a case study of grammar teaching at ha huy tap upper secondary school

In an attempt to expand the findings from Canh and Barnard’ and Canh’s study, I conducted the present study to present a broader view on how the three teachers approach grammar work and

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP -.- 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 0 22 22222212111 151 122212111111 1221121 10111 810111111 cgxey il

TABLE OF CONTENTS 222212121121 2121 1211115151 152212111 1515221211121 111 8112 tre 1 TRANSCRIPT CONVENTIONS 22 22 22212212111 151222222121 1221111 8112 tre 5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .- - - 2 2C 2 22 22212112111 151212112111 1515121111 811 tre 6 LIST OF TABLES - 12C 22212111121 253212111 1515218121111 11 1821121101112 11 1121111 8111211111 se 7 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . 2 2: 221221221121 1211221 221281 EtE ky se, 8 1.1.Rationale of the Study c2: 221221121121 125 1535181151151 5511121 81 81 EE 1s rà 8 1.2.Aims and ObJectives of the StUd|y ¿5-52 2222 1111 %2E232315111 1231151111151 xee 9 1.3.Scope of the Study 2 22 221221121121 151 1211211221181 111 101501 H1 HH tr rên 10 I5 1 10 1.5.Organization of the Studìy - - - 2c 2c 213211211211 551 1515811811511 121 1 1 81 E1 H x2 xe 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW CS 2222121221222 ke ky xờ 11

2.2.Approaches to grammar learning -. -.- 14 2.2.1.Deductive versus Ïnduetive - .- c2 ccc cà cà 14 2.2.1.1.Deductive approach -.-.- sec 2222212112 se 15 2.2.1.2.Inductive approach -.- 2c c2 222112122 2111 se 16

2.2.2 Explicit versus ÏmpÏICII + 222 S25 SE 322232232358 2E 22E21 5315325215152 xxx 17 2.2.3 Relationship of deductive and inductive approaches to SLA theory 18 2.3.PcdagogicaÏ reaSOnIng - +: 2222212121153 2122121 1115312212111 111 22211112111 8n Hư 20

2 4.Teachers°reasonings ÍOr DFaCIC€S - 232123 S2E2321 1121 E55212115111 15112 tre 22 2.4.1.Approaches fO ØTaImIMAT -.- 2 - 5 S2 32222212838 123 25212131151 E525321 1821115535121 1 r0 23 2.4.2.EITOT COTT€CẨIO - 5c S322 EE 1E E E1 21712 E11 2111 1 1H11 He 27 2.4.3.The use of the first language . - c2 c2 c2 ss2 28 2.5.Summary - C20222 002011 121 112 n1 th nh kh kh ky 30

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 31

` bebe cee eee ee cee be dee cee eed eect eeteeeebeeneeeeeaeeeee 33 3.3 Par[IcIDanS c2 000002022 211111 E21 TH 1 nh bee tebe ee ne tee eee creed 33 3.4.Data Collection and AnalysIs - -:- <5: 34 3.4.1 Classroom Observations c2 Qnnn nnn nh nh nh hét 37 3.4.2 Stimulated Recalls - - S22 2n SH nỲnnn nhiên 37 3.5 Validity and Reliability of the Study -:-c2c55- 38 3.5.1 Validity and Reliability of the data -: -: :-:- 38 3.5.2 Validity and Reliability of the data analysis 39 Em e cee cee eect ee cee ee tee ceeds cee bee eee ee ene eee nee es 39

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS: TEACHERS’ REASONING FOR ACTUAL

PRACTICES 0.0 cece eect e eee e eee bee tieete eet eetnestiteitetteeeeed 40 4.1.Approaches to grammar - 22222 222222111 23s s2 40 4.2 Grammar teaching practices and reasoning - -. -‹ 43 4.2.1.Grammar presentation -. . : c: c2 c2 s2 43 4.2.2.Grammatical Rules and Terminology - 52 4.2.3.Grammar praCfIC€ c7 2122222211122 51 11v xà 57 4.2.4.ETTOT COTT€CEIOH cee eee ee cee tee cee ee nee eee eeeeee eee eee eeeed 63 4.2.5.Use of the first language -. .- 22222222212 22 s11 22 s*2 66 4.3.Discussion of the fndings -: 2:25 c2 c2 ccc cv: 70 4.3.1.Grammar approach - -. c2 c2 222222 s12 2x2 70 4.3.2.Focus on ÍOrims -.c cà 2S eet ee HH HH By khe 71 4.3.3.Grammar presenfatIon - 2c cc c2 223x122 xsy 72 4.3.4.Grammar praCfIC€ - -c c2 22222122222 112 11123 11 re 74 4.3.5.ETTOT COTT€CEION ccẶ cọ cọ 2S BS BS TH Tnhh Hàn nhớt 75 4.3.6.The use of the first language -.-. -c s2 77 4.4 SummArV Q22 0022 221 nnn nn TY HH TT nn Kkg kh kh ky 78 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION c cà cà 79 5.1.Summary of key Íindings - - c2 222222122221 79

5.1.1.Teachers teach grammar ÍOr VarIOUS r€aSONS - - 79 5.1.2.Reasons for tensions are compÏex : .-:-: :-:-:- 80 5.2 Limitations of the study -.-:-: 22 222222112222 11112 x1 xxx 82

bi 1 a ăằ.ằ bebe cee beet cee eeeeeteteaneeeeenered 83 5.4 Suggestlons for Further Studies - 5-2: 84 4539)3)I909 201115 II 85 APPENDIX A L Q0 2n 2n nh HH nh kh nh nh Ki hờ APPENDIX B QQ n0 ch TH nh nh Hàn nhe Hết

translation of original speech in vernacular

Second language Second Language Acquisition Task-based Language Learning

Overview of teachers’ approaches to grammar

Overview of teachers’ grammar presentation

Overview of teachers’ teaching of grammar rules and terminology Overview of teachers’ grammar practice

Overview of teachers’ error correction

Overview of teachers’ use of the L1 language

Tensions and reasons

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale of the Study

My own interest in this topic comes from my professional experience both as a classroom teacher and a pedagogical inspector Whenever, I observed teachers, I realized that observers just focused on teachers’ observable behaviours in the classroom without time to find out how teachers reasoned for their classroom practices

So, I often asked myself these questions : Why do their lessons always follow the same format ? Why do they provide explicit correction ? Why do they use plenty of the first language in one lesson, but very little in another ? I believe that without understanding the thoughts that shape teachers’ teaching behaviours, it is impossible to help teachers

to implement innovation

A year ago, I enrolled in a Master’s degree programme, which takes two full years of study to complete Interestingly, during this time I found that is not to be wondered at the questions above since they have been partly the domain of inquiry in teacher cognition research The following statement from the Report by the National Institute

of Education in the United States of America (1975) was thought-provoking to me:

It is obvious that what teachers do is directed in no small measure by what they think To the extent that observed or intended teaching behaviour is

"thoughtless", it makes no use of the human teacher's most unique attributes In

so doing, it become mechanical and might well be done by a machine If, however, teaching is done and, in all likelihood, will continue to be done by human teachers, the question of relationships between thought and action becomes crucial (p.1)

Understanding what happens in real classrooms and teachers’reasoning, the thinking behind the practice of teaching have become central themes in contemporary

educational research However, very little research has been conducted on non-native speaker teachers’belief and their actual practices in the area of grammar teaching In Vietnam, Canh and Barnard (2009) is the first to study teachers’ belief about grammar However, the study was merely a questionnaire survey with a small number of Vietnamese teachers at the university level Then in his Doctoral thesis, Canh (2011) conducted a case study on eight teachers revealing their beliefs about form-focused instruction and the connections between their beliefs and practices In an attempt to expand the findings from Canh and Barnard’ and Canh’s study, I conducted the present study to present a broader view on how the three teachers approach grammar work and their reasoning in grammar teaching practices

1.2 Aims and Objectives of study

As stated above, the aims of this study are to uncover the hidden aspects of teachers’ grammar teaching, i.e., what shapes their teaching strategies regarding grammar, so as

to inform teacher educators of how to help teachers innovate their teaching This study

is therefore aimed at:

1 Investigate how upper secondary school teachers often teach grammar in their school

2 Find out the reasons teachers used to explain for the way they teach grammar Research Questions

In order to achieve the above-stated aims and objectives, this study was designed to address the following questions :

e How do teachers teach grammar in the classroom?

e What are the reasons underlying teachers’ approaches to grammar teaching ? Greater understanding of the relationship between classroom practice and teacher

reasoning may help teacher educators to make more sense of their work, to better understand the rationale which facilitates and hinders teacher teaching, and ultimately to contribute to the provision of more effective teacher education

1.3 Scope of the study

The study focuses specifically on discussing teachers’ observable classroom behaviours and the immediate reasons the teachers provided for their decisions without going into a deeper analysis of the influences and factors (e.g teacher education and experience) which had led them to assume the views expressed in their answers And the subjects of the study are three teachers from Ha Huy Tap upper secondary school 1.4 Methods

Since the aims of the study are to gain understandings why teachers taught grammar the way they did, qualitative methods were used Specifically, video-taped classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews were chosen as the two data collection methods in this study

1.5 Organization of the study

This thesis consists of four chapters Chapters 1 introduces rationale, aims, methods, scope, and design of the study Chapter 2 reviews the literature relevant to the focus of the study Chapter 3 gives the methodological choices for the study, specifying design, methods of data collection, data collection procedures, approaches to data coding, analysis and interpretation Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study and discusses the findings with reference to the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 Chapter 5 comes last with a summary of the findings, the limitations of the study, the implications for foreign language education, and some suggestions are also outlined for further research

in the last chapter

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Different perspectives on the role of grammar in foreign language education Throughout the history of foreign language teaching, grammar teaching has always been a controversial issue This on-going debate has impacted on the development of language practices and there have emerged so many approaches and methods to grammar teaching to suit their own learners and their own classroom environment Therefore, the role and status of grammar in language teaching and learning are different swings of pendulum

From the 16" to the 18” centuries, grammar gained prominence in foreign language teaching and learning ; and Latin was the official language of education, commerce, religion, and government in the West During these centuries, children entering

“grammar school” chiefly studied Latin grammar and rhetoric through the memorization of grammar rules, declension, conjugations and vocabulary lists (Richards &Rodgers, 2001) Undeniable, this method led to the birth of the Grammar- Translation method later, with which grammar point would be presented first, its form and use highlighted later, and illustrated by examples Accuracy is central to foreign language learning In spite of the fact that there have been a lot of arguments against the grammar-translation method, it made a great impact on foreign language teaching and learning in the 19™ century

In the early 20" century, some linguistic and psychological theories dominated foreign language teaching and learning, leading the innovation of a number of different methods and approaches, each of which is trying to negate the previous and thus foreign language teaching and learning are fluctuate over time Audio-Lingual method based on behaviorist theory which was founded by Watson (1913) However, it is Skinner’s view from which of the Audio-Lingual method derives its theoretical base

(Brown, 2007) Skinner believed that language is learnt through repetition and positive

or negative reinforcement (Skinner,1957) Language learning is a pure process of habit-formation To put it in other words, learners had a thorough grasp of sententences modelled, mimiced, and memorized so as to use the target forms with totally automatic accuracy And in foreign language learning, as Richards &Rodgers (2001, p.58) added that, “listening comprehension, pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary are all related

to development of oral fluency” Thus, a typical lesson involves oral and aural skills, inductive grammar without explanation and errors avoided

The behaviorist theory was shaken to its root for the birth of the theory of American linguist, Noam Chomsky, known as Universal Grammar gainst the process of language learning as habit formation, which is believed to contain a number of principles common to all language Put another way, language is governed by a set of principles and rules, which regulates the order of words in sentences Generative grammar indicates the number of rules which makes us understand sentences, yet totally unaware This theory accounts for the fact that children can generate their unique sentences which they have never heard before

The role of grammar came into question in the 1970s when a new wave in sociolinguistics revolutionized the nature of language and learning through _ research

on the term communicative competence (CC) CC was introduced by Hymes (1972), a sociolinguist who criticized Chomsky’s theory of linguistic competence too limited and saw linguistic competence as a sub-division of a greater whole CC For this scholar, grammaticality is one of four aspects of CC, while it is linguistic competence for Chomsky Hymes (1972, as cited in Browns, 2007) stressed that Chomsky’s theory could be adequately understood in the event of a child at the age of 3 or 4, but not account sufficiently for the social and functional rules of language Thus, Hymes

developed the notion CC which was referred as the competence to use and interpret language aptly in specific contexts (Hymes, 1972)

At the same time, Halliday’s(1973) functional views of language which revolutionized

to grammar and grammar teaching hastened the development of Communicative Language Teaching According to Halliday (1994), language is made of a grammatical and semantic system, which specifies all meaning potential, which has_ three metafunctions, namely, the ideational, interpersonal and textual functions Based on these functions, the components of every sentence can be analysed From this perspective, learners gradually internalize this system, then generate a large number of sentences Appealed by Halliday’s theory, in 1971, some experts, such as van Ek and Alexander (1980) and Wilkins (1972), began to investigate the possibility of developing language courses, in which learning tasks are broken into units Wilkins (1972) proposed a notional-functional syllabus for language teaching, in which the primary focus was on students’ ability to understand and expresss themselves in English while the status of grammarwas downplayed to “secondary focus” (Brown,

2007, p.225)

Such developments contributed to the emergence in the 1970s of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) which is an approach to language teaching that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of study The decline of grammar

in CLT gave a rise to an idea that grammar is not favoured in CLT However, Spada (2007) argues that the view on “Communicative Language Teaching means an exclusive focus on meaning” is a myth or a misconception’(p 275) Regarding to this issue, Thornnbury (1999) discussed that grammar appears to be strong in CLT syllabuses though CLT syllabuses are constructed according to categories of meanings

or functions (p.23) Also, the role of grammar is misunderstood for the impact of Natural Approach, which saw grammar a zero in language learning Thus, in the

communicative approach there exist two main types, namely the strong form and the weak form, which differ from each other in dealing with grammar teaching As a result, post communicative approaches have attempted to solve this problem intergrating the advances of both the linguistic and psychological disciplines

In the last few years, we have seen the revival of grammar for the emergence of two influencial theoretical concepts : focus on form and consciousness-raising Both concepts are related to the work of Krashen (1981), who distinguishes between acquisition and learning Grammar teaching, attention to forms of the language, has no place in language acquisition Conscious learning is characterized by formal setting, focus on form and frequent error correction, while subconscious acquisition is characterized by natural setting, focus on message, and rare error correction He claimed that a focus form can give contribution to productive ability (Krashen,

1981)

The notion of focus on form correlates with the notion of consciousness-raising, which highlights certain grammatical topics for the learner to develop his or her awareness of them for the moment he or she will be ready to insert this specific feature into the developing the second system, thus to acquire it Thus, grammar consciousness-raising

is simply a grammar presentation The advocate of focus on form and consciousness- raising argues that learning appears more effective when the learners’attention is directed to getting the forms right, and when to features of the grammatical system (Thornbury, 2001)

2.2 Approaches to grammar learning

2.2.1 Deductive versus Inductive

2.2.1.1 Deductive approach

Deductive reasoning as one aspect of the generalization process works from the general

to the specific In the case of deductive reasoning, rules, principles, concepts, or theories are introduced first, and then their applications are complemented

Deductive approach to grammar,which can also be called “rule-driven learning” starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by examples (Thornburry, 2001) This approach is actually used in Grammar Translation Method where the teacher was the source of knowledge with the rule presentation first of all, and then students practiced applying the rule Sharing this view, Eisenstein (1987) suggests that students would be

in control in practice and not misunderstand the target language which is functioning Goner, Philips, and Walters have found that the deductive approach can be effective with students of a higher level, who already know the basic structures of the language,

or with students who are accustomed to a very traditional syle of learning and expect grammatical presentations (1995, p 134) Furthermore, deductive approach can save time to present grammar rules explicitly as Thornburry (2001) pointed out that many grammatical rules can be more simply and quickly explained than elicited from examples; as well as confirming many students’ expectations about classroom learning, particularly those with an analytical learning style

The deductive approach, however, is less suitable for lower level language students, for presenting grammatical structures that are complex in both form and meaning, and for classrooms that contain younger learners (Goner, Philips, and Walters,1995, p 134) Omagio (1986) added that the deductive approach can make students too exhausted with meticulous and overwhelming grammatical terms and explaination And grammar explaination, according to Thornbury (2001), encourages ‘a teacher- fronted’, transmission-style classroom and is often at the expense of student

involvement and interaction Therefore, it ignores the current purpose of language learning, namely oral communication and mental ability of students are not made use 2.2.1.2 Inductive approach

An inductive approach is derived from inductive reasoning stating that a reasoning progression works from particulars (that is, observations, measurements, or data) to generalities (for example, rules, laws, concepts or theories) (Felder & Henriques, 1995) In short, when we use induction, we observe a number of specific instances and from them infer a general principle or concept

The inductive approach, which can be also called “rule-discovery learning”, starts with some examples from which a rule is inferred (Thornbury, 2001) The procedure is similar to the way the children absorb the mother tongue Students are exposed to comprehensible language input and acquire the grammatical rules subconsciously, as a result, a series of language habits is automated and students would internalize the common rules and apply them to similar situations and contexts.This approach is employed by the Audo-Lingual method, as stated above, which helps learners actively take part in their own instruction to deal with tasks given by the teacher, by this way learners develop their mental effort Put another way, the inductive approach focuses

on grammatical rules implicitly in which learners attempt to discover the rules Lewis (1986) thought that what we discover for ourselves is absorbed more effectively than what we are taught For Harmer (2001), the discovery learning promotes learners to be

more autonomous

It is now favoured by a great number of contemporary language learning courses and books because inductive approach is more appropriate in most contexts First, it updates language acquisition on new theories or concepts and adapts itself to the concept of interlanguage development Second, it encourages learners to communicate

through the problem-solving activities done collaboratively and develop more intrinsic motivation and self-reliance through discovery learning

However beneficial the inductive approach is to learners, it is time-consuming to implement and it might lead learners to work out the rules incorrectly It may also not

be favoured by the students with their own learning style and whose past learning experience causes them prefer simply to be told the rule The inductive approach is also under controversial debate that whether it actually works well with every type of grammar item Sharing this view, Thornbury (1999) argues that successfully inferring patterns and rules relates not only to how the data is presented, but to the quantity and quality of the data itself

The inductive approach promotes increased student participation and practice of the target language in the classroom, in meaningful contexts The use of the inductive approach has been noted for its success in EFL/ESL classrooms world-wide and it actually works really well in the context where there is sufficient language input, so a question posed to researchers is that how it works effectively in the context of English

as a foreign language like in Vietnam, where English is not used outside the classroom Also, the classroom activities designed emphasize meaning not on forms with the risk that students only attempt to complete tasks The classroom observations discover the underlying problem that during fluency orientation communication downgrades linguistic accuracy (Richards, 2002) To make matter worse, when the beginning level English learners do the task-based activities, they are often affected by their native language

2.2.2 Explicit versus Implicit

The terms deductive and inductive must be clearly defined to avoid confusion with the terms explicit and implicit Mitchell and Redmond(1993) make the distinction

by stating that explicit and implicit deal with learning or acquiring a language, while deductive and inductive deal with how grammar is presented This distinction is quite ambiguous because in practice, these two dichotomies; deductive-inductive and explicit-implicit, tend to coincide with each other Dekeyser (1994, p.188) states that:

Implicit means that no rules are formulated; explicit means that rules are formulated (either by the teacher or the students, either before or after examples/practice)

Therefore, it can be concluded that explicit can either be deductive or inductive, but implicit can only be inductive but never be deductive

2.2.3 Relationship of deductive and inductive approaches to SLA theory

The above approaches to learning appear to harmonize with Second Language Acquisition Theory of Krashen He assures that both approaches are indeed learning and not acquisition According to Krashen, acquisition is more related to the development of first language abilities while learning describes the development of second language abilities Acqusition is a subconscious process in which humans acquire language implicitly or naturally This is the way in which children acquire language without being aware of grammatical rules Language learning, on the other hand, is a conscious study of grammatical rules that are most often associated with foreign/second language education

The deductive approach is related to the conscious learning process in which this approach focuses on error correction and the presentation of explicit rules (Krashen, 2002) Such an approach is applied for the reason that it is an efficient and _ elegant way to organize and present the rule that is already understood The deductive approach respects the intelligence and maturity of adult learners The explicit presentation make learners ready to cope with exercises given and enhance the

learners’ confidence in doing these tasks For not wasting much time introducing grammatical items, teachers need to provide a wide variety of exercises

In inductive learning , learners work out the rules but the meaning in a subconscious process The rules are discovered consciously and the student analyzes the structural components of the message instead of the message itself

This fundamental difference between Krashen's acquisition and the teaching approach

of induction is often overlooked by those who employ the Inductive or Implicit method

to emulate native language acquisition in the foreign language classroom As meaningful interaction is emphasized, error correction and explicit teaching of the rule are downgraded

Whether grammatical rules are taught deductively or inductively relates to a long- standing debate among researchers and teachers because each of the two approaches has its own strengths and limitations The question is hard to answer before considering some related studies

In a study comparing different types of self-study grammar practice exercises, some deductive and others more inductive, Fortune (1992) drew a conclusion that a great number of learners changed their opinions and wanted to do traditional grammar exercises in preference to discovery activities And a similar study by Ranalli (2001) resulted in contradictory findings, which revealed that though a majority initially favoured an inductive approach (surprising considering the deductive approach is deeply ingrained in the Korean education system), many subsequently said that they would prefer a more deductive approach

This difference in cognitive styles may be associated with different neurological mechanisms in learners (Eisenstein, 1987) Whether grammatical rules are taught inductively or deductively relies upon certain structures, since some are more

amenable to a deductive approach, while others can be learned very well by an inductive approach To sum up, both deductive and inductive presentations can successfully be applied depending on the cognitive style of the learner and the language structure presented (Eisenstein, 1987) Nevertheless, whether a teacher employs a deductive or inductive approach, s/he should consider the notion that language learning, particularly in the context of EFL is a largely conscious process that involves formal exposure to rules of syntax and semantics followed by specific applications of the rule, with corrective and encouraging feedback reinforcing correct usage and discouraging incorrect usage

2.3 Teachers’ Pedagogical reasoning

Pedagogical reasoning was first introduced by Shulman (1987) in his justification for the existence of Pedagogical Content Knowledge :

Pedagogical content knowledge is not simply a repertoire of multiple representations of the subject matter It is characterized by the way of thinking that facilitates the generation of these transformations, the development of pedagogical reasoning (p.115)

Shulman characterizes pedagogical reasoning as a process of transformation in which the teacher turns the subject matter of instruction into “forms that are pedagogically powerfull, and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background presented by the students “(1987, p.15) He went further to define pedagogical reasoning in the Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action, which involves a cycle through six activities : Comprehension; Transformation, Instruction, Evaluation; Reflection; and New Comprehension Shulman focuses on knowledge rather than ideas and beliefs Moreover, there is evidence that teachers’ ideas, beliefs and values may also influence practice (Fang, 1996) Shulman’s model was then used for understanding the

pedagogical reasoning a teacher uses by Webb et al (Webb, 2002, 2011; Webb & Cox, 2004) and Starkey (2010a, 2010b, 2011) Specially, Webb and Cox (2004) shows a framework for pedagogical practices relating to Information Communication and Technology (ICT) use which “represents the processes involved in pedagogical practices and the main flows and stores of data” (p.239) This model highlights the importance of teachers’ knowledge, belief and values on their pedagogical reasoning and how that influences their behaviour and the development of lesson plans

This framework provides support for the idea of studying teachers’ knowledges and beliefs to understand pedagogical reasoning for their behaviours Teachers’ beliefs, however, are not always reflected in their practices and there is evidence that the two

do not always coincide ( Karavas-Doukas, 1996) Such differences have been viewed

as an undesirable or negative phenomenon (and described using terms such as incongruence, mismatch, inconsistency, and discrepancy) In Phillip and Borg’s study (2009), “tension” was conceptualized to infer to divergences between what English language teachers say and do in teaching grammar The more we explore apparent tensions, the more the reasons behind them become clear and we can see the logic behind them from the perspective of the teacher (Phipps & Borg 2007) After a review of research, Borg (2003a) commented that factors such as parents, principals’ requirements, the school, society, curriculum mandates, classroom and school lay-out, school policies, colleagues, standardized tests and the availability of resources may hinder language teachers’ ability to carry out instructional practices reflecting their beliefs Thus, contextual factors need to be part of any analysis of the relationship between teacher beliefs and practices (Farrell & Lim 2005)

Figure 2.1 Framework for pedagogical practices relating to ICT use (Webb & Cox, 2004, p.239)

Teachers’ Students’

Knowledge, beliefs Knowledge, beliefs

and values and values

Data Students’ knowledge,

understanding and skills

2.4 Teachers’ reasonings for practices

In the last three decades, cognitive psychocoly has provided a lot of valuable reaseaches on mental lives of language teacher, which highlighted complex relationships between what teachers do, know and believe, have revealed the powerful influence theories underlying their own work in teaching Thus, educational researchers paid attention to teachers’ mental lives which played an important role in their instructional choices The questions being considered now are not ‘what do teachers do?’ but also ‘what do they think ?’, ‘what decisions do they make ?’ and why?’ Thus, the recent inquiry of teaching has tended to explore what happens in real classrooms and make sense of the rationales underlying teachers’ instructional decisions

22

2.4.1 Approaches to grammar

When teacher made explicit the rationales for their classroom practices, they need to consider many basic questions, such as ‘Why do my grammar lessons always follow the same format ?’, “Why did I regularly tell students not to worry about their grammar error ?, ‘Why did I provide plenty of practice in one lesson, but very little in another ?” Such questions encourage teachers to consider the influence on their decisions in grammar work of a wide range of factors (Borg, 1999b, p.162) He also argued that teachers’decisions in teaching grammar were influenced by their conflicting cognitions about language, learning in general, L2 learning, grammar teaching, students, and self Thus grammar teaching often reflected the resolution of conflicts among competing cognitions held by teachers (Borg, 1999a, p 26)

With reference to teachers’ reasoning for their actual practices, one study undertaken by Eisenstein-Ebsworth and Schweers(1997), who explored the opinions regarding conscious grammar teaching of 60 university teachers of ESL from Puerto Rico and the New York area That the teachers are confident in teaching grammar explicitly derived from their own experience as teachers and learners Two of the teachers, for example, state that they taught grammar because explicit instruction worked well for them as learners and language teachers rather than their personal experience in research studies

or training Thus, Eisentein-Ebsworth & Schweers argue that "in articulating their rationales, teachers referred to various factors shaping their views, such as student wants, and syllabus expectations Like university teachers of ESL from Puerto Rico and the New York area, 34 pre-service teachers of English in Singapore, while being asked by Farrell (1999) to write their past experience of learning English and about their personal views about teaching grammar, to decide whether to approach a grammar lesson inductively or deductively and to implement and their chosen approach, attached their own language learning to personal choices Some students

preferred deductive approach to inductive approach because it had worked well for them as learners; or others intended to grammar approach in the way they had been taught themselves Such findings hightlighted the impact of teacher biographies on what they think and do

Burgess and Etherington (2002) administered a 40-item questionnaire to a group of 48 EAP (English for Academic Purposes) teachers in UK universities to investigate the teachers’ beliefs about grammar and grammar teaching The majority of the teachers appreciated the role of grammar for their students and grammar accuracy in language and communication Such beliefs led them to be supportive of explicit grammar instruction to satistify their students’expectations while they advocate an integrated, focus-on-form approach to grammar instruction

In Singapore, Chia (2003) also investigated beliefs about grammar teaching among

96 primary school teachers using a short questionnaire, and he found that teachers reported a preference for formal instruction based on explicit, deductive teaching in which drilling played a central role because they think that their students internalize the rules better compared to using an inductive approach

In a recent study, Carless (2009) uses interview data from a purposive sample of 12 secondary school teachers and 10 teacher educators based in the Hong Kong context,

a setting in which task-based approaches have been adopted since the 1990s The focus of the paper is to explore informants’ perceptions of the pros and cons of TBLT as opposed to long-standing presentation-practice-production (PPP) approaches The results showed that teacher informants generally believed that teachers prefer PPP

as opposed to TBLT, since PPP was also generally perceived by teachers as more effective in facilitating direct grammar instruction

In addition, Plews &Zhao’s study (2010), investigated what inservice ESL teachers at four school in Atlantic Canada know about language teaching methodology, reveals how the teachers also adapt TBLT in ways that are incongruent with its theoretical underpinnings, turning it into PPP The teachers adapted TBLT into traditional teaching with explicit grammar presentation and drills

Farrell and Lim (2005) examined the beliefs and actual instructional practices of two experienced teachers of English language in a primary school in Singapore The findings suggest that teachers do indeed have a set of complex belief systems that are sometimes not reflected in their classroom practices for various complicated reasons, some directly related to context of teaching Time is one of the factors that seems to affect the implementation of beliefs; another factor is teachers’ reverence for traditional grammar instruction

The relationships between L2 teachers’actual practices in teaching grammar and the cognitions underlying these practices also reported in studies by Borg (1998; 1999a; 1999c; 2003b) These studies describe classrooms events as they unfold in real and discuss with teachers through which teachers’ emic perspectives on the teaching of grammar are made explicit Borg studied five EFL teachers in Malta, revealing new insights into teachers’cognitions and practices in formal struction emerged from this work The teachers’ rationales for their explicit formal instruction does not derive from attempts to promote language learning but from wishes to satisfy students’ expectation (Borg, 1998) However, the teachers in Borg’s study do not necessarily adhere exclusively to one particular approach; one of the teacher in Borg (1999c), for example, believed that learning by discovery work was more effective than learning by being told, but she also felt that not all grammar lends itself to discovery and that learners' expectations (e.g for expository grammar work) should be met, and this led her to vary her practices To put other words, she employed both deductive and

inductive strategies in teaching grammar, justifying these with reference to interacting and sometimes conflicting beliefs based on her own teaching and learning experience Also, she considers discovery work as a complete waste of time and calls for more planning on her part (ibid)

These findings confirmed later by Borg (1999a) are that pedagogical dichotomies (e.g.inductive vs deductive) implied in existing research on grammar teaching become blurred in practice because teachers alternate or blend strategies depending on particular instructional factors One teacher, for example, believed that inductive approach is better than deductive approach, however afraid that students expected teacher-directed grammar work, she occasionally gave mini-lectures on grammar points

Another study of Phipps & Borg (2009) examines tensions in the grammar teaching beliefs and practices of three practising teachers of English working in Turkey The observations provided insights into how they taught grammar, while the interviews explored the beliefs underpinning the teachers’ classroom practices Two of the teachers agree that grammar should be presented in context because learners learn better if they discover the rules themselves (p.387) And the data suggest that contextual factors such as classroom management concerns and _ student expectations can cause tensions between teachers’ beliefs and their practices

In 2003, Andrews undertook a study with 170 secondary school teachers of English

in Hong Kong Andrews found that the way teachers taught grammar was influenced

by their language proficiency, explicit grammar knowledge as well as by their beliefs about grammar Particularly, teachers’ beliefs in a form-focused approach to grammar were positively correlated to their beliefs in a deductive approach to grammar In contrast, teachers’ beliefs in an inductive approach to grammar were modestly correlated to their beliefs in a meaning-focused approach to grammar Interestingly,

many of the teachers surveyed seemed to feel constrained to follow such a pattern because of teaching syllabuses The teachers provided the reasons that students needed grammar primarily for communicative purposes, but at the same time,they needed explicit grammar knowledge to help them cope with examination demands

In a similar vein, one teacher among eleven Turkish teachers who teach the same level

of learners participated in the study of the teachers’ knowledge and belief on how to teach grammar to Turkish learners of English as a foreign language underlined the reason for prioritizing grammar : testing concerns 90 % of all English teachers teach English through explicit grammar instruction, thus they “should have taught them all the language points” (Sezgi, 2007, p.261)

2.4.2 Error correction

Errors in language learning seem to occur very frequently and they are almost unavoidable when learners have not fully mastered the language The core issue of discussion in the literature of second language acquisition is whether errors should be corrected at all and how they should be corrected

Ng and Farell’s study (2003), investigated the factors affecting the beliefs about grammar of four secondary school teachers in Singapore, found that the teachers paid attention to accuracy over fluency in their classroom practices while they reverence the communicative approach The rationale underlying the incongruence was to feel safe that students could meet the examinations requirements, the teachers found it necessary

to correct all the errors that the students made The other factors could account for a powerful influence on what the teachers did in the classroom : time tension (deductive approach was less time-consuming) and classroom management

The reasons the teachers in Borg’s study (2003b) gave to explain how to deal with students’ grammatical errors differed from those of the teachers in Singapore There

were two general trends in the work of all teachers, namely not interrupting students to correct grammatical errors which occurred during oral fluency work and promoting self-repair on the students’ part when error occurred during accuracy work

In contrast, responses from 48 EAP teachers in British university language clarified that they did not think grammar mistakes should be ignored so that students could be more confident and fluent It may also show a concern about fossilisation of errors in learners’ interlanguage (Burgess and Etherington ,2002)

2.4.3 The use of the first language

One of the on-going debates is that of whether or not to use the learners’ first language (L1) in foreign language (L2) classrooms or learning environments Some researchers agree that the target language can sometimes be more easily processed by making reference to L1, but also caution that the overuse of first language will unduly reduce learners’exposure to target language input (e.g Atkinson, 1995; Ellis, 1984) Nevertheless, others (G Cook, 2010;van Lier,2000) claim that target-language exposure is necessary, but not sufficient to guarantee the target language learning, since target-language input must become intake The target-language input must be understood and internalised by students Judicious and theoretically principled first language use can facilitate intake and thereby contribute to learning

Despite the debates over the role of L1, empirical studies have suggested that it is likely to be unavoidable, in L2 classes, especially when teachers know the L1 of their students For example, in South Korea, Liu, Ahn, Baek and Han (2004) found the use

of L1 by 13 high school teachers of English ranging between 10 percent in model lessons, to 90 percent In contrast, Macaro (2001), examining six student teachers in England, found a low percentage of L1 use in their teaching, ranging from 0% to 15.2% Studies about how much teachers use L1 in the classroom have generated

varied results The diversity concerning the quantification of teachers’ use of Llconclude that teachers can hardly avoid the use of L1 when they share it with their students

Apart from quantitative methods, many studies adopt functional approaches to analyse the role of teacher L1 use (Atkinson, 1987; Liu et al, 2004) suggest that the first language can be used for various functions in the classroom Although these authors differ slightly in their recommendations for the use of the first language, they all agree that the first language can be used to explain grammar While most of these studies focus on the functions for which teachers use L1, few have investigated how teachers reasoned the use of L1 in their language teaching

Although research on teachers’ rationale for the use of Ll in FFI remains _ limited, the literature on this issue indicates variation in teachers’ rationale for the use

of L1 in the classroom Wu (2006), who studied teacher belief and grammar teaching practice in Hong Kong, found that two of four teachers gave the entire explanation in Cantonese with the aim of facilitating learners’learning Eva, one of the teachers in this study, had found that when she explained in Cantonese, students would understand what she meant However, as soon as she switched to English, they would

“do everything all wrong’(p.276) In one of Borg’s study (1998b), when expressing opinions about the contribution to learning English grammar the students’ L1 could make, “I’ve seen it so often” were words of a teacher whose perceptions of what worked well in the classroom (p.19) The teacher in Burns’ (1996) case study allowed her students to use their L1 as a strategy to get the students more confident about talking to each other Especially, the study of Mora et all (2011) explores the use

of the first language in a context of foreign language show that teachers and the majority of students perceive the use of the first language as positive and part of the teaching and learning process The following reasons that teachers use L1 were to save

time and avoid lengthy explanations in the target language, and to avoid interrupting the pace of their lessons; to establish a connection with students at the outset And they agreed that the frequency of L1 use varied from one level to another, indicating that at lower (beginning) levels there was more acceptance of L1 in the classroom, while at higher levels they tended to prefer less use of L1

2.5 Summmary

The literature review shows that very few researches on teachers’ beliefs about foreign/ second language education in general, and on the rationales underlying the teachers’practices, in particular, have ever been undertaken in Asian contexts This

is confirmed by Zeng and Murphy (2007) who said that “compared to the amount of literature about native speaking ESL teachers’ beliefs in western countries, there are fewer studies In pertinent research domains of non-native speaking EFL teachers” (p.2) In Vietnam, up to now only Canh (2011) examined teachers’ beliefs about form-focused instruction held by a small group of eight Vietnamese teachers working in a state upper secondary school as well as the correlation between their beliefs and their actual classroom behaviours The present study, thus, is an attempt to fill the gap concerning a small aspect of teacher cognition in grammar teaching

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research design

This study adopted a qualitative case study approach to explore how a small group of EFL teachers approach grammar work and the reasons underlying their approaches to grammar teaching Qualitative research involves naturalistic, uncontrolled, subjective, and process-oriented observation It typically produces a wealth of detailed data about a much smaller number of people and cases Denzin & Lincoln (2005) summarized that :

Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials — case study; personal experience; introspection: life story; interviews; artifacts; cultural texts and productions; observational, historical, and visual texts—that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individual lives (p 4)

Therefore, qualitative research is to “study things in their natural _ settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p 3)

According to Marshall and Rossman (1999), the functions of qualitative research have been called descriptive or exploratory by other authors and indeed both are key features of contextual research The essential purpose is to explore and describe participants' understanding and interpretations of social phenomena in a way that captures their inherent nature

Related to second language education, qualitative research provides insights into the contextual conditions and influences that shape almost every aspect of second language learning and teaching (Dérnyei, 2007, p 36) On the bases of this

understanding, a case study method was chosen and employed for the intention to understand teachers’reasoning for their actual practices Yin (2003), defines a case study as an empirical inquiry that:

e Investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident:

e copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points; and, as one result,

e relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion; and, as another result,

e benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis (pp 13-14)

It is deduced that the investigator explores “a bounded system” through — the combination of a variety of data collection methods such as interviews, observations and document analysis (Creswell,2007, p.73)

As the advocator of case study, Dérnyei (2007) claimed that the case study might maximise our understanding of the unitary character of the social being or object studied, obtain a thick description of a complex social issue embedded within a cultural context and give rich and in- depth insights that no other method can yield

The present study best fits case study approach as the aim was to explore a “bounded” social phenomenon (Creswell, 1998, p.61) : the pedagogical reasoning for practices of three teachers within the context of a state upper secondary school in Nghe An More specifically, the case sudy was ‘within-site’, as it focused on one school context;

‘collective,’in that three individual cases were studied; in that the cases were used to

illustrate the relationship between teachers’reasoning and actual classroom practices with regards to grammar teaching within the research context (pp.61-2)

3.2 Site

The site of the study is a state upper secondary school which was established in 1975, located in Vinh city, Nghe An province Ha Huy Tap upper secondary school considered as one of high- standarded schools in Nghe An has a pupil population of

1680, accommodated in 42 classes under the supersision of 91 teachers Teachers are mandated to teach 18 periods a week, average 3 periods a day The pupils, who are competitively selected through entry examinations, have strong motivations for higher learning achievements Curriculum and textbooks are the ones promulgated by the Ministry of Education and Training

3.3 Participants

There are nine teachers of English in the school who are graduates from Vinh University Three out of nine teachers agreed to participate in this study Their teaching experience ranges from 10 to 11 years

Table 3.1 Participant Profiles

university (No of years)

3.4 Data Collection and Analysis

Research into teacher knowledge and teacher thinking is concerned with phenomena that cannot be observed directly As Borg (2006) explains, this makes it a challenge for researchers “to identify data collection strategies through which these phenomena can

be elicited” (p 167) In Borg’s review of the research on teacher cognition, he finds that four data collection methods are most commonly used in the field: self-report instruments (e.g., questionnaires, tests), verbal commentaries (e.g., interviews), observation, and reflective writing Video-taped observation and stimulated recall interview were chosen as the two data collection methods in this study Data for this study were collected from November to December 2012 Before I started collecting the data, I spent a week talking informally with teachers in order to establish rapport with them and to convince them that the data I would collect were just for my MA research, not for assessing their teaching or their school or their pupils anyway Then, I observed each teachers twice The teachers usually have 45-minute interval between their lessons, which I could make use of for stimulated recalls All the interviews and stimulated recall transcripts were then sent to all the participants in hard copies to check the truthfulness

Specifically, I collected and analyzed my data sequentially in the following four stages:

1 Video-taped classroom observations

2 stimulated recall interviews

3 transcription of interviews

4.analysis of transcripts and classroom videos

At each stage, data were analyzed using a flexible list of codes Miles and Huberman (1994) use the term ‘start list’ to describe a provisional list of codes, often based on

previous research, that guide the process of data analysis I went through the data again and again in order to gain some sense of the key points The data were then coded and analyzed as described below Coding is the process of reducing the information obtained to make it manageable According to Dérnyei (2007), in qualitative research codes are “not numerical but verbal, amounting to short textual labels” and they are “left open and flexible” (p 26) Jorgensen (1989) suggests that “as different ways of arranging materials are explored, you may find it useful to consult or revisit existing literature and theories related to your problem” (p 110)

In the present study, I employed a deductive strategy to categorize data As a result,

my coding was based on initial categories derived from my original research aims which are similar to those used by Phipps and Borg (2009) They include, for example, presentation, practice, production, correction of grammatical errors, and use of grammatical terminologies

I put data into the same category together by using cut-and-paste techniques to seek the smallest “units of information” or “incidents” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994) in the data that can stand by themselves, i.e., stimulated recall data and relevant episodes

of the observational data Then summaries of each different category were written (Hewson & Hewson, 1989)

Below is an example of how the data were categorised in this study

A four-step procedure of data analysis was conducted as follows First, the observational data was analysed to understand teachers’ actual classroom practices and

to identify key episodes, which was then cut and pasted in order to fit into the categories Second, the stimulated recall interviews was analysed to seek the teachers’ rationale for in-class practices and key words/phrases related their reasoning also The key words/phrases from stimulated recall interview and observational data were then compared in order to identify patterns in teachers’ classroom practices as well as

to interpret their reasoning for their practices Finally, all the findings were triangulated in order to establish the relationship between actual practices, teachers’ rationale and factors influencing their rationale and practices.Then, all the data were interrogated again for additional or contradictory findings in order to refine the content of all categories of teachers’practices, rationale and influencing factors Patterns were then organized into categories (Borg, 2003c), which were selected to fit the research questions of the study substantially The broad categories for the present study include:

1 Approaches to grammar

2 Error correction

3 The use of the first language

4 Convergences and divergences between reasoning and practices

5 Factors influencing rationale and practices

3.4.1 Classroom Observations

Observation is a valuable strategy in the study of language teacher cognition because it provides evidence of what happens in the classrooms (Borg, 2006) He further elaborates the central role of observation as a data collection strategy in research

on teacher cognition arguing that it provides “a concrete descriptive basis in relation to what teachers know, think and believe can be examined” (p 231) Through classroom observation, the researcher is able to discover the consistency between teachers’ reasoning and their actual practices

Each of three participants in this study were observed two times teaching two different 45-minute grammar lessons to different groups of pupils All the observations were non-participant and structured (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000) and supplemented via both descriptive and reflective field notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003), copies of classroom materials, and samples of pupil work The classroom observations were videotaped because it is impossible to observe and take detailed notes simultaneously After completing the classroom observations, I reviewed all of the field notes I had collected and wrote a short and summary memo

3.4.2 Stimulated Recalls

Stimulated recall is a “form of interview [that] involves the use of a stimulus (most often a video recording) to elicit verbal commentaries about the cognitions (typically thoughts or decision-making) occurring during previously preformed behaviors” (Borg,

2006, p 209) According to Borg, it provides teachers with the opportunity to verbalize their thinking, in a relatively free, open-ended manner” (p 210) In this way, teachers are stimulated to think about their actions and rationale

Two issues related to the the accuracy of recalls are, however, lapse between the actual teaching and the data collection (Freeman,1996, p 370) and the researcher’s

interview prompts might influence the ways in which teachers report their thinking and reason their actions (Borg, 2006)

Bloom (1954, cited in Gass & Mackey, 2000, p 18) notes that recall accuracy depends

on the time lapse between the event and the recall He also advises that if recalls are prompted within 48 hours after the event happens, recalls can be 95 percent accurate Stimulated recall sessions were conducted immediately after each lesson observed

I made use of the 45-minute interval between their lessons for the stimulated recall Because of the practical constraints, I replayed only selected portions of the recording

To make opened-ended commentary on their teaching, I made my prompts as open- ended as possible,simply presenting teachers with the tapes and asking them to elaborate on what they were trying to do at the time of the recording and why I also invited the teachers to stop the video at their discretion to comment on what they were seeing The language used in all the stimulated recalls was Vietnamese to make sure that the teachers felt comfortable and could say exactly what they meant to say

3.5 Validity and Reliability of the study

3.5.1 Validity and Reliability of the data

The present study heavily depends on teachers’ verbalizations of their experiences and reflections on the lessons observed, an important question to consider is the extent to which individual teachers are conscious of and can comment on such issues Since teachers may feel obliged to make sense of their thoughts and behaviour , the potential effects of the research situation will also need to be considered ( Calderhead & Shorrock, 1997) To address these issues, the followings steps were taken :

1 Convince teachers that the data I would collect were confidential and just for my MA research, not for assessing their teaching or their school or their

pupils anyway Thus, the teachers participated in this study completely voluntarily

2.In the stimulated recall, I always engaged them in some friendly chit-chat first before asking for their reflections on their lessons As a result, the interviews went smoothly due to the good relationship established

3 I ensured that I was unobtrusive in the lesson observations, e.g by not walking round the class while a lesson was in progress

3.5.2 Validity and Reliability of the data analysis

The present study investigates thoughts, meanings, and subjective understandings, thus the validity of the data analysis is a crucial issue To ensure the validity of the data analysis, the following measures were used:

1.All the transcripts were continually read and re-read was used before any conclusions were drawn

3 Gathering data conducted with multiple strategies through which generalization was made from data triangulation

4 Readers can be “function as a co-analyst” (Erickson, 1986, pp.145-6) with the help

of abundant data and evidence to make any interpretation

5.All the transcripts of the classroom observations and stimulated recalls were shown the participants for confirmability (Janesick, 2000)

3.6 Summary

This chapter has described the design of the present study and explained the methods used for data collection and data analysis It has also provided a summary of the steps

taken to ensure the validity of the data and the findings The following four chapters will report the case studies of the three EFL teachers

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS : TEACHERS’ REASONING FOR ACTUAL PRACTICES The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’reasoning for actual practices in teaching grammar in the EFL context of an upper secondary school Specifically, I have asked the following questions :

e How do teachers teach grammar in the classroom?

e What are the reasons underlying teachers’ approaches to grammar teaching ? The data collected are analysed in relation to the overarching research questions posed

in this thesis

4.1 Approaches to grammar

This is evidenced in the way teachers teach grammar apreared to be dominated by the PPP model of grammar pedagogy PPP is one popular model of teaching Language is presented in context using methods, the target language is then modelled and practiced using drills and controlled activities like gap fills or sentence matching Finally, the students get to try to produce the target language on their own in a free activity without direct support from the teacher Undeniable, PPP represents an accuracy-fluency model

of instruction and tasks play a crucial part in PPP model First, the learners involve in a communicative task that the teacher has set them Then the teachers or learners identify discover the grammar item underlying this task to communicate their attentions more effectively