VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY

UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

CHANGES IN TEACHING GRAMMAR

IN THE WORLD AND IN VIETNAM

A research project submitted to the

Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature
in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

by
PHẠM PHÚC KHÁNH MINH

Supervised by
DR. NGUYỄN THỊ HỒNG THẮM

HO CHI MINH CITY, OCTOBER 2015

! 2

Tables of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 2: Literature review .............................................................................................. 5
2.1. Definition of grammar ..................................................................................... 5
2.2. Changes in teaching grammar in the world ..................................................... 6
2.3. Changes in teaching grammar in Vietnam ....................................................... 8
Chapter 3: Conclusion and implications .......................................................................... 11
References ........................................................................................................................ 12
! 3

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Grammar has been considered as an important aspect in the processes of teaching

and learning English. Krashen (1982) showed his interest in learning grammar and
support the idea that teachers should teach conscious grammar rules. He even clearly
stated that “when given time, and when focused on form, some people can use conscious
grammar to great advantage.” Contributing to this idea, Terrell (1991) also suggested that
“instruction about forms or structures of the target language is beneficial to learners at a
particular point in their acquisition of the target language,” and that “grammar-focused
activities are necessary and that classroom students will not come close to the number of
hours of input necessary for natural acquisition.” It can be easily seen that grammar has
an important place in the field of teaching English as a second language. Its utmost
importance has also been accepted and recognized by many scholars (Doughty &
Williams, 1998; Thornbury, 1997, 1998). From these reasons, it can be concluded that
along with vocabulary, English grammar has a significant role in teaching, not only in
developing countries such as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia but also developed countries
like Japan, Germany, Hungary, Poland and so on (Braine, 2005).
According to Braine (2005), the most dominant methodology in teaching English
was always grammar-translation method in which “reading and grammar were
prevalent.” However, he criticized that “no attempt was made to teach language in
context or to provide dialogues and conversations”. Supporting this idea, Canale and
Swain (1980) emphasized that learners should have a chance to use language in a real
interaction with competent speakers. The emergence of Communicative Approach in the
1970s has shed light on revolutions and innovations in teaching English grammar,
shifting from rules explaining to contextualized texts and talks. Weatherford (1997)
pointed out that language courses should not be built around grammar but around
pragmatic communicative function”, emphasizing that “language instruction must be
content-based, meaningful and always oriented toward communication.” The centrality of
the classroom has shifted from teacher-centered to learner-centered, with teachers’
! 4

facilitation in communication and correction in learner errors. Terrell (1977) also claimed
that “the role of grammar instruction has changed drastically in the last 40 years from
grammar translation to communicative approaches.” As a result, grammar teaching has a
new approach which demonstrates that grammar learning is not about studying a set of
rules without employing it in a meaning interaction. Nunan (2005) insisted that “We must
teach grammar, but we must teach it in a different way than in the past.” Specifically, in
the Vietnamese context, Communicative Language Teaching has received positive and
favorable attitudes from both teachers and learners (Mai & Iwashita, 2012).
It can be easily seen that a great amount of studies was conducted on grammar
teaching, but in the context of Vietnam, a developing country in the South East Asia,
there are still insufficient studies on this issue. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper
is to illustrate the changes in grammar teaching in Vietnam between the past time and the
present time, along with suggestions and implications relating to this matter.
! 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Definition of grammar

From the 17th century, Chomsky’s concept of Universal Grammar has caught
interest of many scholars and researchers and raised a great deal of controversy as well.
The theory proposes the innateness of human brain to contain a set of rules of speaking a
language and implies that all languages have a common structural foundation. He also
viewed grammar as “the explicit theory constructed by the linguist and proposed as a
description of the speaker's competence,” and “it refers to this competence itself.”
Continuing investigating the notion, Fromkin , Rodman, and Hyams (1990)
considered that the grammar of a language “consists of the sounds and sound patterns, the
basic units of meaning such as words, and the rules to combine all of these to form
sentences with the desired meaning.” Hence, grammar can be said to represent the
linguistic competence of speakers. From this viewpoint, Fromkin et al. (1990) agreed that
teaching grammar is helpful for learners who do not speak the standard language as
English. They also stated clearly that the processes of teaching and learning grammar are
based on the previous knowledge of the grammar of the native language, using it to
compare with that of the target language.
Furthermore, Fromkin et al. (1990) categorized grammar into different kinds.
Concerning the unconsciousness or capacity about linguistic knowledge of speakers,
grammar is seen as descriptive grammar, which is assumed to be acknowledged by every
speaker. Descriptive grammar “does not teach the rules of the language; it describes the
rules that are already known.” On the other hand, the grammar that “attempts to legislate
what your grammar should be is called a prescriptive grammar”, meaning that it does not
describe but directs human linguistic knowledge in a conscious way.
Grammar has always been regarded as an essential part in learning a second
language. For example, Spada and Lightbown (1993), Lightbown (1998) have concluded
that when teachers focus on linguistic form along with communicative interactions with
learners, the learning process is proven to be more effective. Then, most researchers and
! 6

educators support the importance of teaching grammar. However, teachers should focus
on form “within a meaning-based or communicative approach in order to avoid a return
to analytic approaches” (Larsen-Freeman, 1991). Thus, it can be said that learning a
second language such as English has been shifted from grammar-translation approach
towards the orientation in language use (Celce-Murcia, 1980).
2.2. Changes in teaching grammar in the world
Gardner (2008) observed and concluded that grammar teaching methodology has
changed throughout the years. He also mentioned the three levels of changes that always
vary in times, namely materials, approaches, and beliefs. The first level of changes
concerns with textbooks, and syllabuses which are obviously modified every year in line
with improvements in technology and globalization. The second matter deals with the
teaching methods of teachers in order to interact properly with learners; and the last
subject is about teachers’ feelings and beliefs. Teachers nowadays are feeling more likely
to be a learner as well.
The history of language teaching has seen controversial debates on grammar
instruction and the efficiency of grammar instruction on second language learners’
success in terms of proficiency. Hinkel (2002) explained that since the early people
conceived the best learning method was to memorize the rules and regulations, they
underestimate the importance of proper communication in the second language. As a
result, he pointed out that the grammar translation method, which is known as one of the
earliest grammar instructions, lacked of communicative activities and interactions
between learners and learners, and learners and teachers as well.
The emergence of Communicative Language Teaching or Communicative
Approach has led to the belief that communicative competence is a vital goal in learning
a second language. Hymes (1972) asserted that in order for learners to achieve
communicative competence, language should be taught in context, provided with
communicative situations. Therefore, learners will be able to employ the target language
appropriately in various contexts.
! 7

Poole (2005) stated that the importance of communicative language teaching is

demonstrated through focus on form instruction, which provides learners with authentic
communication and grammatical structures as well. Besides, the focus on form
instruction motivates teachers and learners to be attentive towards the form of language
where necessary in a communicative classroom environment (Long, 1991; Long &
Robinson, 1998). Furthermore, Farrokhi and Talabari (2011) added that focus on form
instruction not only focuses on accuracy but also meaning and fluency. Moreover,
Seedhouse (1997) showed that focus on form instruction is praised as a psychological
approach which puts an emphasis on the form that happens in reality thanks to the
features of noticing and indicating the linguistic problems of learners which are vital to
language acquisition.
With regard to focus on form and changes in teaching grammar, Gardner (2008)
attended the three levels that need changing, namely materials, actions and beliefs.
However, she asserted that a meaningful and profound change must include all of the
three levels above. In the area of materials, Gardner (2008) stated that “teachers survey
and compare a wide range of materials and resources for teaching grammar so that they
learn to identify and critique different syllabuses and activities.” The second level
concerns with teaching behavior such as adopting new methodology. The last area deals
with teachers’ understanding, knowledge, and belief. Teachers are aware of reading and
doing research, but they also have to attend to discuss and evaluate personal views and
experiences.
Celce-Murcia (1991) concluded that the controversy relating to grammar teaching
is still ongoing, but teachers should be aware of grammar instruction in order for learners
to achieve a high level of accuracy and proficiency. Furthermore, Celce-Murcia (1991)
viewed grammar as “resources for creating meaning through text and for negotiating
socially motivated communication.” Therefore, teachers and learners have to be
conscious of teaching and learning these resources; however, teachers need to be pay
attention to providing learners with communicative contexts.
! 8

2.3. Changes in teaching grammar in Vietnam

In the Vietnamese context, Le (1991) confirmed that education is considered as
the key to success in the future, which means that language certificates are far more
important than language competence. This point of view leads to an ignorance in
communicative teaching and learning. Besides, Le (2011) pointed out that due to the old-
fashioned viewpoint about teaching and learning languages, teachers pay less attention to
the quality of teaching, and consider that the number of their students gaining the pass
result reflect their ability in teaching. Therefore, Hoang (1999) concluded that
Vietnamese students “may achieve the highest scores in the exams but fail to show their
excellence in real life performance.”
It can be easily seen that in Vietnamese education settings, students “follow
passive learning styles and teachers always play the dominant role in the classroom,
students must be obedient and dependent on whatever the teachers tell them to do” (Le,
2011). Thus, he concluded that Vietnamese teachers of English and other languages
encounter obstacles and barriers in order to put an end to “the passive learning styles and
traditional beliefs of Vietnamese students, even in this modern era of communication.”
However, despite the social trends, differences between teachers’ and students’
perceptions about the role of interaction in Vietnamese classrooms were indicated
(Tomlinson & Bao Dat, 2004). They found that the reasons why teachers keep lecturing
in class were that students are thought of being passive, not willing to take part in
activities, and hardly speaking English in class. Meanwhile, students often feel that they
lack opportunities to discuss with classmates in order to share ideas or to prepare for the
answer for the teachers’ question. The authors also found that students have an
expectation that their teachers should organize group work activities for them to improve
communicative skills. These findings are in line with the perspectives on ELT of
Vietnamese education officials, stating that a second language learning process is
successful when learners are able to communicate in the target language. Wright (2002)
revealed the MOET conceives that English pedagogy needs reconsidering because “the
traditional emphasis on accuracy in the written language rather than the acquisition of
! 9

fluency in the spoken language is inappropriate for many Vietnamese today”. As a result,
communicative language teaching has become popular in Vietnam.
On the other hand, Nguyen (2004) pointed out main difficulties in employing
communicative language teaching in Vietnamese schools and institutions, including the
shortage of English teachers, teaching facilities and textbooks. In an attempt to resolve
and overcome these obstacles, Khuong (2015) recently suggested that grammar lessons
with PPP (Presentation – Practice – Production) method still need to be maintained but
they should be further improved “in the way that the grammar items can be taught
concurrently with context through communicative tasks.” Specifically, during the
presentation stage, an authentic listening text can be used as a reading text for students to
find answers for questions which help them explore the target structure in terms of form
understanding, meanings and the use of it. After the presentation, controlled practice
tasks are to be employed in order for students to practice the grammatical form in a
communicative way. At the production stage, communicative activities or free activities
are provided for students to produce the learned structure in order to achieve
communicative competence that is required. During these stages, pair work and group
work are encouraged to be employed and correction and feedback should also be
provided through teachers’ observation and control.
Along with communicative approach, in a study within Vietnamese context, Ngo
(2009) suggested teaching grammar through discover-based approach with implicit
grammar instruction can be able to enhance learners’ acquisition of grammar and
motivation in learning as well. Based on the theoretical and empirical background, the
author clarified that there are three stages in grammar lessons with implicit grammar
instruction. The first stage concerns with context setting which introduces grammatical
structures and provokes learners’ consciousness. Next, learners are provided with
opportunities to activate their previous grammatical knowledge and to expose to
meaningful input through thinking about meaning and use tasks. Later, learners practice
and produce the learned structures by involving in free language activities. Consequently,
it was concluded that “the discovery learning technique is effective in grammar
! 10

instruction because it provides interactive, communicative activities that allow students to

simultaneously process grammatical form, meaning, and use, and also addresses the
development of their implicit knowledge” (Ngo, 2009). In addition, the technique is
demonstrated to be able to encourage learners to study more actively, to explore their
previous grammatical knowledge, and to practice newly learned structures
enthusiastically; hence, it is expected to develop learner autonomy in language learning,
especially English grammar in the future.
Besides changes in teaching methodology, testing practices should be reconsidered
in accordance with the new communicative language teaching. Regarding to this matter,
Tran (2009) conducted a study in a Vietnamese school and pointed out that “testing
practices were still traditional, with emphasis on language and competence rather than
skills and performance.” Thus, the traditional testing left a negative backwash effect on
teaching practices, which resulted in language-based or test-oriented teaching practices,
not in a communicative approach as it was supposed to be. Unsurprisingly, the students
failed to achieve communicative language ability. As Tran (2009) emphasized that “we
are now in a communicative stage, a time when we emphasize evaluation of language use
rather than language form”, language testing should be modified towards a
communicative approach, and the traditional knowledge tests “must be replaced by the
performance tests, which show how well a student can use the language.”
As Le and Bernard (2009) agreed that “grammar should be an integral element of
second language programmes”, the centrality of grammar is still appreciated by many
teachers of English in Vietnam. However, it is suggested that teachers should employ an
approach which provides learners with discourse and contextualized situations. These
practices from teachers are indeed believed to help improve the learning process
particularly English grammar learning.
! 11

CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Ellis (1995) reviewed that “grammar teaching has traditionally consisted of giving
learners opportunities to produce specific grammatical structures.” However, Larsen-
Freeman (2003) emphasized that learners are able to use the structures when they are
provided with communicative situations. As a result, grammar teaching should be
incorporated with communicative approach, meaning that learners are provided grammar
knowledge in meaningful contexts and situations.
For achieving the goal of high quality in teaching and learning, teachers should
employ various approaches and methods in order to create dynamic and active learning
environments. For instance, teachers may apply games and activities to help enhance
learners’ activeness, motivation and engagement in the classroom. Since the importance
of communicative language teaching approach has been acknowledged by many
educators and researchers, teachers of English should keep in mind that providing
learners with a communicative classroom environment is significant to accomplish better
teaching and learning processes which aim at learners communicating properly in the
second language.
Besides, Nguyen and Le (2015) stated that “English teachers really need more
support and motivation to make a better effort” in order to achieve the goals desired.
Therefore, other further implications should be considered such as training for teachers,
redesigning the materials and courses, setting clear objectives and learning outcomes,
approving teachers’ decisions on specific teaching methodology, and implementing usual
evaluation and observation. Furthermore, the learning environment should be improved
so that learners are motivated and received adequate attention from teachers in order to
improve their language competence (Nguyen & Le, 2015).
! 12

REFERENCES

Braine, G. (2005). Teaching English to the world: history, curriculum and practice. New
Jersey.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1).
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language
teaching. TESOL quarterly (Alexandria, VA), 25.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching grammar.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York and
London: Praeger.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1).
Farrokhi, F. & Talabari, A. F. (2011). Focus on form instruction in EFL: implications for
theory and practice. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 53
(222).
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (1990). An introduction to language. Harcourt
Publishers Group. Australia.
Gardner, S. (2008). Changing approaches to teaching grammar. ELT Journal, 11.
Hoang, T. (1999), Learner's fondness for knowledge revisited? Giáo dục và Thời đại
(Education and Times Newspaper), 79.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds.).
Sociolinguistics. Harmonds worth, England: Penguin Books.
Khuong, T. H. C. (2015). Teaching English grammar communicatively: theories,
principles and implications in English teaching in Vietnam. International Journal
of English Language Teaching, 2(2).
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
! 13

Pergamon.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar: from grammar to grammaring.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: from grammar to grammaring. Boston:
Thomson-Heinle.
Le, T. S. (2011). Teaching English in Vietnam: Improving the Provision in the Private
Sector. Victoria University. Australia.
Le, V. C. & Barnard, R. (2009). A survey of Vietnamese EAP teacher’s beliefs about
grammar teaching. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In
K. de Bot, Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (Eds.). Foreign language research in cross
cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory, research, and practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mai, N. K. & Iwashita, N. (2012). A comparison of learners’ and teachers’ attitudes
toward communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam.
University of Sydney Papers in TESOL. Australia.
Ngo, T. T. T. (2009). Promoting discovery learning through implicit grammar
instruction: A measure to increase learner acquisition of English tenses. TESOL
Conference on English Language Teaching, 5.
Nguyen, V. X. (2004). English language teaching in Vietnam today: policy, practice and
constraints. English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing policies and
practices. Marshall Cavendish: Eastern Universities Press.
Nguyen, T. H. M. & Le, N. P. D. (2015). Teaching and learning in intensive English
classes at two primary schools in Ho Chi Minh city: reality and changes. Vietnam:
Seameo.
Nunan, L. S. (2005). Forgiving ourselves and forging ahead: teaching grammar in a new
! 14

millennium. English Journal, 94(4).

Poole, A. (2005). The kinds of forms learners attend to during focus on form instruction:
a description of an advanced ESL writing class. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3).
Seedhouse, P. (1997). Combining form and meaning. English Language Teaching
Journal, 51(4).
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2
classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15.
Terrell, T. D. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach.
Modern Language Journal, 75(1).
Terrell, T. D. (1997). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning.
Modern Language Journal, 61(197).
Thornbury, S. (1997). Grammar, power and bottled water. IATEFL Newsletter, 140.
Tomlinson, B. & Bao, D. (2004). The contributions of Vietnamese learners of English to
ELT methodology. Language Teaching Research, 8(2).
Tran, D. K. L. (2009). Can CLT be successful without a match between teaching and
testing practices? TESOL Conference on English Language Teaching, 5.
Weatherford, H. J. (1997). Issues in the teaching of grammar in a foreign language.
Conference on Language Teaching and the South Carolina Foreign Language
Teachers' Association (Myrtle Beach, SC, 197).
Wright, S. (2002). Language education and foreign relation in Vietnam. Mahwah, New
Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.