Teachers’ and students’ views on grammar presentation in the course book “English for chemical engineering” at Sao Do University

In Vietnam, foreign language in general and English teaching in particular is said to be grammar-focused, and for many English language teachers, teaching English means teaching grammar.

DECLARATION

I, Trần Hoàng Yến, certify that this thesis is the result of my own research and the substance

of this thesis has not, wholly or in part, been submitted for a degree to any university or institution

Hanoi, September 2011 Trần Hoàng Yến

Secondly, I am grateful to all my colleagues for their kindness and assistance to me in the data collection process I would like to express my thanks to all the teachers and students of the classes I have visited in order to gather information for my class observation

Thanks to my husband, who has given me so much love, patience and encouragement, who spent hours working with the computer to help me with computer data entry and processing in the dark midnight hours

These people deserve all the credit I alone am responsible for any failings

Eventually, the study has been completed to the best of my knowledge; however, mistakes and shortcomings are unavoidable Therefore, I am looking forward to receiving comments and suggestions from any readers for the perfection of the course work

Hanoi, August Trần Hoàng Yến

ABSTRACT

It is clear that the development of language teaching, especially grammar teaching has brought about great challenges in teaching English in all Vietnamese schools in general and at Sao Do University in particular However, the way teachers teach grammar and the way students learn grammar are not similar

This study was conducted to seek answers to the question of what teachers’ and students’ view toward grammar presentation in the course book “English for Chemical engineering” at Sao Do University The finding from the study indicated that a balanced between explicit instruction in which a target form is presented formally together with information about how it is used, followed by practice and implicit instruction in which students’ attention may be drawn to a target form and they may be have to induce the rule or system underlying its use should be encouraged In other words, a blend of both traditional and communicative approaches to grammar could be a good solution to the question of grammar teaching at our university

This study is nothing but a first step towards a more rigorous study of the issue of the grammar teaching at our university and other training centers where English is taught as a curriculum subject

LIST OF THE TABLES

Chart 1: What do you think of the role of grammar in learning English? 23

Chart 2: How do you find grammar presentation in the course book “English

Chart 3: How difficult do you find grammar points in the course book “English for Chemical engineering” at Sao Do University?

25

Table 1: How do you think about these grammar points in the course book

“English for Chemical engineering” at Sao Do University?

25

Table 2: Students’ style preferences for grammar learning 27

Chart 4: What do you think of the role of grammar in teaching English? 30

Chart 6: Do you spend much time on teaching grammar? 31

Table 3: Teachers’ style preferences for grammar teaching 32

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.3 What is the role of grammar in English language teaching? 9

1.5 The importance of understanding teachers’ and students’ views to grammar

1.6 The role of course book in language teaching and learning 18

2.6.2.1 Teachers’ awareness of the importance of grammar learning 29 2.6.2.2 Teachers’ evaluation of current grammar presentation in the course book “English for Chemical engineering” at Sao Do university 32

PART C: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

2 Suggestions for grammar presentation in the course book “English for chemical engineering” and grammar teaching at Sao Do University 35

4 Recommendations for further research 39

PART A: INTRODUCTION

In this part, I would like to present the rationale, the aims and objective, the research and methodology adopted for this study, the scope, the setting and background of the study and the design of the study

1 Rationale

Grammar teaching has been has been a focal point of foreign language teaching and it has aroused a great deal of controversy and even debate among educational researchers, linguists, methodologists and teachers Currently, there are several points of view on grammar teaching issues

In Vietnam, foreign language in general and English teaching in particular is said to be grammar-focused, and for many English language teachers, teaching English means teaching grammar There are good reasons for this This can be traced back to the national examinations which measured candidates’ linguistic or grammar competence in written form Therefore, the teaching of English is still directed towards preparing students for such sort of examinations In this process, students are supposed to learn whatever teachers “give” That’s why not only knowledge but also learning styles are imposed on students by teachers Unfortunately, research findings have proved that students come to a language class with particular profiles of interests, intelligence, learning habits, purposes and so on All these learner factors may affect their learning styles and learning process

Because of learner variables, the departure of this study is the claim that function and presentation of the grammar explanation is a complex issue and a single approach will be far from being satisfactory in all teaching situations An investigation into teachers’ and students’ views towards grammar presentation in the course book “English for chemical engineering” is

an attempt to deal with this under-researched area

Another reason is related to my personal profession Although teaching grammar seems “synonymous with teaching foreign language”, (Rutherford, quoted in Celce-Murcia and Hilles: 1988: 1) teachers have different attitudes and approaches to grammar in the classroom There are teachers who view grammar teaching as unnecessary while there are teachers who obsessed by it (Canh, 2004) From my personal observation and professional

experiences as a five year English teacher at Sao Do University, I have realized that how to make grammar teaching satisfactory to students is really a great challenge facing every English teacher For several years, I have been haunted by the question of how to deal with grammar more effectively at our university The answer to this question would be good help to

me as well as to my colleagues

2 Aims of the study

With the above-presented rationale, the specific aims of the study are:

• To investigate into teachers’ views towards grammar presentation in the course book

“English for chemical engineering” at Sao Do University

• To investigate into students’ views towards grammar presentation in the course book

“English for chemical engineering” at Sao Do University

• To find out in what ways the teacher can make their grammar teaching more suitable to students’ expectations and learning styles

It is hoped that the findings from this study will help English teachers in Vietnam, especially those who are engaged in grammar teaching The study can highlight the extent to which current grammar teaching at our university meets the students’ expectations and style preferences The findings of the study will also contribute to our understanding of how grammar should be treated in the context of Vietnamese schools or training centers where English is taught as a foreign language

3) In what ways can the teachers make their grammar teaching more suitable to students’ expectations and learning styles?

4 Research methodology

The main method utilized in this study was a survey using questionnaires, one for teachers and one for students (research questions 1 and 2) In addition to that, interviews with teachers helped to support data collected from questionnaires and provide insights into ways that teachers can take to make their grammar teaching even more suitable to students’ expectations and learning styles (research question 3)

Data collected from the questionnaires and interviews were analyzed qualitatively (for themes and recommendation using Hatch’s (2002) “interpretive model”) and quantitatively (for descriptive statistics)

5 Scope of the study

As it has been stated above, the study is designed to explore teachers’ and students’ view towards grammar presentation in the course book “English for Chemical engineering” in order to make some methodological recommendations for grammar teaching The study is, therefore, explorative by nature

Given the aims of the study, I limited myself to focus on the first year students of Chemical engineering and Food science at Sao Do University

6 The setting and background

Sao Do University is a famous university in Hai Duong province located in Chi Linh town The school is over 40 years of foundation It has more than 500 teachers and 15.000 students It is known all over country with electrical and mechanical field Chemical engineering and Food science Faculty is a young one- only 5 years old The number of students is only about 300 students The students related to this study are 50 students of the first year The program of English for Chemical engineering consists of 45 periods

The program composes of 4 parts: Reading is to provide students with general knowledge of chemistry Vocabulary is to provide students with new words that occur in the reading parts Practice is to give students some kinds of exercise to help students understand the text (reading part) well Grammar is to provide students with some main structures, forms and grammatical points that happen in the text

7 The design of the study

The thesis contains three parts

Part one, the introduction, provides an overview of the study with specific reference to the rationale, the aims, and the methods, the background of the study and the significance of the study

In part two, there are two chapters Chapter one is aimed at exploring the theoretical background for the thesis This chapter will focus on three main points: types of grammar, approaches to grammar, and learners’ style preferences The chapter first examines the notion

of grammar, different types of grammar such as prescriptive grammar, descriptive grammar, and pedagogical grammar In this chapter, I would like to discuss various perspectives on grammar as well as two major approaches to grammar: explicit and implicit Finally, the chapter discusses the necessity to take into consideration the learners’ style preferences to narrow the gap between teaching and learning and to make the classroom lessons more learner-centered Chapter two is devoted to a detailed description of data analysis and a thorough discussion of the findings of the study In this chapter, some explanations and interpretations of the findings are explored

Part three, the conclusion of the thesis, presents the summary of findings and some pedagogical suggestions, which are proposed for the teachers teaching grammar at Sao Do University in general and at other schools in particular Those suggestions are related to teaching techniques and grammar tasks that are thought to be relevant and applicable to the teaching of grammar at my university The limitations of the study and some recommendations for further research are also discussed in this chapter

The appendices are the last part of the study, following the references

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW

Traditionally, grammar has been concerned almost exclusively with analysis at the level

of the sentence Thus a grammar is a description of the rules that govern how a language’s

sentences are formed The study of grammar consists, accordingly, of looking at the way

words are arranged or patterned to make sentences By contrast, recent views of grammar are

expanded to cover both texts and words are organized according to rules This chapter

provides a review of various perspectives on grammar and grammar teaching The chapter

begins with a discussion of different ways in which grammar defined Since most language

teaching textbook and grammars are still firmly grounded in the sentence grammar tradition,

for the purpose of this study, I will assume grammar to mean grammar at the sentence level

The definitions of grammar are followed by a presentation of different view of grammar,

which include prescriptive, descriptive and pedagogic views of grammar Again, grammar

mentioned in this study is pedagogic grammar The chapter ends with a review of various

approaches to grammar in the language classroom as well as factors affecting the

methodological choice for grammar teaching

1.1 What is grammar?

The first challenge with which I am encountered is how to define the term “grammar”

This is because different linguistic schools define grammar in different ways depending on

their particular field of interest:

●A traditional grammarian might see grammar as the “parts of speech” together with a set of rules governing how they be combined, often

accompanied by pointers as to what is considered “correct” and “incorrect” usage

●A structural linguist might see grammar as the sum total of sentence patterns in

which the words of a particular language are arranged

●A philosophical/ cognitive linguist might see grammar as our innate knowledge of

the structure of language

●A functional linguist might see grammar as a resource used to accomplish communicative purpose in specific contexts

Defining grammar, then, is not a straightforward matter and it is important to clarify how the term is being used in any particular contexts For my purpose in this study, I will look at the five definitions which I think might be more relevant to this study,

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (quoted in Harmer: 1987:1) defines

grammar as “the study and practice of the rules by which words change their form and are combined into sentences”

It is obvious that there are two basic elements to which attention should be paid to: the rules of grammar; and the study and practice of the rule

According to Fromkin et al (1990:12): “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 These rules are internalized and subconsciously learned by native speakers.”

From this definition, grammar is the name given to the knowledge of how words are arranged to form sentences The definition also clarifies that grammatical rules is learned in a natural way by native speakers, but how non-native speakers learn the grammar constitutes rules to combine words to make sentences, what are the sentences used for? These are the questions that need to be elaborated

Another scholar, Bastone, (1994) divides grammar into product: the component parts or rules that make up the language, and process: the ways in which grammar is deployed from moment to moment in communication Bastone (ibid) purport that while of no doubt the rules are important to the learner, simply knowing them is by no means a guarantee of being able to formulate or interpret complicated utterances in the rush of real-time communication Obviously, Bastone takes a more sociolinguistic view of grammar, which views grammar is not just rules, but more importantly, rules of use This means that “there are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless.”(Hymes: 1972:45)

Richards, Platt and Platt (1992: 161) in their Longman Dictionary of Language

Teaching & Applied Linguistics, define grammar as

“a description of the structure of a language and the way in which linguistic units such as words and phrases are combined to produce sentences in the language It usually takes into account the meaning and functions these sentences have in the overall system of the language It may or may not include the description of the sounds of a language.”

For Richards and his colleagues, grammar is descriptive, rather than prescriptive and it implies both meanings and functions Their view of grammar reflects, firstly, the dynamics of language, and secondly, the social and personal nature of language Grammar is the way people of the particular language community use to get meanings across, not the way people are prescribed to use the language

All the three definitions view grammar as meaning, but they share a common drawback, which confine grammar to just sentences Widdowson (1990:81) claimed that “Grammar is not just a collection of sentences patterns signifying nonsense, something for the learner’s brain to puzzle over.” For Widdowson, grammar means the relationship between three things: grammar, words and context In other words grammar should be viewed as linguistic rules functioning in alliance with words and context for the achievement of meaning

Hughes and McCarthy (1998) view grammar as discourse not as sentence and coined the

term discourse grammar They argued that “grammatical statements that do not take account

of such contextual features are inadequate and unable to support grammar teaching effectively” (p.265)

How grammar is defined is very important since it will influence the way grammar is to

be taught For the purpose of the study, I use the definition of grammar proposed above by

Richards, Platt and Platt (1992:161) in their Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &

Applied Linguistics

The evolution in language pedagogy from Audiolingualism towards a more communicative approach has also brought with it a great change in the way grammar is

viewed and taught Traditionally, grammar was considered solely as prescriptive aspects as well In this section, a presentation of major views on grammar will be made

Prescriptive grammar:

Prescriptive grammar “prescriptive” what is correct that is what people should say For example: for the sentence like “This is how you cook an omelet” prescriptive grammar teaches that a personal pronoun such as “you” should never be used in writing It is noteworthy that modern grammarians who have mostly avoided prescriptive grammar are likened to physicists

by Cook (1991) The job of the former is to describe what the rules of language are just as the job of the latter is to say what the laws of physics are Also according to Cook (ibid.)

“prescriptive grammar is all but irrelevant to the language teaching classroom Since the 1960s, people have believed that you should teach the language as it is, not as it ought to be” (original emphasis)

Descriptive grammar:

Descriptive grammar simply reports the language as it exists Descriptive grammarians acknowledge that language is living and as every living thing, subject to change To put it another way, how it is used is constantly changing “not in major way, but slowly and almost imperceptibly L1 users of the language are making utterances or writing sentences which a generation before would have been considered incorrect” (Woods: 1995: 5) For example “It is I” may be defended and “It is me” rejected by prescriptive grammar purists but so countless people have said the latter for such a long time that it becomes correct The former seems to sound unnatural and stilled though it cannot be said that it is plainly wrong Woods (ibid.) goes on to point out that the problem which learners of English as a foreign language are confronted when using descriptive grammar books is that it is a long time from being aware of the occurrence of such changes in the language to accepting these changes as the proper use of the language This is also the case with native speakers Not all of them favor the changes that are occurring in the language Moreover, there is often a “time-lag” between when something

is accepted in the spoken language and when it is acceptable in the written language However, the acceptance period for native speakers is much shorter because they are surrounded by the media and they have to difficulty knowing when such changes have general

acceptance while L2 speakers do not have this benefit and have to rely on the rules written in the grammar books In this way even descriptive grammar books can become prescriptive Pedagogical grammar:

Unlike prescriptive and descriptive grammars the term “pedagogical grammar” does not refer to any particular type or school of grammar Rather it refers to the kind of knowledge about grammar needed by the teacher and the way this is made available to the students in the form of lessons or materials In other words it is grammar to be used in teaching Nunan (1991:153) states “pedagogical grammars are intended to provide those involved in language teaching (including learners) with information on the language for the purposes of teaching and learning, syllabus construction, materials development and so on While they may reflect current theories of grammatical description and analysis, pedagogical grammars do not necessarily follow a particular grammatical theory or school of thoughts”

To sum up, prescriptive grammar is what we should say, descriptive grammar is what

we do say and pedagogical grammar is what we – teachers of a foreign language – teach Pedagogical grammar differs from prescriptive and descriptive grammars in terms of (a) the degree of technicality; (b) the scope, selection, sequencing and presentation of material; and (c) the relevance to teaching and learning The grammar, which is defined as the knowledge about grammar needed by the teacher and the way this is made available to the students in the form of lesson or material Since pedagogical grammar is the result of a process of filtering and interpretation at different levels, pedagogical grammar teaching involves the form, the meaning and the use

1.3 What is the role of grammar in English language teaching?

Prior to the 1970s the necessity of formal grammar teaching met almost no disagreement It was a common place that a major portion of curriculum was devoted to learning grammatical terminology, memorizing rules doing exercises, practicing drill or so on However, many different and even contradictory views emerged during the latter half of the

twentieth century These different views about language and language learning process below,

I will examine several arguments for and against grammar

Pro-grammar perspectives:

Many linguists and researchers have advocated grammar instruction in ESL and EFL language teaching and learning For instance, the communicative competence model of Canale and Swain (1980) clearly illustrates the significance of grammar In this model grammar is seen as one component of communicative competence Without grammar, learners can communicate effectively only in limited number of situations Referring to the importance of grammar teaching, Smith (2001) worries that if we do not pay attention to grammar nor create opportunities for learners to improve their grammar, they are likely to stand the risk of fossilization “or reach a point where they can cope with level of communication that is demanded of them by making use of their existing grammatical resources and communication strategies and probably with sufficient not to see the need to develop their linguistic abilities any further”

What is more, Rutherford and Smith (1988) report that grammar teaching can be beneficial to learners in the sense that it raises learners consciousness concerning the difference and similarities of L1 and L2 Therefore, grammar teaching can be used as a

“linguistic map” with road signs to help students as they explore the “topography” of the new language

The list of supporters of grammar is still ongoing Hannan (1989) argues that grammar

is highly valuable as an important part of the study of language, of ideas and of writing Also,

he points out that grammar reflects the power and order of the human mind and, besides, it helps us to understand the diversity of human culture Like Hannan, Lewis (1986), Garner (1989) gives strong support to grammar teaching Garner believes that grammar gives us a means to analyze and describe our language To sum up, the rationale for teaching grammar is multifaceted and grammar is acknowledged to be of importance in language study in general and in language teaching and learning in particular

One of the biggest challenges to the necessity of grammar teaching comes primarily from Krashen, whose insistence on the primacy of acquisition has tended to downplay the value of deliberate grammar teaching In Krashen and Tarrel’s influential Natural Approach it

is claimed that learners need to be exposed to a lot of comprehensive and meaningful input at

a level just above their own for acquisition to take place The study of grammar has only a secondary role in the language program with the goal to produce optimal monitor-user, programmers who can use grammar as a supplement to acquisition when they have time, when the focus is on form, and when they know the rules (the Monitor Hypothesis) (Krashen and Tarrel:1983)

Fanatics of Natural Approach argue that reliance on grammatical syllabus, no matter how contextualized it is, cannot be sufficient, that a grammatical focus may interfere with any attempt to communicate It thus appears to be the case that “we not only don’t have to use a grammatical syllabus in encouraging acquisition, it is better not to even try” (ibid: 72) Put another way, grammar can be acquired naturally from meaningful input and opportunities to interact in the classroom and grammatical competence can develop in a fluency-oriented environment without conscious focus on language forms

Admittedly, some learners acquire second language grammar naturally without being taught Immigrants to the United States (especially young ones) who attain proficiency in English on their own can be a good example of naturalistic acquisition (Lightbown and Spada: 60) But this is not true for all learners Among the same immigrant group are learners who may achieve a degree of proficiency, but whose English is far from accurate

On the other hand, Krashen’s acquisition hypothesis seems to be merely his own personal observation without supporting evidence Gregg (1984: 79-100) criticizes that:

“Krashen himself seems to be aware of this: The idea that we first learn a new rule, and eventually, through practice, acquire it, is widespread and may seem to some people to be intuitively obvious… It was, I thought, exactly the way I learned languages myself…” Thus Gregg sees himself as a typical example of the process which consists of knowing the rules, being aware of them and ending up with an ability to talk about them This is a perfect process

of acquiring through learning, opposed to Krashen’s claim that learning need not precede

acquisition Furthermore, studies of learners in immersion classrooms (e.g Swain 1985) show even after ample exposure to the target language learners continue to make a lot of grammatical errors With regard to the value of form-focus teaching two important questions may arise The first is whether it is possible with teaching to assist learners who cannot achieve accuracy in English by themselves and the second is it possible to speed up students’ natural learning of grammar through instruction A number of research findings (see Larsen – Freeman: 1997 and Schwabe: 1989) prove that teaching assists to improve learners’ accuracy which is normally absent when these is no focus on form As far as the second concerns Pienemann (1984) demonstrates that subjects who received grammar instruction progressed to the next stage after two- week period while it took untutored students several months to do that This provides evidence of the effect of teaching over learning acquisition to run its natural course

I find it essential to teach grammar in our university, at least in Vietnamese schools These are reasons for this position Firstly, Vietnamese students are not learning English just for basic oral communication Motivated students will continue to learning English in the universities because they need it to read and write in this language for academic purposes For these students, grammar is more crucial Secondly, the English language examinations that the students have to take (and to pass) contain a lot of grammatical elements although these exams have been improved a great deal

In order to decide whether the focus on grammatical forms becomes more or less important, various learner factors such as age, learning styles, proficiency level, purpose of learning, exposure to the target language, etc…should be taken in to consideration Celce-Murcia (quoted in Shrum and Glisan: 1994) points out that students are already literate and therefore have established expectations concerning language instruction After all, we need to remind ourselves why students come school The answer lies in getting “right knowledge” Instead of letting them swim in the ocean of knowledge we should provide them with a

“swimming jacket”-formal instruction- to facilitate their learning Why should we refuse teaching them grammar?

Next, it is worth mentioning that Krashen’s view that the effect of grammar learning is peripheral and fragile and that conscious knowledge of grammar is available only as a monitor, or editor may be true to ESL context where immigrant learners are extensively exposed to the target language but it is not applicable to the ESL context At our university, students learn English as a foreign language outside the natural linguistic environment; grammar teaching must still have an important place in the classroom We can not expect our students who learn English for probably not more than three lessons a week to acquire the target grammar naturally although some students might have access to various sources of authentic English at home I stand for Celce-Murcia’s (1992:406-407) point of view that

“Generally, only young, prepubescent learners, and then only those with good access to native-speaking peers and sufficiently rich and varied native speaker input, can- in the absence of formal grammar instruction- learn a foreign or second language-with native- like proficiency and accuracy”

1.4 Two approaches to grammar teaching

As it is mentioned above one of the key issues in foreign language teaching which has met with little agreement is how to teach grammar Whether the learner should be taught to approach the learning task consciously as an intellectual exercise, or whether he should be encouraged to avoid thinking about the language and absorb it intuitively? Stern (1992) proposes to call the former teaching strategy “explicit” and the later “implicit” These approaches are often contrasted with each other when questions about grammar arise When

we talk about an explicit approach to grammar we are talking about stating directly, usually at the beginning of a particular activity, what the grammar is For example, “Today we are looking at the third conditional.” On the other hand, an implicit approach to grammar is one where the students are ‘led’ to the grammar through a series of steps – this is what is meant by the ‘discovery technique’ In other words, the ‘discovery technique’ aims to lead students towards a generalized grammar rule or pattern

Explicit Grammar Teaching:

Proponents of explicit grammar teaching argue that second language learning is, for many people, a cognitive process leading to and explicit knowledge of the language (knowledge about grammar,- understanding the rule) According to Ellis and Gaies (1988)

explicit knowledge is important in a number of respects First, it enables learners to be more grammatically accurate by monitoring what they speak or write Second, explicit knowledge can help learners to acquire implicit knowledge (knowledge of grammar-knowing the rules in

an intuitive way which enables them to be accessed quickly and easily for purposes of communication) If learners understand how grammatical feature functions, they will be more likely to notice it when they are listening or reading In brief, explicit grammar teaching has the advantage that learners are in control during practice and they do not stand the rich of drawing an incorrect conclusion in terms of how the target language is working

With regard to advantages of explicit grammar teaching it is worth mentioning here some convincing research finding Scott (1989) analyzing data from oral and written tests taken by students of French found that in general students who were taught the target structures explicitly performed better than those to whom an implicit method was applied Other evidence centers on a focus on form are error correction and feedback Tomasello and Herron (1989) compared two methods for correcting students in the language classroom and found that learners performed better it transfer errors received immediate correction by form-based cognitive comparisons This result corresponds to White’s (1987) claim that specific grammar teaching and correction can in fact be beneficial for acquisition This result is aligned with what Lightbrown and Spada’s (1999) claim as mentioned above

However, a problem with explicit grammar teaching is that it advocates a direct and overt role on the part of the teacher As a consequence, this practice designates a rather passive role on the part of the students Interaction for them is supposed to take place after the and after a great deal of structural drills of the grammatical items In River’s (1983) terms, “skill-getting” is emphasized before “skill-using” It can be said that in an explicit method of grammar teaching, grammar seems to be viewed more as a product although it gives the learners a clear framework and there may be systematic learning

Furthermore, explicit grammar teaching which is characterized by direct teacher explanation followed by related manipulative exercises is accused of failing to view language

as a whole (Corbett) (many of us have probably experienced this kink of grammar teaching, since a number of textbooks tend to present grammar in this faction) Unfortunately,

manipulative drills in most of the textbooks are taken away from the real contexts or put in shallow and artificial ones, so these drills become rather meaningless to students (Walz: quoted in Shrum and Glisan: 1994) This is echoed by Samad who claims that teaching and learning grammatical structures have traditionally involved repetitive drills that have a reputation for being meaningless and decontextualized The reason for this is that students merely repeat the pattern of certain drills without understanding the meaning of the sentences

It is understandable that such language activities might be boring to a number of students It is generally acknowledged that language is context- sensitive and context is important as it allows students to see how and why different forms and meaning exist Only by presenting grammar in context will our students develop a better understanding of meaning and language functions

Another made for excluding explicit grammar teaching in language teaching is that “it

is unnatural method of acquiring or learning a language.”(Samad) The scholars explicit instruction on grammar to master the grammatical system of the language

In short, explicit method of grammar teaching has some effectiveness such as it gives students systematic explanation of grammatical points and encourages them to look upon learning as an intellectually challenging and worthwhile task But the problem with second language teaching in which explicitness is stressed is that students become passive recipients

of knowledge, over-conscious of the rules and lacks an intuitive native speaker-like competence

Implicit Grammar teaching

At the opposite end of the axis of grammar teaching stand implicit grammar teaching supported by Krashen (1982) and Dulay and Burt (1973) As mentioned above, defenders of implicit grammar teaching believe that students can acquire language naturally like children acquiring their mother tongue if they are provided with sufficient comprehensible input

In fact, proponents of the implicit approach to grammar teaching argue for several advantages over explicit grammar teaching One of these advantages is that students are highly motivated and more involved in learning Motivated learners are ones who discover rulers for themselves and by discovering grammar rules they remembers them better than those who are

overwhelmed by grammatical explanations since discovering grammatical rules gives the learners a highly sense of achievement

However, Herron and Tomasello (quoted in Shrum and Glisan: 1994) suggest that implicit approach cannot guarantee that the learner will discover the underlying concepts or that the induced concepts will actually be correct

Apart from this the implicit approach can be frustrating to adolescents or adult learners, many of whom have already become analytical with regard to the rules that govern their native languages “…most adult learners including EFL learners seem to benefit from teacher- direct grammar instruction that is presented to correspond to their specific needs.”(Nachiengmai: 1997) These learners intuitively desire to accelerate the learning process by deliberately comparing and contrasting their own native rules to govern the foreign language

I am in support of the idea that it is unwise of a language teacher to strictly adhere to this or that method of instruction as each method has its own effectiveness and ineffectiveness

It is my own opinion that employing explicit approach towards grammar teaching a teacher may find it easy to control his class and the lessons are efficient as but explicit grammar teaching may be rather boring to both the teacher and the students On the contrary, implicit strategy is relatively rewarding Nothing could be more exciting and thrilling than being given the key to open the door to the treasure of English language But it is time consuming doing it yourself rather than standing aside looking the teacher does it Hence, the teacher’s explanation may serve as shortcut to acquire a new grammar I stand for Garner (1989:2009) that “the teacher should be able to explain, when it is appropriate, a point of grammar accurately… to non-native learners” Teachers should also be very careful about when and how they should explain grammatical rules Otherwise, he may make the matter worse in the sense that his too fast and unclear explanation causes confusion rather than comprehension In some situations let our student explore or discover grammatical rules for themselves from our helpful hints such as information guides, examples and diagrams In my own teaching I find combination of the two approaches desirable For example I often present a structure in context without grammatical explanation (to allow implicit strategy) then bring out the rules

through elicitation from student and finally give them a substantial amount of time for practice

of the structure (explicit)

In the final analysis while it is advantageous for learners to have access to both ways

of teaching, it should be borne in mind that some learners may have a preference for more explicit way of learning whereas other prefer more implicit approaches Hartnett’s (1985) findings suggest that deductive strategy is more effective for student with left-brain dominance and that inductive strategy is as effective or more effective for those with right-brain dominance As a teacher we should be aware of different techniques which provide the opportunity for both implicit and explicit learning and respect the preferences of learns Obviously, it is hard to say which approach to grammar: explicit or implicit is better I have argued that both are of equal value It is the teachers who have to make a choice when to teach grammar explicitly and when implicit taking info account factors affecting the learners

1.5 The importance of understanding teachers’ and students’ views to grammar teaching and learning

According to Giao et al (2004), a foreign language in general, and English in particular, is a compulsory school subject and one of the national examinations Students have

to take to get the high school certificate Besides that a high profit in English and a good command of English is an opportunity for further study, especially for future employment Nevertheless, a majority of Vietnamese students at high school, even at university lack a sufficient good knowledge of grammar to pass the grammar- based and norm- referenced examinations

According to the traditional grammar- translation method, classes are taken students’ mother tongue with little active use of the target language Grammar rules were explained in their mother tongue and students are expected to learn them by heart and make up sentences according to these rules The teachers are always the controller the students’ activities in the class while the students are only passive listeners and do what the teachers tell them to do This prevents them from producing the language We cannot completely deny the application

of the traditional approach to grammar teaching as Giao et al (2004) remark That means, the

lessons are mainly teacher-centered, with teachers’ detailed explanations and instructions, with teachers’ questions and requirements for learners mechanical responses on the language items

to be taught In fact, teachers feel more confident when using grammar- translation method because it does not require much on the part of teacher Moreover, despite the boredom of the traditional grammar lessons, the students seem to produce more correct sentences and score high marks in the final tests As a result, students will able to read and write books in English once they have mastered the grammar rules of English language However, they have little chance to communicate with each other They speak with difficulty through they know the rules very well When they practice English, they are always afraid of making mistakes If the teachers want to make a change toward the communicative approach, they may have to cope with difficulties related to both themselves and their students

It is common to see in the traditional language classroom that students feel tense, anxious and frustrated although they seem to concentrate on learning In addition, the teachers also feel nervous when their students have difficulty answering their questions, partly because

of the teachers’ over expectation, and partly because of difficult questions At the end of the lessons, they both feel exhausted The reasons for this have been pointed out by Canh (2001)

as that of an inexperienced teacher does activities with unclear and complicated instructions or goals about a target grammatical structure He also pointed out that communicative language teaching will help to solve these problems above

1.6 The role of course book in language teaching and learning

Course books are an important component in most language programs In some situations they serve as the basis for much of the language input learners receive and the language practice that occurs in the classroom They may provide the basis for the content of the lessons, the balance skills taught and the kinds of language practice the students take part

in in other situations, the textbook may serve primarily to supplement the teacher’s instruction For learners, the course book may provide the major source of the contact they have with the language apart from input provided by the teacher In the case of inexperienced teachers course books may also serve as a form of teacher training- they provide ideas on how

to plan and teach lessons as well as formats that teachers can use Much of the language teaching that occurs throughout the world today could not take place without the extensive use

of commercial textbooks Learning how to use and adapt course books is hence an important part of a teacher’s professional knowledge

Course books have both advantages and disadvantages Here are some advantages of the course books First, they provide structure and a syllabus for a program Teaching without course books may have no central core and learners may not receive a syllabus that has been systematically Second, course books help standardize instruction Next, they maintain quality and provide a variety of learning sources like CD, videos, workbook…More clearly, we can see that course books are efficient They save teachers’ time, enabling teachers to devote time

to teaching rather than material’s production However, there are also some potential negative effects from the course books They may contain inauthentic language, may distort content, may not reflect students’ needs, and they may be very expensive

Despite the impact of new technologies, course books will doubtless continue to play

an important role in language teaching and provide a useful resource for both teachers and learners Good course books serve to turn the guidelines in the official government syllabus into rich source of the content, texts and activities that would be beyond the capacities of most teachers to develop their own The use of course books should be seen as reflecting a deficiency on the part of the teacher, any more than the use of computer- based materials would be so regarded Course books should be regarded as one of the many resources teachers can draw upon in creating effective lessons, but teachers need training and experience in adapting and modifying course books as well as using authentic materials and in creating their own teaching material

In this chapter, I have reviewed the literature related to my research question While the review is by no mean exhaustive, it is on the one hand carefully selected to serve as the theoretical framework for my study, and on the other hand, evident variety of different issues relevant and the need to narrow the gap between teaching and learning styles to achieve more learner-centeredness in the language classroom

It is necessary to note that in this thesis ,the term “grammar’ is used to refer to part of the English curriculum that secondary school ,I.e is a linguistic component of the English curriculum that has to be addressed Thus, although I agree that grammar is rules, meaning, social function and discourse and we need to take into account all there aspects of grammar in deciding how grammar should be taught in the classroom, for the purpose of this study ,grammar is understood as sentence grammar and pedagogic grammar The next chapter will present my research methodology and data collection procedures