An investigation into teaching grammar in context for first year non english major students at chu van an university

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Design of the study Table 2: Distribution of the sample Table 3: Distribution of the dependent and independent variables Table 4: Distribution of

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

  

NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG HỒNG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT

FOR FIRST-YEAR NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS

AT CHU VAN AN UNIVERSITY (Đề tài: Nghiên cứu việc dạy ngữ pháp theo ngữ cảnh

cho đối tượng sinh viên năm thứ nhất không chuyên Tiếng Anh

trường ĐH Chu Văn An)

MINOR PROGRAM THESIS

Field: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY Code: 601410

Hanoi, 2012

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

  

NGUYỄN THỊ PHƯƠNG HỒNG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHING GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT

FOR FIRST-YEAR NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS

AT CHU VAN AN UNIVERSITY (Đề tài: Nghiên cứu việc dạy ngữ pháp theo ngữ cảnh

cho đối tượng sinh viên năm thứ nhất không chuyên Tiếng Anh

trường ĐH Chu Văn An)

MINOR PROGRAM THESIS

Field: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY Code: 601410

Supervisor: NGUYỄN THỊ HUYỀN MINH, M.A

Hanoi, 2012

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ESL: English as a Second Language

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

FonF: Focus on Form

FonFs: Focus on Forms

H1: The first hypothesis

H2: The second hypothesis

H1.1: The first minor hypothesis

H1.2: The second minor hypothesis

H1.3: The third minor hypothesis

Ho.1: The first minor null hypothesis

Ho.2: The second minor null hypothesis

Ho.3: The third minor null hypothesis

PPP: Presentation – Practice - Production

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Design of the study

Table 2: Distribution of the sample

Table 3: Distribution of the dependent and independent variables

Table 4: Distribution of the grammar achievement tests

Table 5: Schedule of grammar course

Table 6: Teaching procedures for traditional grammar and in-context grammar class

Table 7: The descriptive statistics on pretest scores of control and experimental

groups

Table 8: The inferential statistics on pretest scores of control and experimental group

Table 9: The descriptive statistics on pretest and posttest scores of control and

Table 13: Descriptive statistics on students‟ on-task behavior of control group

Table 14: Descriptive statistics on students‟ on-task behavior of experimental group

Table 15: The descriptive statistics on students‟ on-task behavior of control and

experimental group

Table 16: The inferential statistics on students‟ on-task behavior of control and

experimental group

Figure 1: Three dimensions of grammar teaching

Figure 2: Students‟ on-task behavior of control group

Figure 3: Students‟ on-task behavior of experimental group

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Candidate’s statement ……… i

Acknowledgement ……… ii

Abstract ……… iii

List of abbreviations ……… iv

List of tables and figures ……… v

Table of contents ……… vi

PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale of the study ……… 1

2 Scope of the study ……… 2

3 Aims of the study ……… 2

4 Significance of the study ……… 2

5 The research questions ……… 3

6 The research hypotheses ……… 3

7 Method of the study……… …… 4

8 Design of the study ……… 4

PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Theoretical Background ……… 5

1.1.1 Grammar and grammar teaching ……… 5

1.1.1.1 Definitions of grammar ……… 5

1.1.1.2 The place of grammar in second and foreign language teaching …… 6

1.1.1.3 Dimensions of grammar teaching ……… 8

1.1.1.4 Levels in grammar teaching ……… 10

1.1.1.5 Approaches to grammar teaching ……… 12

1.1.2 Context and context in grammar teaching ……… 17

1.1.2.1 Definitions of context ……… 17

1.1.2.2 The need for grammar teaching in context ……… 18

1.1.2.3 Types of context in grammar teaching ……… 19

1.2 Related studies on teaching grammar in context ……… 20

1.3 Summary ……… 22

CHAPTER 2: THE METHODOLOGY

2.1 Design of the study ……… 23

2.2 Population of the study ……… 23

2.3 Sample of the study ……… 23

2.3.1 Sample of the students ……….……… 23

2.3.2 Sample of the teachers ……… 24

2.4 Variables of the study ……… 24

2.4.1 Dependent and independent variables ……… 24

2.4.2 Controlled and uncontrolled variables ……… 25

2.5 Instruments of the study ……… 25

2.5.1 Grammar achievement tests ……… 25

2.5.1.1 The aims of the grammar achievement tests ……… 25

2.5.1.2 The sources of designing the grammar achievement tests ………… 25

2.5.1.3 The description of the grammar achievement tests ……… 26

2.5.1.4 The content validity of the tests ……… 26

2.5.1.5 The reliability of the tests ……… 27

2.5.2 Classroom observation ……… 27

2.6 Description of the grammar courses ……… 27

2.6.1 The materials ……… 27

2.6.2 The schedule ……… 28

2.6.3 The lesson plans ……… 28

2.7 Procedure of the study ……… 29

2.7.1 Administration of grammar achievement tests ……… 29

2.7.2 Application of classroom observation method ……… 29

2.7.3 Researcher‟s attendance at the two classes ……… 30

2.8 Data collection and analyses ……… 30

2.8.1 Data collection ……… 30

2.8.2 Data analyses ……… 30

2.9 Summary 31 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS 3.1 Results ……… 32

3.1.1 Results from the analyses of the grammar achievement tests ……… 32

3.1.1.1 The test of the first minor hypothesis ……… 32

3.1.1.2 The test of the second minor hypothesis ……… 33

3.1.1.3 The test of the third minor hypothesis ……… 34

3.1.2 Results from the analyses of the classroom observation ……… 36

3.1.2.1 On-task behavior in control group ……… 36

3.1.2.2 On-task behavior in experimental group ……… 37

3.1.2.3 On-task behavior of the two groups in comparison – The test of the second hypothesis ………

38 3.2 Discussions ……… 39

3.3 Findings ……… 42

3.4 Summary ……… 42

PART III: CONCLUSION 1 Summary of the study ……….……… 43

2 Pedagogical implications …….……… 44

3 Limitation of the study ……… ……… 44

4 Recommendation ……… 45

5 Conclusion ……… 45

REFERENCES ……… 46

Appendix 1: English grammar achievement test (pretest) ……… ………… I

Appendix 2: English grammar achievement test (posttest)……… ………… IV

Appendix 3: Pretest and posttest scores ……… ……… VII

Appendix 4: Classroom observation sheet ……… …… VIII

Appendix 5: Data from observation sheets ……… … IX

Appendix 6: Sample lesson plan for experimental group ……… …… X

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

English language is considered as one of the most important languages because it is the language that bridges people all over the world together That is the reason why such language is introduced to teaching syllabuses of all schools in Vietnam, from primary to tertiary level At my university, English is taught as a foreign language and it is a compulsory subject for all non-English major students in their first academic year Like the other four English skills (i.e., reading, listening, writing and speaking), English grammar holds an inevitable position in our teaching curriculum However, the teaching of grammar

is problematic because most of English teachers at my school still keep their traditional views on grammar and grammar instruction To be more specific, they hold the belief that grammar is a set of static rules Accordingly, they teach grammar by focusing on accuracy

of form and neglecting its meaningfulness and appropriateness of use Moreover, the grammar lessons are performed in deductive manner, thus students are provided no opportunities for rule discovery One more problem is that our students are obsessed by tightly controlled mechanical practice like transformational drills and substitutions The final problem lies in the fact that EFL teachers at my university do not take the most advantages of the context provided in the course book used for first-year non-major students (New-Headway Elementary and Pre-Intermediate by Liz and John Soars) when teaching grammar section; thus, our students have no or little opportunity to explore and practice grammatical items in real-life situations These problems result in our bored, disaffected students who can produce correct forms on disconnected sentences, but consistently make errors when trying to use the language in context such as short paragraph writing, dialogue completion, explanation of a grammatical meaning or function, and so on

This stresses the importance of context in ESL/EFL language teaching in general and in English grammar teaching in particular As Willis (2000:5) puts it, “by learning grammar

in context, students learns what native speakers really say (or write), rather than what we would like them to say” Likewise, Harmer (2007:57) suggests that “students need to get

an idea of how the new language is used by native speakers and the best way of doing this

is to present language in context” These factors drive me to an idea of using context to teach grammar for my students in the hope that such teaching model will help make

grammar instruction both effective and beneficial The study entitled “An investigation

into teaching grammar in context for first-year non-English major students at Chu Van

An University” is conducted in that way

2 Scope of the study

The study focuses on the teaching of English grammar for non-English major freshmen at Chu Van An University, thus, its results are not directly applied for those who are in other academic years and those of other universities In addition, the context employed for teaching grammar in this study is restricted to text, i.e., spoken and written discourses taken from the course book and from a variety of authentic sources; therefore, other types

of context are not used as the input for the study What is more, the purpose of this study is

to examine whether context-based approach takes effect in grammar teaching Other approaches to grammar instruction are referred as the theoretical background for the study but they are not the focuses Finally, only four grammatical categories (Tense, Modal, Conditional sentences and Passive voice) which are divided into eight grammatical items (Past simple, Present Perfect, Can, Must, First conditional, Second conditional, Passive voice in present tense and Passive voice in past tense) are taught and tested during the experiment Other grammatical categories or items lie outside the scope of this study

3 Aims of the study

The study aims at investigating the effect of teaching grammar in context in comparison with the traditional method of grammar instruction for non-English major students at Chu Van An University More specifically, the study is a randomized experiment which is designed to achieve two following aims:

1 It tests whether in-context teaching of grammar has any effects on students‟ academic achievement in grammar

2 It examines whether teaching grammar in context can increase students‟ participation in grammar lessons

4 Significance of the study

This study may bring four benefits to both English language teachers and their students as follows:

1 It may help change EFL/ESL teachers‟ views on grammar and grammar instruction in a way that grammar incorporates form, meaning and function; thus, teaching grammar is not

merely presenting and explaining grammar features but teaching students how to appropriately use structures to express meaning

2 It may stimulate English language teachers to employ in-context model to teach grammar for their students as an alternative to the traditional method

3 It may change the classroom atmosphere in grammar lessons in a positive way Students may no longer find grammar lessons dry and boring They may be more involved and feel more interested during grammar learning hours

4 It may improve students‟ critical thinking, especially when they are working with authentic discourses

5 The research questions

As stated in the part of Rationale, grammar teaching for non-major students at Chu Van

An University has so many problems The first problem is that students find it easy to deal with grammar in single sentences but make a lot of grammatical mistakes when working with longer discourses This results in the second problem, i.e., the dull classroom atmosphere because students do not participate in the grammar lessons From these defined problems, two research questions are raised as follows:

Q1: What are the effects of in-context grammar teaching on grammar academic

achievement of first year non-English major students at Chu Van An University?

Q2: What are the effects of in-context grammar teaching on the classroom participation of

first year non-English major students at Chu Van An University?

6 The research hypotheses

The following hypotheses were derived from the two research questions raised above:

H1: Teaching grammar in context has more positive effects on the grammar academic

achievement of first year non-English major students at Chu Van An University than teaching grammar in traditional method

H2: Teaching grammar in context can increase students‟ level of participation in grammar

lessons

In order to test the first hypothesis, three minor hypotheses were postulated as follows:

H1.1: There is statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the control group and the experimental group in the pretest

H1.2: There is statistically significant difference between students‟ mean scores on pretest

and posttest of the experimental group in favor of the posttest

H1.3: There is statistically significant difference between students‟ mean scores of the

control group and the experimental group in the posttest in favor of the experimental group

The second hypothesis is paraphrased for the convenience of statistical testing and analysis

as follows:

H2: There is statistically significant difference between the control and experimental group

in the mean score of on-task students in favor of the experimental group (On-task students are those who take active participation in the task)

In summary, there are four hypotheses altogether (H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, and H2) that need testing in order to answer the research question of the study

7 Method of the study

In order to answer the research question raised above, the researcher has conducted a randomized experiment which includes three basic components: the sample (students in the control and experimental classes), the treatment (in-context grammar teaching), and the measurement of the treatment (the pretest, posttest and observation sheets) The quantitative data were gathered from the analysis of pretest and posttest scores while the qualitative data were derived from the analysis of the classroom observation sheets

8 Design of the study

The study is organized into three parts which are described as follows:

Part one, Introduction, is an overview of the study in which the rationale, the scope, the

aims and research questions, the methods and significance of the study are presented

Part two, Development, is the heart of the study which is subdivided into three chapters

Chapter one provides a literature review of grammar, grammar teaching and context in

grammar teaching This chapter serves as the theoretical background of the thesis Chapter

two, the experimental study, provides the methodology and the data analysis process Chapter three presents the results from the data analyses, the discussions and findings of

the research

Part three, Conclusion, summarizes the main points discussed earlier in the study In this

part, some pedagogical implications, the limitations and recommendations for further study are also mentioned

PART II: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter is divided into two sections Section 1.1 provides some theoretical background for the study, including clarification of grammar and grammar teaching, context and the teaching of grammar in context Section 1.2 is a brief review of some existing studies on in-context grammar instruction which are beneficial for the present research

According to Harmer (1983:1), grammar of the language is the description of “the ways in which words change themselves and group together to make sentences” Two examples are

also given to illustrate for this definition: the case of “walk” changes into “walked” to indicate the past tense and the case of “not many” combines with the plural noun

“oranges” to make a full sentence like “There are not many oranges on the shelf” Such

view on grammar is agreed by Ur (1988:4), Thornbury (1999:1), Crystal (1995) and Nunan (2003:143) It can be seen that all these linguists describe grammar as a set of rules that govern a language; however, they fail to work out what the “rules” are

To make up for this, Fromkin et al (1990) proposes a definition of grammar which states that "the sounds and sound patterns, the basic units of meaning such as words and the rules

to combine them to form new sentences constitute the grammar of a language” His definition is an involvement of many aspects of linguistic knowledge such as phonology (the sound and the sound patterns), lexicology and semantics (words and meaning), morphology (the rules of word formation) and syntax (the rules of sentence formation) Although this definition looks into the underlying structure of grammar, it is similar to Harmer‟s in a way that it is restricted to the issue of grammatical forms

Crystal (2002) holds a different view on grammar when he argues that grammar should be studied in two senses: in the specific sense, grammar is presented as just one branch of language structure, distinct from phonology and semantics; in the general sense, grammar subsumes phonology and semantics Thus, if viewed from a broader sense, grammar involves both form and meaning

By way of contrast, an alternative and more comprehensive definition of grammar is provided by Widdowson (1988:151-2) in which grammar is viewed in terms of form, meaning and function

[Grammar is] “a device for indicating the most common and recurrent aspects of meaning” [which] “formalizes the most widely applicable concepts, the highest common factors of experience: it provides for communicative economy”

This definition shows a renovation in the view of grammar: grammar can indicate meaning and grammar can communicate Larsen-Freeman (2003) shares her view on three dimensions of grammar teaching in which she insists that grammar is not simply about accuracy of form but it relates to meaningfulness and appropriateness as well She also proposes a new definition of grammar that “grammar(ing) is one of the dynamic linguistic processes of pattern formation in language, which can be used by humans for making meaning in context-appropriate ways” (Larsen-Freeman, 2003:142) Following this definition, grammar is no longer a set of static rules but a dynamic process of pattern formation which is best explored in appropriate contexts

The present study, with the purpose of helping learners internalize grammatical forms, meanings and use through context, adopts the definition given by Larsen-Freeman (2003)

1.1.1.2 The place of grammar in second and foreign language teaching

Ever since second and foreign language teaching began, there have been many controversies surrounding the necessity of grammar teaching As Thornbury (1999:14) states, “no other issue has so preoccupied theorists and practitioners as the grammar debate” The controversies have been around the question: “Should grammar be taught?” Such question receives two opposite answers: those who are for grammar teaching believe that grammar should be the centre of language teaching while anti-grammarians hold their view that grammar should be excluded from the school syllabus According to Thornbury (1999), there are several arguments behind the advocates of for and against grammar teaching which can be summarized as follows The for-grammar position argues that

language learning is a cognitive process, thus, the goal of language learning is to master the linguistic knowledge (knowledge-what), and this type of knowledge is learned through formal instruction This view is reflected in Grammar Translation Method and Cognitive Code Learning in which grammar instruction is given explicitly Nevertheless, the against-grammar position supposes that learning is an experiential process, therefore, the goal of language learning is to develop linguistic skills (knowledge-how), and this type of knowledge is acquired through natural exposure Such opinion is applied in Natural Approach and strong version of Communicative Language Teaching in which explicit grammar instruction is vigorously rejected

As said above, grammar has experienced many ups and downs during the history of second and foreign language teaching Fortunately, the teaching of grammar began to receive renewed interest in the academic discourse in the late 1980s or early 1990s, when the naturalist movement was no longer in its heyday Since then, the true value of grammar has been reevaluated and acknowledged The first value of grammar lies in the fact that grammar is the “skeleton” of a language, without which language does not exist This is agreed by Batstone (1994) when he asserts that “language without grammar would be chaotic, countless words without the indispensable guidelines for how they can be ordered and modified” Second, grammar is considered as one of the standards for mastering a language As addressed by Woods (1988), when we say someone understands a language,

we mean the person has obtained the ability to produce the target language that can be accepted in grammar Ur (1998) also holds that “a knowledge – implicit or explicit – of grammatical rules is essential for the mastery of a language: you cannot use words unless you know how they should be put together” The third factor enhancing the position of grammar in language teaching is that “communicative approach” which is widely adopted

in current language teaching context still determines the need for grammar teaching The goal of communicative approach is to build learners‟ communicative competence which is defined by Canale (1983) as a combination of grammatical, strategic, sociolinguistic and discourse competence Hence, it is implied that grammar teaching is an inevitable part of communicative language teaching From all three reasons listed above, it can be concluded that grammar is too important to be ignored in the teaching of second/foreign language

Despite the reconsideration of grammar teaching in the second/foreign language classroom, the debates around this issue still continue However, the controversies are no longer about the roles of grammar but shift to what to teach about grammar and how to teach grammar Thornbury (1999) says that the issue now is focused on questions such as which grammar items learners need more or how teachers can most effectively teach grammar Also, in regard to current issues in the teaching of grammar, Ellis (2006) proposes eight questions that address whether grammar should be taught, and if so what grammar, when and how This creates the need for second/foreign language teachers to consider these questions and try to find the answers for themselves before conducting any grammar lessons

1.1.1.3 Dimensions of grammar teaching

When we think of grammar, we often think of rules and forms, however, grammar covers much more than forms Thornbury (1999) argues that “grammar communicates meanings” and it would be useful to “match forms with their functions” Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) do not use the term “function”; they refer to it as “use” and “pragmatics”

No matter what it is called, all these linguists agree that grammar is not merely a set of rules and forms but rather involves the three dimensions of form, meaning and use Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) also add that there exists an interrelationship among these dimensions, and thus, a change in one dimension will affect the others The pie chart below shows this interconnectedness

Figure 1: Three dimensions of grammar teaching

(Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999:4)

USE

How is it formed?

Form

Grammatical form, as defined by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), is the description of “how a particular grammar structure is constructed” Put another way, the form of a grammar deals with its morphology (rules of word formation) and its syntax (rules of sentence formation) For instance, the forms of phrasal verbs, as described in the article entitled “Teaching Grammar” written by Larsen-Freeman (2001:254), are “two-part verbs comprising a verb and a particle” or “three parts in that a preposition can follow the particle” with the particle (in many cases) being “separated from its verb by an intervening object” The teaching of form in a grammar lesson is necessary because formal instruction can aid learners in recognizing and producing sentences that are grammatically well-formed (Thornbury, 1999) However, language learning is more than the ability of making well-formed sentences, and this creates the space for meaning and use to come in

Meaning

The meaning of a grammatical form, as coined by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), is what a grammar structure means or about its semantic content Thornbury (1999)

proposes two kinds of meaning conveyed by a grammatical form: representational and

interpersonal meaning The former reflects the way we perceive the world while the later

shows how grammatical means can “ease the task of getting things done” For example, tense represents the concept of time while modality like “can” and “may” communicates interpersonal meaning of softening the force in commands Thornbury (1999) also suggests that the teaching of form does not lie outside the teaching of meaning because meaning and form are like two sides of a coin: form expresses meaning and meaning is encoded in form As such, teaching semantic aspect of grammar is of vital necessity because it helps learners understand how the form of a language matches a wide range of

meaning–both representational and interpersonal

Use/pragmatics/function

Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999: 4-5) describes “use” as “choices that users of a particular language make when using the forms of language in communication” In other words, teaching the use of a grammatical form is to teach its appropriateness in different contexts Thornbury (1999:7), when discussing the relation between grammar and function, points out that one function can be expressed by different forms and one form can

express a wide range of functions The former is illustrated in his book as the case of

“warning” function which is expressed by five different forms:

You’d better not do that

I wouldn’t do that, if I were you

Mind you don’t do that

If you do that, you’ll be in trouble

Do that and you’ll be in trouble

In the same way, the form “If…, …will …” can express a numerous functions which are

listed as follows:

If you do that, you’ll be in trouble (warning)

If you lie down, you’ll feel better (advice)

If it rains, we’ll take a taxi (plan)

If you pass your driving test, I’ll buy you a car (promise)

From these examples, it can be concluded that the relation between form and function is not a kind of one-to-one matching Hence, the teaching of pragmatic aspect of grammar helps learners make a right choice when using one form rather than another

The discussion of form, meaning and use above once again confirms the inseparable relationship among these dimensions: a form conveys several meanings and a form performs different functions Thus, it is suggested that ESL/EFL teachers should incorporate all three aspects into their grammar lessons so that their learners can learn to use grammar structures accurately, meaningfully and appropriately

1.1.1.4 Levels in grammar teaching

In “The Grammar Book”, Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) describes the operation of grammar at three levels: the subsentential or morphological level, the sentential or syntactic level, and the suprasentential or discourse level Thornbury (2006),

in his book entitled “Grammar”, also classifies grammar into three levels which are called

“word grammar”, “sentence grammar” and “text grammar” Although the three levels are termed with different names, the authors of the two books strongly suggest that grammar should be taught in context (discourse) rather than in single, decontextualized sentences In this study, the author prefers the terminologies given by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) Then, the three levels of grammar are described as follows

Subsentential level

According to Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), subsentential level or morphological level is “the level below that of the sentence” For illustration, an example

of past progressive tense in English is given in which such tense is described as the

combination of the past tense form of the auxiliary verb be and –ing added to the base form

of the main verb Accordingly, the structure of past progressive tense should be: was/were

verb –ing (e.g., was walking) Teaching grammar at this level is limited to the teaching of

morphology or grammar structures This is the lowest level of grammar teaching and it sets the base for a higher level of grammar instruction: sentential level

Sentential level

At this syntactic level, the focus is on the describing syntax of the sentence or the way words are arranged into a grammatically well-formed sentence (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999) In regard to the case of past progressive tense in English, at sentential level, such tense is incorporated with different rules like word order (for example, subject –

verb - adverb) or putting “not” before the auxiliary “be” to form a negative sentence or

inverting “be” with the subject to make a yes/no question Three examples below are taken from Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman‟s book (1999)

She was walking home from school that day (SVA pattern)

subject verb adverbials

She wasn’t walking home from school that day (Negative sentence)

Was she walking home from school that day? (Yes/no question)

The distinction between subsentential level and sentential level are obvious: subsentential level is lower than sentential one One more difference is that whereas subsentential level deals with grammar structures or morphological rules, sentential one stresses on grammar patterns or syntax of the sentence Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) together with Thornbury (2006) indicate that traditional methods of grammar instruction like Grammar Translation or Cognitive Code Learning usually stop at the level of sentence and ignore the level above it: suprasentential level

Suprasentential level

Suprasentential level or discourse level is the level above the sentence At this level, grammar is not merely taught in terms of morphology and syntax but it is “an analysis of how the morphology and syntax are deployed to effect certain discourse purposes” (Celce-

Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999: 3) An illustration about how grammar operates at its highest teaching level is provided by these two co-authors as follows:

She has never been so lucky as she was one day last May She was walking home from present perfect past past progressive

school that day when she ran into a friend

past

It can be seen that the two sentences in the example above are the beginning part of a narrative The “discourse rule”, as called by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), is that the present perfect tense used in the first sentence as a “scene setter”, then followed by the past and past progress tenses indicating specific actions that happened in the story Teaching grammar at suprasentential level is of great importance because it aims at helping learners make right grammatical choices to suit different discourses or contexts, thus, determining successful communication Unfortunately, this level is often “overlooked” by many second/foreign language teachers

This study investigates the effect of teaching grammar in context which makes the relationships between grammatical forms and its functions transparent; therefore, it focuses

on the highest level of grammar instruction: suprasentential or discourse level

1.1.1.5 Approaches to grammar teaching

A number of approaches to presenting new grammatical information have been developed

so far, from the traditional method like sentence-based to a more modern one like discourse-based approach With no attempt to review all these approaches, the researcher only discusses six major ones that are related to her own study The approaches are presented in pairs with special reference to their definitions, advantages and disadvantages

Deductive vs Inductive approach

The deductive approach represents a more traditional teaching style which “starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by examples in which the rule is applied” (Thornbury, 1999:29) By adopting such approach, an English language teacher would start his grammar lesson by saying: “Today we are going to learn the comparative adjectives” Then the rules of comparative adjectives are given and students are asked to complete exercises to practice using the structure The chief advantage of this approach, according to Thornbury (1999), is time-saving because it gets straight to the grammatical point that

needs to be presented However, this approach is teacher-centered and rule-driven, which results in boring and demotivating lessons

The inductive approach, conversely, represents are more modern teaching style where the new grammatical rules are presented to students in a real language context In an inductive approach, as explained by Thornbury (1999:49), the grammatical rules are discovered and understood by students themselves through examples Therefore, the same grammar lesson about comparative adjectives would begin by drawings of two pencils on the board with different lengths The teacher compares the two pencils by saying: “Pencil A is long but pencil B is longer than pencil A.” He then provides more examples using his students and items from inside and outside the classroom to create an understanding of the use of the structure Unlike deductive method, the follow-up activities are not the completion of exercises but mainly pairwork and groupwork so that students can practice the structure in

a more meaningful way Although such type of approach is time- and energy-consuming, it makes the rules “more meaningful, memorable and serviceable” (Thornbury, 1999:54) Moreover, due to its learner-centeredness and rule discovery, inductive approach is believed to promote language students‟ motivation and autonomy

Focus on Forms vs Focus on Form approach

Focus on forms (FonFs), according to Long (1991), is a traditional teaching approach which is limited to instruction on discrete points of grammar in isolation, with no apparent focus on meaning Focus on form (FonF), on the other hand, is an attempt that “overtly draws students‟ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication” (Long, 1991:45-46)

Several key differences between FonF and FonFs are described as follows First, FonF, as mentioned by Fotos (1998), is a context-based presentation of grammatical forms while FonFs focuses on the elements of grammar, in isolation from context or communicative activity Second, unlike FonFs which pays much attention to grammatical form only, FonF integrates form, meaning and use in its syllabus (Doughty & Williams, 1998) Finally, FonF assumes a task-based approach whereas FonFs fits better with a PPP model

From these distinguishing features between the two approaches, some conclusions were made, i.e., “a focus on forms produces many more false beginners than finishers” while focus on form speeds up the rate of learning, affects acquisition processes in ways possibly

beneficial to long-term accuracy, and appears to raise the ultimate level of attainment (Long, 1991)

Sentence-based vs Discourse-based approach

As stated by Larsen-Freeman (1997), grammar does operate at the sentence level to govern such things as the syntax or the word orders However, she emphasizes that it is a mistake

to teach students grammar only at the sentence level because sentence-based grammar instruction only work in two dimensions (form and meaning) and does not give learners a clear picture of how things work from different angles (use) For instance, not every choice between the use of the simple present and the present continuous tense can be explained at the sentence level In the following example provided by Thornbury (1999:71), learners find it hard to decide on the best answer because both are grammatically correct in such a decontextualized sentence

“What do you eat/are you eating?” “Cake”

In response to the limitations that sentence-based approach has encountered, a based has been introduced as an alternative method The underlying philosophy of discourse-based approach lies in a way that language must be taught at the discourse level

discourse-in order to produce learners who can communicate effectively discourse-in the target language Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000: 190) specifies that a discourse-based curriculum will necessary include “a focus on authentic texts and interactional communicative events in language use” The authentic texts can be either written (a newspaper article, a letter or an extract from a book, etc.) or spoken (real recorded conversation, a phone call, an interview,

or a speech, etc) For example, teachers can use an e-mail message to present the fact that future scenarios are often initiated with the “be going to” and subsequently elaborated with

“will/‟ll” After discussion and analysis of these future forms, learners can write their own future scenarios and e-mail it the classmates with a copy to the teacher This email, which

is taken from “The Grammar book” by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999), can serve as a good illustration:

Hi Sue!

How are you? I hope you’re fine Guess what? I’m going to sing in the mixed chorus this year I’ll have practice sessions on Wednesday evenings, and we’ll prepare pieces for several concerts and during the year We’ll even travel to Washington for choral competition It’ll be fun What’s new with you?

Best,

Sally

In reference to the three levels of grammar teaching, sentenced-based approach stops at the level of sentence while discourse-based approach reaches the highest: discourse level

Approach to teaching grammar in context

With an attempt to help students explore, practice and develop English grammar in context, the researcher of the present study employs a kind of elective “context-based approach” Such approach is considered as a new pedagogical trend in teaching grammar and is suggested by Larsen-Freeman (2000b) and Celce-Murcia (2007)

Contextualizing grammar instruction is formulated on two basic principles in language teaching proposed by Brown (2001) The first is the principle of communicative competence which states that “communicative goals are best achieved by giving due attention to language use and not just usages, to fluency and not just accuracy, to authentic language and contexts, and to students‟ eventual need to apply classroom learning to heretofore unrehearsed contexts in the real world” (Brown, 2001: 69) Following this principle, the language teaching should be embedded in context, with a focus on language use and serve a chief purpose of preparing students for real-life communication Teaching grammar is not excluded from the teaching of language; thus, grammar teaching should be attached to context and fulfill the purpose of communication The second principle is the principle of automaticity This principle comes from the way children acquire a language, i.e., they learn a language through meaningful use without paying much attention to form Brown (2001:56) emphasizes that “overanalyzing language, thinking too much about its forms, and consciously lingering on rules of language all tend to impede this graduation to automaticity” The focus of teaching grammar, therefore, should shift from teaching grammatical form to teaching its use In summary, the underlying principle of context-based approach is communicative goals, authentic language and a focus on language use Basing on these principles, context-based is described as an integration of inductive, focus

on form and discourse-based approaches It is inductive because it employs “inductive reasoning” or “discovery technique”, i.e., learners are provided the opportunities to discover and generalize grammatical rules or patterns from examples in authentic materials It is a kind of focus-on-form instruction because context-based approach

encompasses three primary aspects of grammar (form, meaning and use/function) with a chief purpose of improving learners‟ communicative competence It is discourse-based because it draws learners‟ attention to a series of authentic discourses from which grammatical rules are discovered, grammatical meanings are clarified and grammatical functions are realized

To make context-based approach more explicit and reachable, Nunan (1998:104) suggested five methods for ESL/EFL teachers as follows:

1 Teaching language as a set of choices;

2 Providing opportunities for learners to explore grammatical and discoursal

relationships in authentic data;

3 Teaching language in ways that make form/function relationships transparent;

4 Encouraging learners to become active explorers of language;

5 Encouraging learners to explore relationships between grammar and discourse Likewise, Celce-Murcia (2007), in her article entitled “Towards more context and discourse in grammar instruction”, listed four characteristics of grammar exercises following such approach:

1 If some manipulative work is needed as a warm-up, at least make it meaningful, contextualized, and reasonably authentic in terms of use

2 If use of a grammatical form depends on prior context as it does when using pronouns to refer back to antecedents, be sure to provide enough context so that this

is clear to the learner

3 Find authentic texts that provide salient token of the grammatical form that you want to present to learner (in preparation for subsequent practice)

4 Grammar instruction can be integrated with tasks designed to prepare learners to read and write academic discourse

With all the features described above, context-based approach is supposed to make grammar instruction more effective because in this approach, grammar is situated in meaningful context, embedded in authentic (or semi-authentic) discourse, and motivated

by getting learners to achieve a goal or complete an interesting task (Celce-Murcia, 2007) The purpose of the present study is to examine the effect of teaching grammar in context

on the students‟ grammar academic achievement and students‟ level of classroom

participation in comparison with the traditional method Hence, it adopts the context-based approach as the treatment in teaching English grammar for the experimental group while the traditional method of grammar instruction - the combination of deductive, focus on forms and sentence-based approach- is employed for the control group

1.1.2 Context and context in grammar teaching

1.1.2.1 Definitions of context

There are numerous definitions of context found in the dictionaries and from different viewpoints of scholars In Longman Dictionary of Language teaching & Applied linguistics (the 3rd edition), context, is defined as “that which occurs before and/or after a word, a phrase or even a longer utterance or a text; the context often helps in understanding

the particular meaning of the word, phrase, etc.” A similar definition is found in Oxford

advanced learner’s dictionary (the 7th edition) that context is “the words that come just

before and after a word, phrase or statement and help you to understand its meaning” From these two explanations, it is apparent that the notion of context, in its simple form, is the minimal stretch of language that helps to understand what is written or spoken

According to Halliday (1985), context in this case should be termed as co-text An

example taken by Brown and Yule (1983:47) is a good illustration of co-text:

The same evening I went ashore The first landing in any new country is very interesting

In this example, the meaning of the word “landing” is determined by the previous discourse, i.e., the person went ashore

However, it is a mistake if context is merely viewed as co-text That is why scholars have broader viewpoints on context as they approach context from a social perspective Halliday (1991:5) describes context as “the events that are going on around when people speak (and write)” “The events” that he mentions in this definition refers to what he later calls “field, tenor and mode” To be more specific, field is about the subject matter or content being discussed; tenor is connected with the interpersonal relations between the participants; and mode refers to the channel (such as writing, or video-conference) of the communication In other words, the context that is coined by Halliday (1991) is a kind of situational context or

context of situation Another kind of context is context of culture which is termed by

Fowler (1986:19) as “the community‟s store of established knowledge” or the background knowledge shared by participants in speech events Obviously, each definition sees context from one aspect, therefore, all is needed is a definition that involves all three aspects of

context: co-text, context of situation and context of culture Sperber and Wilson‟s view on context would meet that need as they coin context as “a psychological construct, including not only the co-text of an utterance but also the contextual factors such as the immediate physical environment, the participants‟ background knowledge like all the known facts, assumptions, beliefs and cognitive abilities” (Sperber and Wilson, 1986:15) This definition shows a more thorough view on context; therefore, it is of the researcher‟s preference

1.1.2.2 The need for teaching grammar in context

The necessity of teaching grammar in context originates from the idea that students need to master all three dimensions of grammar: form, meaning and use As Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) stated, ESL/EFL students need to know not simply how a structure

is formed and what it means; they need to know why speakers of English choose to use one form rather than another

Moreover, Thornbury (1999) confirms that the form-meaning and form-function relation is not one-to-one matching In fact, one form can express a variety of meanings/functions and

in the same way one meaning/function can be expressed by several different forms In the

case of one form a wide range of functions, Thornbury takes the example of the form “If…,

…will…”:

If you do that, you’ll be in trouble (warning)

If you lie down, you’ll feel better (advice)

If it rains, we’ll take a taxi (plan)

If you pass your driving test, I’ll buy you a car (promise)

(Thornbury, 1999:7) From the examples above, it can be seen that the same form has different meaning and functions in different contexts Therefore, “taking individual grammar structures out of context is equally perilous” and “lead[s] to similar misunderstanding” (Thornbury, 1999:7, 71)

One more reason for the importance of in-context grammar teaching is that context provides opportunities for learners to use the language for communication Nunan (1998:102) supposes that grammatical exercises in textbook are presented in isolated sentences, thus, they are designed only to provide learners with formal, declarative mastery He also warned that “if learners are not given opportunities to explore grammar in

context, it will be difficult for them to see how and why alternative forms exist to express different communicative meanings” Such viewpoint is echoed by Krashen (1982) as he states that grammatical structures can be internalized if learners are situated in a particular context, in which they use the structure for communication purposes

Finally, students are the ones who get the best advantages of contextualized grammar teaching Weaver (1996:176), in her synthesis of the early research on the teaching of grammar summarizes that “students seemed to benefit most from the approaches in which the learning of grammatical concepts was contextualized and in which they took a more active role” By contextualizing grammar instruction, students are provided the opportunities to discover the rules for themselves, to encounter grammatical structure in an authentic context, to develop their communicative competence, and thus, to enjoy meaningful learning

1.1.2.3 Types of context in grammar teaching

Different scholars in different practical fields have their own ways of classifying context Malinowski (1935) distinguishes three types of context: context of utterance, context of situation and context of culture Halliday and Hasan (1985) divides context into five components: text, context of situation, context of culture, inter-textual context and intra-textual context Duranti and Goodwin (1992) proposes four kinds of context: setting (physical and interactional), behavioral environment (non-verbal and kinetic), language (co-text and reflexive use of language), and extrasituational (social, political, cultural and the like)

The researcher of the present study has no attempt to employ all the components of context

in her teaching of English grammar For the purpose of the study, she prefers the classification proposed by Halliday and Hassan (1985) However, only context-as-text is used for her experimental study because text is one of the main elements that play a significant role in communication For Halliday and Hasan (1985: 10), text is:

[A] language that is functional […] Language that is doing some job in some context, as opposed to isolated words or sentences […] So any instance of living language that is playing some part in a context of situation, we shall call it a text It may be either spoken or written, or indeed in any other medium of expression that we like to think of

Following this definition, texts, spoken or written, will carry with them indications of their contexts In other words, context is embedded in text Such view is echoed by Thornbury

(1999:71-72) as he proposes that “language use seldom consists of sentences in isolation, but group of sentences (or, in the case of spoken language, group of utterances) that form coherent texts” He also suggests that “if learners are going to be able make sense of grammar, they will need to be exposed to in its context of use, and, at the very least, this means in texts”

Thornbury (1999) lists four possible sources of texts: the course book, authentic sources, such as newspapers, songs, literary texts, the Internet, etc, the teacher, and the students themselves In the experiment of this study, the researcher use authentic sources from

some recognizable genres as the input for grammar presentation and practice Moreover, students‟ own writing is also employed for error analyses and correction

1.2 Related studies on teaching grammar in context

It can be said that no linguistic items have been paid as much attention from linguists and researchers as grammar A variety of studies on grammar and grammar teaching have been conducted so far by numerous researchers from different educational organizations worldwide Most of the studies aim at discussing and finding the best method for the teaching different aspects of grammar, many of which are proved to be effective today such as communicative language teaching, focus-on-form, inductive, task-based method and so on Context-based method is a new trend in grammar teaching, therefore, not many studies on this issue have been found though much effort has been devoted Here are four researches related to the present study that are found in book and online sources:

The analytical descriptive study by Weaver (1996) argues that when being taught in the

context of writing, grammar can enhance and improve student‟s writing The study examined reasons commonly given for teaching grammar as a school subject and called these reasons into question by describing decades of research that showed the teaching of grammar in isolation to have little, if any, effect on the writing of most students The study also considered how preschoolers acquired the basic grammar of a second language, from which a research-based perspective on the concept of errors in students‟ writing was developed The study suggested aspects of grammar that might be focused on in sentence writing and editing and addressed the teaching of grammar from the perspective of learning theory From the theoretical background discussed above, sample lessons of teaching grammar in the context of writing were shared and recommended

The study by Nur Amin (2009) is conducted to examine the effectiveness of teaching

grammar in context to reduce grammatical errors in students‟ writing A hypothesis was formulated that the students taught in in-context approach made less grammatical errors in writing than those who were taught in traditional way The study was designed in form of a kquasi-experiment which involved a sample of 80 ten-grade students from class X-5 (40) and class X-7 (40) of MAN-Lasem school in the 2008-2009 academic year The control group (class X-7) was taught conventional grammar which was separately given with writing skills while the experimental group (class X-5) received the treatment of teaching grammar in context The instrument for the study was two writing tests: one was served as the pretest and the other as the posttest The data of grammatical errors were technically collected from students‟ writing products for analysis The results showed that students who were taught grammar contextually made less grammatical errors in writing than those who were taught in traditional method

The study by Obaid (2010) aims at investigating the effectiveness of three grammar

teaching approaches (the inductive, the deductive, and the contextualized approaches) on achieving English grammar among the 11th graders in Khan yunis governorate In order to answer the research question, an experimental study was carried out with a sample of 158 male students from Al Montanabi Secondary School for Boys The sample was then divided into four groups: a control group (38 students) and three experimental ones (40 students each) The experiment was conducted during the first term of 2009-2010 academic year The data of the study were collected via scores of the pretest and posttest and were statistically analyzed using SPSS program, One Way ANNOVA and Scheffe Test The results of the study indicated that the contextualized approach “has superiority over the deductive and inductive approaches in teaching English grammar” and “stimulates students towards an independent practice of English language instead of direct instruction” (p 124) From these findings, the study stressed the necessity of implementing the contextualized approach in English grammar teaching to bring about better outcomes in students‟ achievement of English grammar

The study by Li Pei (2010) is a teaching experiment which aims at testing the impact of

context-based approach on teaching unreal conditional sentences for freshmen majoring in English in Adult Education College of Soochow University, China The study was carried out from November 4th, 2008 to January 7th, 2010 The data were collected via the

questionnaire, the interview, the pretest and the posttest and then they were processed and analyzed by SPSS 15.0 The final conclusion was: the use of context-based approach helped to improve students‟ awareness and attitudes towards grammar learning and promoted students‟ acquisition of English grammar learning strategies

Commentary

Of the four works discussed above, only one carried out by Weaver (1996) is analytic and descriptive The remains are experimental or quasi-experimental studies All the studies agree that teaching grammar in context has positive effects on students‟ learning in some ways: it enhances writing ability, it reduces writing errors, it improves students‟ awareness and attitude towards grammar learning and it brings better outcomes in students‟ grammar achievement The present study is a randomized experiment which aims at investigating the effect of in-context grammar teaching on students‟ academic achievement in grammar

as well as their classroom participation, thus, it benefits from those studies in three following ways First, the researcher of the present study can consult the reference for writing the literature review Second, she can choose the suitable research design and employ the effective instruments for data collection and analyses Third, she can compare the results of her own study with others‟ and make some interpretations from those results

1.3 Summary

This chapter is a discussion of theoretical background for the present study To be specific, the chapter involves some literature review on grammar and grammar instruction such as the definition of grammar, the place of grammar in language teaching, dimensions and levels in grammar teaching as well as approaches to grammar instruction Moreover, the definition of context, the role and types of context in grammar teaching are also clarified

In addition, four related studies on applying context-based approach to teach grammar are briefly described and discussed

CHAPTER 2: THE METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the methodology of the study which includes the design of the study, the sampling techniques and the defining of variables In addition, the instruments used for data collection and analyses are also described

2.1 Design of the study

The study is an experimental design which aims at testing the effect of teaching grammar

in context for first-year non-English major students at Chu Van An University on their grammar academic achievement and their level of participation in grammar lessons To be

more precise, it is structured as the pretest-posttest equivalent group design The

symbolic representation of the design is displayed as follows:

Table 1: Design of the study

2.2 Population of the study

The study covers a total of 289 first-year non-major students at Chu Van An University in the first semester of the academic year 2011-2012 Those students are majoring in Architecture (115 students), Finance and Banking (164 students) and Civil Engineering (10 students) The population are all from Northern (284 students) and Central parts (5 students) of Vietnam in which 82% live in rural areas Those students have low entrance exam test results (approximately 13-14 points) as compared with those in state-owned universities 84 % of them have been learning English since grade 6 and the remains have been learning English for three years No matter three years or six years of learning English, these students are supposed to be provided with basic knowledge of the language

2.3 Sample of the study

2.3.1 Sample of the students

The sample of the students is selected using probability sampling technique This

technique is described as “listing all the names of the individuals in the population in separate pieces of paper, and then drawing a number of papers one by one from the complete collection of names” (Castillo, 2009) Such type of sampling is more costly, more time-consuming and more difficult than non-probability sampling method; however, it is of

the researcher‟s preference because it guarantees that “every individual in the population have equal chance of being selected as the subject for the research” (Castillo, 2009)

At the beginning of the first semester of 2011-2012 academic year, the researcher sent an invitation letter to all 289 non-English major freshmen of Chu Van An University The letter was a description of a free eight-week English Grammar course and an invitation to join in The course was scheduled to take place at the weekends, thus, it would have no interference with their timetable at school 289 invitation letters were sent and only 97 positive responses were collected With the assistance of probability sampling technique,

60 students were randomly selected Those 60 students were then divided equally into two classes which served as the experimental group (class A) and the control group (class B)

Experimental (Class A) Control (Class B) Total

Table 2: Distribution of the sample

2.3.2 Sample of the teachers

There are nine teachers of English at my English department at the moment Two of those teachers who are almost similar in respect of educational qualifications, age, training, teaching experience at tertiary level and their reputation at the school were selected as the sample of the study To be more specific, they both graduated from English Department, Hanoi University with a good degree At the moment, they are taking a postgraduate course on English teaching methodology at Hanoi University and are going to conduct their thesis defense at the end of July, 2012 One was born in 1983 and the other was born

in 1985 They both have been working as teachers of English at Chu Van An University for nearly four years and they both receive good comments on their teaching performance from their students and colleagues The two teachers were then randomly assigned to the experimental (Ms Chi, age 27) and control group (Ms Cuc, age 29)

2.4 Variables of the study

2.4.1 Dependent and Independent variables

The experiment aims at investigating the effect of teaching grammar in context on students‟ grammar academic achievement as well as students‟ classroom participation in the grammar lessons; therefore it incorporates one independent variable and two dependent

variables The independent variable is defined as the teaching of grammar in context while the dependent variables are the grammar achievement test scores and the on-task behavior

of first year non-English major students at Chu Van An University Such independent and dependent variables are indicated in the table below:

Variables

Dependent Teaching grammar in context

Independent Grammar achievement test scores

Students‟ on-task behavior

Table 3: Distribution of the dependent and independent variables

2.4.2 Controlled and uncontrolled variables

The controlled variables involve the teachers of the two classes, the time, the content of the courses and the classroom conditions The uncontrolled variables include the I.Q of the students, the previous achievement, the anxiety, the interest and attitudes One more thing should be added to uncontrolled variables is the appearance of the observers and the researcher while we are attending the classes Although both the observers and the researcher are supposed to sit in unobtrusive places and observe the lessons quietly, their interference in the teaching and learning performance of the two classes is unavoidable

2.5 Instruments of the study

The present research applies both qualitative and quantitative approaches Therefore, there are two research instruments: the scores from the achievement tests (pretest and posttest) and the results from the classroom observation sheets

2.5.1 Grammar Achievement Tests

2.5.1.1 The aim of the grammar achievement tests

The grammar achievement tests are designed to measure students‟ achievement on selected English grammatical items, with respect to grammatical functions or uses

2.5.1.2 The sources of designing the grammar achievement tests

The tests were designed according to the requirements of the grammar teaching syllabus for first year non-English major students at Chu Van An University as well as the purpose

of the present study The design of the tests was also due to the researcher‟s experience in teaching English grammar and they are evaluated and edited by the supervisor and experienced teachers in and outside the researcher‟s school

The test items were constructed on the selected units of the eight grammar lessons taught during the experiment to both experimental and control groups Some of the questions

were taken from some books on teaching grammar in context such as Macmillan

Grammar in Context (by Michael Vince), Developing Grammar in Context (by Mark

Nettle and Diana Hopkins) and Exploring grammar in context (by Ronald Carter,

Rebecca Hughes and Michael McCathy) The others were adapted from authentic sources like literary texts, newspapers, popular journalism, letters and the real speeches

2.5.1.3 The description of the grammar achievement tests

The grammar achievement tests involved a pretest and a posttest (see appendix 1 and 2) The pretest was administered one week before the application of treatments with an aim to determine that the two groups were equivalent at the time of starting the experiment The posttest was administered at the end of the experiment with a purpose of measuring the students‟ achievement (with respect to grammatical functions) after the treatment period Both the pretest and posttest were at the same level of difficulty (elementary and pre-intermediate level) Each test involved five questions with 25 items which were scheduled

to finish within 60 minutes The distribution of the grammar achievement tests is described

in the following table:

5 Writing short paragraph using pictures as cues 5 10

Table 4: Distribution of the grammar achievement tests

2.5.1.4 The content validity of the test

According to Wainer and Braun (1988), when a test has content validity, the items on the test represent the entire range of possible items the test should cover In other words, the test has valid content when it examines what it is intended to measure The intention of the achievement tests is to measure first year non-English major students‟ achievement on four selected grammatical items (i.e., tenses, modals, passive voice and conditionals) with

special reference to their grammatical functions Thus, the tests were designed with an emphasis on functional aspects of those four items In order to judge the content validity of the tests, the researcher sent them to the supervisor and eight experienced teachers of English working in different universities in Hanoi for consultation Then the test was modified according to their valuable remarks

2.5.1.5 The reliability of the test

Test reliability refers to the consistency of scores students would receive on alternate forms

of the same test To measure the reliability of the posttest scores gained by the students who formed the sample of the study, the researcher used Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula of which the correlation coefficient was found to be 0.75 Such result implies that the test is highly consistent and reliable

2.5.2 The classroom observation

According to Nunan (1992), observation is the most popular tool that helps researchers to have data “collected in genuine classroom” In this study, classroom observational technique is employed to assess students‟ level of participation in grammar lessons The students' participation is defined in terms of on-task or off -task behavior in classroom activities.Students are „on-task‟ when they are “actively engaged in the pedagogic work of the day” and “off-task” when “doing other things such as talking to friends, walking about

the room, etc.” (Nunan, 1992:37)

Two teachers of English were invited to quietly observe the students‟ on-task behaviors in experimental group (Ms Huong) and control group (Ms Anh) during their performance in class Before each grammar lesson, the two observers were given the observation sheets with the instructions included The classroom observation sheet is adapted from Hopkins (1985:95) and is displayed in appendix 4

2.6 Description of the grammar courses

2.6.1 The materials

Different materials are used for traditional grammar course (control group) and in-context grammar course (experimental group) For the traditional grammar course, the materials

involve grammar sections in New Headway Elementary (Unit 6, Unit 7, Unit 14) and New

Headway Pre-Intermediate (Unit 8, Unit 11, Unit 12) by John and Liz Soars For

in-context grammar course, the teacher still makes use of the same course books as for the