tests as key instruments for collecting data Seliger and Shohamy (1989, p 176) define a test as a procedure used to gather data on a subject's ability in specific disciplines Students can be assessed on writing, reading, speaking, or listening comprehension skills, and many tests integrate these elements Public exams, such as those administered by the University of Cambridge or Oxford, often combine multiple language skills in a single assessment.
Traditional examination formats often consist of four or five separate papers It is widely recognized that marking written exams is easier than marking oral exams, and written exams take less time and are easier to administer As a result, most assessments emphasize written skills, particularly in schools, where test design and delivery favor written formats to improve efficiency and consistency in evaluation.
Achievement tests in secondary schools are designed to reveal how well students have performed, to measure students’ achievement, to assign grades, to identify students’ problems and weaknesses, and to assess teachers’ effectiveness These tests, known as achievement tests, are administered after four to six weeks of study, after three or four units of a course book, or at the end of a semester or academic year The aim is to determine whether students have learned and acquired the language or subject matter they have been studying Usually, these tests are written by heads of departments or by teachers of individual classes.
Harmer (1987) treats test writing as a demanding task that requires skill and patience A well-designed test should be fair and give every learner an equal chance to demonstrate what they have learned, rather than failing students unnecessarily Tests can go wrong not only because students lack knowledge but also because of flaws in how the tests are written themselves Accordingly, he outlines four rules that teachers should keep in mind when designing assessments.
Do not test what you have not taught.
Do not test general knowledge.
Do not introduce new techniques in tests.
Do not just test accuracy.
Linguists, including Seliger and Shohamy (1989, pp 177–179) and Harmer (1987, pp 60–62), describe several techniques used to collect language data These techniques include multiple-choice items, true/false statements, fill-in-the-blank tasks, transformation tasks, translation exercises, and completion activities, among others.
In short, a good test should have som e characteristics such as having objectivity, existence of reliability and v alidity inform ation.
P revious study: stren g th and w e a k n e s s e s
C o n firm a tio n
Numerous studies underscore the importance of the communicative approach and its necessity for teaching language skills This approach has emerged as a prominent phenomenon in language teaching, with many linguists and researchers involved for several decades.
F in d in g s
Nguyen Quynh Giao (2002) conducted a study at the Posts and Telecommunications Institute of Technology The participants were 50 first-year students selected from 74 students enrolled in two non-major English classes within regular programs The study reports several major findings.
Changes in the purposes of studying foreign languages, especially English, can raise questions about the usefulness of grammar teaching Yet grammar remains important: a solid knowledge of grammatical rules is essential for mastering any language By understanding grammar, learners gain accuracy, better sentence structure, and clearer communication, while still prioritizing practical language use Therefore, effective language education should balance grammar instruction with meaningful reading, listening, speaking, and writing practice and exposure to authentic language.
Students in PT1T can achieve better grammar learning through communicative grammar lessons than with traditional grammar-translation methods Communicative activities, such as language games and role-plays, help improve students’ grammar accuracy and appropriateness.
Engaging communicative lessons generate far more motivation for students than grammar-translation methods, which often fall short By prioritizing real communication, these lessons help learners enjoy learning English more, whereas for some students the traditional grammar-translation approach feels difficult and uninteresting.
Ho Thi Mai Lan’s 2003 thesis helps readers grasp the main difficulties and solutions in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), distinguishing challenges faced by teachers from those faced by students Teacher difficulties arise from limited familiarity with CLT and frequent misunderstandings of its practice To overcome teachers’ limited CLT training, administrators should actively create opportunities for teachers to enroll in short-term CLT courses For students, teachers identify four constraints: low English proficiency, limited motivation to learn, use of Vietnamese during pair or group work, and a tendency toward passive learning.
To support students with low English proficiency, teachers should organize mixed-ability pair work and group work, ensuring that both high- and low-performing students participate However, teachers must master effective management of these collaborative formats to keep students engaged and productive To motivate learning, classrooms should include communicative activities, interesting topics, and enjoyable, student-centered tasks that promote interaction This approach helps limit passive learning by providing varied, active experiences, though passive learning can still arise from learners’ language levels and cultural backgrounds In short, success relies on strong cooperation between administrators and teachers: administrators should provide the opportunities and adequate facilities that enable teachers to implement communicative, engaging instruction.
Nguyen Thi Hue's thesis contributes to education by proposing strategies to enhance classroom communication and student engagement through structured, interactive activities such as games, songs, and stories The study indicates that primary-school teachers are seeking a more attractive and engaging classroom experience, but face a lack of diverse activities in the classroom.
By 2020, many teachers struggled to complete their courses and deliver effective instruction She recommends presenting grammatical items for primary grades in an exciting, communicative way through interactive classroom activities The aim is to offer practical ideas and resources for English grammar teaching, specifically tailored for Tra Vinh primary schools, helping teachers implement engaging grammar instruction and improve language learning outcomes.
L im itatio n and su g g estio n fo r fu rth e r r e s e a r c h
Although research on communicative teaching methods has been promising, most studies target college and primary school students, leaving a gap for secondary school contexts There are relatively few experiments, which limits the reliability and precision of the findings Consequently, there is a need for dedicated research on teaching grammar communicatively to secondary school students to produce trustworthy, actionable evidence for classroom practice.
L iteratu re s u m m a r y
The review indicates the term clarification, tests as a m eans to collect data, previous researches, and sum m ary.
This article emphasizes the importance of teaching grammar in foreign language learning and compares the theory of the Communicative Approach (CA) with the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) It notes that Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a prominent phenomenon in language education that has been studied by many linguists and researchers for decades, while GTM, as a traditional method, also has several advantages.
Viewed through the CLT and GTM frameworks, the chapter outlines inductive and deductive teaching methods and clearly defines tests as a data‑collection tool The final section assesses the strengths and limitations of existing studies in the field, while the core theory helps readers gain a deeper understanding of English grammar when applied via either inductive or deductive approaches.
An experimental method was chosen for the study, with a focus on controlling four fundamental components of the experiment The following section describes these components: (1) the subjects and their assignment, (2) the variables, (3) the instruments used for data collection, and (4) the procedures employed to carry out the study.
S ubjects an d su b ject a ssig n m e n t
V a ria b le s
D ep en d ent v a ria b le s
The dependent variable is the variable that changes or is influenced by changes in one or more independent variables In this experiment, the dependent variable under consideration is grammar competence in written and spoken communication The following section details the operationalization of the dependent variable, including how grammar competence will be defined, measured, and analyzed.
Many theorists, including Hymes (1971), Odlin (1994), Green and Hecht (1992), and Chomsky, discuss language competence and offer different definitions of what competence entails The ideas of grammar competence as well as communicative competence are abundant and varied, reflecting a range of perspectives on how linguistic knowledge is structured and used In these works, grammar competence captures knowledge of grammatical rules and linguistic structures, while communicative competence covers the ability to apply language appropriately in real social interactions Together, these discussions highlight the diverse concepts connected to language competence and the ongoing exploration of how people know and use language effectively.
Communicative competence, as defined by Hymes (1971), is appropriate rule-governed language behavior Odlin (1994, p 318) argues that competence is knowledge of language that is dependent on its use According to Ellis (1985, p 294), some linguists, such as Chomsky, treat competence as linguistic, while others, like Hymes, view it as communicative In essence, communicative competence combines knowledge of linguistic rules with knowledge of how these rules are used to achieve communicative meaning.
G ram m ar com petence o f students is interpreted by G reen and H echt (1992, p 169) as the degree of accuracy achieved by students w hen their attention is focus on form R ichards, et al define that gram m atical com petence is a person’s internalized gram m ar o f language This m eans a person’s ability to create and understand sentences, including the sentences they have never heard It also includes a person’s know ledge o f w hat are and what are not sentences o f particular language.
However, in the definition o f com m unicative com petence by C anale (1983), there are four different com ponents: gram m ar com petence, sociolinguistic com petence, discourse
24 com pctence, and strategic coinpetcnce G ram m ar com petence is considered an important one, which is the sp ea k e r’s know ledge o f the syntactic, lexical, m orphological, and phonological features o f the language, as well as the capacity to m anipulate these features to produce w ell-form ed w ords and sentences It provides the linguistic basis for the rules o f usage, w hich norm ally result in accuracy in perform ance.
Odlin (1994) defines linguistic performance as the language production we actually use in listening, writing, reading, or speaking, reflecting how well a second or foreign language is used to carry out various communicative tasks in the target language Performance is usually contrasted with competence, and it is subject to variations across specific situations, purposes, or tasks, whereas competence—at least for mature native speakers—tends to be more stable.
This study assessed students' performance exclusively through speaking and writing tests, excluding reading and listening The instruments used to measure the dependent variables were pre-tests and post-tests for both written and spoken communication Details about these measures will be discussed in the next section.
D ata co llectio n in s tru m e n ts
Data were collected through a three-and-a-half-month experimental course that included pre-tests and post-tests in both written and spoken communication These assessments were designed to measure students' ability to recognize appropriate grammatical structures and to apply them in meaningful contexts.
Pre-tests were designed to select two classes that are equivalent in vocabulary, English proficiency, and the ability to express sentences with appropriate grammar in both spoken and written modes According to Seliger and Shohamy (1995), a pre-test is efficient and necessary because it controls extraneous variables that can affect group homogeneity when more than one group is involved, and it helps limit attrition to some degree Harmer (1993) notes that to develop a good grammatical test, testers should consult reference books and materials and collaborate with other testers who can help identify mistakes or problems He also outlines criteria for a good test, and these criteria guided the pre-test design along with two key criteria.
- Test only w hat has been taught in order to find out how well students has achieved w hat they have been studying.
- U se old techniques in tests (types and techniques o f item s in tests should be seen before in class.)
To ensure rigorous assessment, the researcher used ready-made test items from reliable books that exhibit objectivity, reliability, and validity The formats of the pre-tests and post-tests are described in sections 3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2 of the study.
The pre-tests consist of a written test and an oral test The written test lasts forty-five minutes and is based on three main sources: Grammar in Use by Raymond Murphy (1985), Revision and Tests English for 11th grade by Nguyen Thi Chi (2002), and the English textbooks for 10th and 11th grades There are four exercises (see Appendix 7), whose formats the students are familiar with from previous tests.
Section I asks students to apply the simple present, simple past, or present continuous forms to the verbs in brackets; this section is worth three marks and is designed to test their ability to recognize the forms of different grammatical structures.
Section 2: W rite q u estio n s f o r the answ ers (2.5 m arks) It aim s to test how students can apply these stru ctu res to m ake questions.
Section 3: C h o o se the right a n sw er (2.5 m arks) It ch ecks the stu d en ts’ ability to distinguish the uses o f som e gram m atical structures.
Section 4: R ew rite the fo llo w in g sentences (2.0 m arks) It is designed to test the flexible application o f the structures in different sentences.
TTie oral test aim s to m easure the ability to use English gram m ar in spoken com m unication N evertheless, it has never been tested in N guyen Due Canh secondary
In Thai Binh, 26 schools and others face a daunting challenge due to large student numbers—about two thousand students per school—which makes traditional assessment difficult, but oral tests often improve overall accuracy in evaluating spoken language and help steer students toward practicing and developing their communicative competence; aligning with MOET’s emphasis on English as a means of communication, the approach also reflects national and global trends in foreign language learning, motivating researchers to establish an oral test for two classes to measure grammar competence in spoken communication The test design follows Clifford Walker’s guidelines from his West Sussex Institute of Higher Education journal, which state that an oral exam should cover taught content, avoid drifting beyond what has been taught, keep topics secure and engaging, and refrain from informing students of the full range of possible topics to prevent rote learning; accordingly, questions were crafted from the 10th and 11th English textbooks, Lessons 1–10, with sample questions included in Appendix 9.
Students were tested on grammatical structures they had learned from the textbook, following the specified marking range This assessment approach was discussed and agreed upon by all English teachers at Nguyen Du Canh Secondary School The goal was to ensure a consistent evaluation of students' grammar skills across classes.
- M anner (greeting, eye contact, self c o n fid e n ce ): 1 mark
Grammar accounts for five out of ten marks because the main goal of the test is to assess students’ ability to use English grammar in spoken communication Therefore, accuracy matters However, since this is an oral test, the assessment also considers ideas, fluency, pronunciation, and speaking manner, making overall communication effectiveness essential.
Like the pre-tests, the post-tests consist of two parts—written and spoken The written test (see Appendix 8) includes three exercises drawn from Grammar in Use (1985).
The 1996 English textbook for 11th-form students, known as Certificate 27, includes a Review and Test for English The test lasts 45 minutes and aims to assess students’ ability to recognize the English grammatical structures they have learned and to use them in context It consists of three sections.
Section I is an English grammar exercise that requires students to choose the correct tense for the verbs in brackets, using the simple present, simple past, past continuous, or 'be going to' It is designed to test learners' ability to recognize the forms of different grammatical structures, and it carries 3.0 marks.
Section 2 requires students to complete each sentence using the passive voice or an if-clause This 4.0-mark exercise assesses how well learners can apply these grammatical structures in their own contexts, turning theoretical rules into practical, real-world sentences By focusing on the form and meaning of passive constructions and conditional statements, the task promotes authentic usage and clear expression, helping students demonstrate mastery in translating grammar into everyday communication.
Section 3: M ake all the changes a n d addition necessary to p ro d u ce sentences fro m the fo llo w in g sets o f w ords and phrases W rite each sentence in the space provided
(3.0 m arks) It aim s to test the students’ ability to produce com plete sentences, using different structures w ith the guiding words.
The oral post-test uses the same criteria as the pre-test, and the questions are designed based on what the students learned during the experiment in the 11th-grade textbook, from the relevant lesson This approach ensures consistency between assessment and instruction by focusing on the key concepts and skills covered in that lesson.
11 to lesson 17 The sam ples o f questions are presented in A ppendix 10.
D escription o f th e m aterial used in th e e x p e rim e n t
The main material used in the experiment comes from lessons 11 through 17 of the English 11H textbook, republished by the Education Publishing House in 2000 This material is used in all secondary schools in Thai Binh for 11th-form students The choice rests on two reasons: first, lessons 11–17 of the English 11H textbook contain more grammatical structures than other sections; second, the material matches the study timeline of the researcher.
Each lesson in the textbook consists o f a topic, which m ay be a conversation, or a short story to present the new gram m atical structures, exercises for practice, and homework
A nd the followings are the aim s o f 7 lessons.
The main content o f the seven lessons
The num ber of periods
Grammar Topics and notions Functions
Lesson 11 6 - Structures: ‘be going to’ and ‘have to’
- G oing to the birthday party.
- Expressing some thing happening in the past.
(a) few, (a) little, countable and uncountable nouns
- Good old days - Talking about habits in the past.
Lesson 16 6 - Passive voice with present simple
- A big farm - Practising saying what is done. Lesson 17 6 - Passive voice: to be made o f / in
- At the exhibition - Expressing the materials, the places, something was made o f / in.
In both classes, the researcher added activities drawn from Peter Watcyn-Jones (1995), Penny Ur (1988), and Raymond Murphy (1985) (see Appendix 11) These activities emphasize speaking and writing skills Teachers can implement them through pair work and group work to facilitate collaborative, communicative language practice.
The teacher uses the same material to teach both classes, but applies different instructional methods: a deductive approach for the control class and an inductive approach for the experimental class The following outlines the experiment’s procedures.
P r o c e d u re s
The procedures, which were used to collect data, were carried out with the following stages:
Ninety students from two classes, 11A1 and 11A2, participated in the study The written test, lasting 45 minutes, was administered on the same day with the researcher observing The oral test was conducted two days after the written test, with the researcher and another English teacher from Nguyen Due Canh Secondary School serving as testers This procedure aimed to determine whether the two classes demonstrated comparable levels of grammar competence in both written and spoken forms.
W eek 2 to w eek 13: E xperim ental teaching.
It was based on the aim s o f the lessons by MOET as mentioned in part 3.4.
The main aim of the study is to measure students' performance through grammar tests in both spoken and written forms Accordingly, the post-tests comprise two assessments: a written test and an oral test The written test lasted 45 minutes and was accompanied by the researcher's observations, while the oral test was conducted two days later The results were compared with the pre-tests to assess changes in students' grammatical performance.
This chapter presents the study and its experimental results, drawing on data from pre-tests, post-tests, and the comparisons between them, and is organized into five sections: (1) pre-tests, (2) the application of deductive and inductive methods in two classes, (3) post-tests, (4) the comparison of pre-test and post-test results, and (5) the conclusion.
T h e p r e - te s ts
Appendices 1 and 2 present the pretest results for the 90 participants across the two classes Based on these results, the students in each class can be divided into four groups.
+ G ro u p 1 : the w eak students ( 1 - 4 marks)
+ G roup 2: the m edium students ( 5 - 6 m arks) i G r o u p 3: th e g o o d s t u d e n t s ( 7 8 m a r k s )
+ G ro u p 4: the best students ( 9 - 1 0 m arks)
P re-test sco res in w ritten o f the experim en tal class (11A1) a n d th e co n tro l class (11A2)
E xperim en tal class C ontrol class
G roup s N um b er o f Percentage N um ber o f Percentage stud en ts % stud en ts %
The table shows that both the experimental class and the control class have the same number of good students (20), accounting for about 44.4% of each class The share of medium and weak students is higher in the experimental class (11.3% medium and 35.5% weak) than in the control class The experimental class has fewer best students (4) than the control class As a result, there is no substantial difference between the two classes’ pretest scores, and overall the students in both classes performed similarly on the pretest.
4.1.2 R esult o f the spok en test
Pre-test scores in spoken o f the experim en tal class (11A 1) a n d th e co n tro l class (11A 2)
E xperim en tal class C ontrol class
G roups N um ber o f Percentage N u m b er o f Percentage students % students %
Analysis of pretest results shows that two classes have more than half of students scoring 5 and 6, with 62.2% in 11A1 and 55.6% in 11A2 The number of good and best students in 11A2 (10 good, 3 best) is slightly higher than in 11A1 (9 good, 2 best) In contrast, the numbers of medium and weak students are 25 and 7 in 11A2, which is a bit lower than 28 and 6 in 11A1 Consequently, the experimental class and the control class show similar levels of grammar competence before participating in the experiment.
T h e ap p licatio n o f in d u ctiv e an d d ed u ctiv e m e th o d s in th e tw o c la s s e s
After the pre-tests, the experiment proceeded with two classes: the experimental class (11A1), taught with the inductive method in light of CA, and the control class.
11A2 was taught using the deductive method in light of GTM Seven lessons were delivered over a period of three and a half months The following provides a general description of the periods during which the deductive and inductive methods were applied and includes samples of two lesson plans taught in two different classes.
A ccording to the curriculum designed by the M O E T, 1 l ,h grade students learn 3 periods of English per week, (45 m inutes a period) Therefore, the experim ent w as conducted in 40 periods (three and a h alf m onths).
As mentioned above, only one teacher taught in both classes In the control class (1IA 2), the teacher applied the deductive method to teaching and learning She spent most of the time explaining grammar rules and practising translation, both from English into the target language.
Vietnamese learners of English often encounter grammar exercises that prioritize mechanical practice over meaningful contexts This echoes Terence Odlin’s idea that traditional grammar moves us from abstract rules to concrete realizations Typically, when a new grammar rule is introduced, the teacher writes its form on the board, explains its syntactic structure and usage, and provides a few examples until students can recognize and apply it in grammar exercises In short, deductive, rule-based instruction remains the main teaching technique, emphasizing formal rules rather than authentic language use.
In the experimental class (11A1), the inductive method was applied The teacher used language in context rather than teaching form in isolation There were more oral practice exercises in class She emphasized using language for communication over simply presenting information about the language The form is usually subordinated to meaning.
33 gram m atical issues within m eaningful contexts The teacher or the students created likely real situations in the life, and practised in these situations.
4.2.2 Sam p les o f tw o lesson plans tau ght in the classes
G ram m ar point: Structure “ be going to do som ething”
Topic : “G oing to a birthday party”
Functions : talking about plans in the n ear future
Aims : Learn how to use the structure “to be going to d o som ething.
Time : Period 2 and 3 (7.55 am - 9.35 am)
C ontrol class E xperim ental class
- The teacher (T) w rites on th e blackboard the form o f “ to be going to V ”
+ ) S = is/ are/ am + going to V
-) S = is/ are/ am + not + going t o V
- She explains the rule and the usage of the structure: The action is happening in the future.
- T gives som e exam ples using “ be going to” to express future plans.
- 1 am going to see a film
- She is going to buy a house.
■ M y sister is going to take her husband in the station.
- Students (sts) only listen to the
- The teacher speaks and w rites a situation on the blackboard, then underline the structure: “ be going to do som ething”
Tomorrow is my birthday, and I’m excited to invite some friends to my house My mom is planning to buy some food, my sister wants to decorate the house, and my brother and I are looking forward to baking a few cakes.
She introduces several new words and explains how she expresses future intentions by using the grammar “be going to do something.” When she plans to do something in the future, this structure helps her convey her intentions clearly and confidently, making it a practical tip for learners aiming to master the English future tense.
34 teacher’s lectrure carefully, and take note all in the notebook.
- T gives som e suggestions and asks students to m ake sentences, and then ask others Som e new phrases are w ritten on the blackboard.
- 3 students w rite their sentences on the blackboard and others m ake questions, for exam ple
- She is going to d o the gardening.
- H e is going to give a birthday party next Sunday.
- 1 a m going to m ake som e cakes.
- W hat is she going to do?
- A re yo u going to make som e cakes on yo u r birthday?
- T asks sts to open the 11"’ form textbook
She explains the pictures, gives som e new w ords and divides the class into 6 groups
Sts are asked to discuss and write sentences, basing on the pictures.
T asks sts in groups to discuss the structures, in (+), (_), (?) *
Then m akes 5 sentences to say what they are going to d o tom orrow
Sts work in groups, and m any o f them can write this structure and m ake sentences, for exam ple:
T om orrow I am going to visit m y uncle.
T om orrow I am going to buy an English book.
The teacher asks students to examine the picture in the textbook and write sentences predicting what the people in the image are going to do She introduces new words to help them describe actions and possibilities, giving them the language tools to express their guesses clearly This classroom activity strengthens reading comprehension, expands vocabulary, and encourages learners to think creatively about future scenarios.
‘d eco rate’, ‘paint w h ite’, ‘plan ’, ‘ra ise ’
- Sts work in pair, one asks and another answers For exam ple:
- Yen: W hat are yo u going to do next weekend?
Trang: I am going to decorate m y house.
- H oa: w hat is she going to do?
H ang: I think she is going to clean the floor.
- Trung: W hat are they going to do?
Lan: I think th ey are going to decorate the house.
During the lesson, the teacher asks the students to spend about seven minutes writing their plan for the coming week After that, she pairs them up so they can discuss their plans, and each student shares their plan with their partner.
T gets feedback by asking three pairs to speak their plan ag ain in front o f the class.
T sum m arizes the focus o f the lesson, and gives sts hom ew ork.
- T divides students in 9 groups, each of w hich consists o f 5 G ive each group a paper (as in the first part o f adaptation) and ask them to m ake questions about their holiday plan.
Students give som e questions, such as: + ) W here are yo u going fo r your holiday? +) H ow are you going to travel?
+) W hat are you going to do on holiday? +) W hat are yo u going to buy there?
T reads a holiday plan o f a businessm an, w h ic h s h e d e s i g n s b y h e r s e l f , a n d a s k s s ts to listen and answ er h e r questions She reads 2 tim es slowly.
- Sts listen and answ er the questions
- T asks sts to w ork in pair, one asks and another answ ers according to the text, T has read.
- T sum m arizes the focus o f the lesson, and gives sts hom ew ork.