V IE T N A M N A T IO N A L Ư N IVER S ITY-H A N O I
Ư NIVE R S ITY OF LAN GƯ AGES & IN T E R N A T IO N A L STUD IES
F A C U L T Y OF POST - GRADƯ ATE STU DIE S
i e i e i c i c k i c i e i c k i c i d e i d c i c i c k
Đ IN H T H Ị TH A N H V ÂN
•
THE EFFECT OF CONSCIO USNESS-RAISING
ACTIVITIES ON THE 10th GRADE STUDEN TS’
GRAM M ATICAL COM PETENCE
AT TRAN NHAT DUAT UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL
(Tác động của các hoạt động nâng cao nhận thức đối vói năng lực ngữ
phap của học sính lóp 10, trường T H P T Trần Nhật Duạt)
M .A . M IN O R PR O G RA M M E TH E S IS
Field : English Teaching Methodology
Code : 601410
Supervisor: Phạm Thị Hạnh, M .A .
ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRUNG TAM THÕNG TIN THƯ VIỆN
ữQ U 0004%
HANOI-2011
DECLARATION
I hereby State that the m lnor thesis entitled “The effect of consciousness-
raising activities on grade 10th students’ gram m atical competence at T ran Nhat D uat
U pper Secondary School” and subm itted in partial fulfiUment of the requirem ents for
the degree of M aster of A rts in English teaching methodology is the result of my own
research. The substance of the thesỉs has not, wholly o r in part, been subm itted for a
degree to any other universities o r institutions.
The research reported in this thesis was approved by Ms Pham Thi H anh,
M.A., Vietnam National University of Hanoi.
Hanoi, Septem ber, 2011
Đinh Thị T hanh Vân

observations; (c) a questionnaire aíìer applying CR and (d) a test. The results o f the study
reveal that (1) students had a positive attitude towards the necessity of English grammar
learning; (2) the tradỉtional methods were mainly used in this school and (3) CR activities
vvere effective on ỉmproving students' grammaticaỉ competence. As far as the study
suggests, it can be concluded that CR activities can be an effective tool for the
improvement of Engiish grammar teaching practices.
ABBREVIATIONS
MOET: Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training
CR: Consciousness-raising
CC: Communicative competence
GC: Grammatical competence
LC: Linguistic competence
CLT: Communicative language teaching
L2: Second language
L l: First language
SSLE: Second School Leaving Examination
TNDƯSS: Tran Nhat Duat ưpper Secondary School
T: teacher
Sts: students
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
D ECLA R A TIO N
i
K NO W LE DGE M E NTS ii
ABSTR ACT iii
LIST OF A BBR EV IA TIO NS iv
PA RT I. IN T R O DU CTIO N 1
1. Rationale for the study 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 3

2.8 S u m nia ry 29
C hap ter 3: THE PRACTICA L STUDY 30
3.1 Prelim inary investigation 30
3.1.1 Interviews 30
3.1.2 Class observations 32
3.2 In tervention 34
3.2.1 The design and aims ofC R activities 34
3.2.2 Procedures o f the CR lessons 34
3.3 E valu atio n 36
3 .3.1 Data presentation of the evaluation questionnaires 36
3 .3.2 Data presentation of the quizzes and the test 4 0
3.4 S um m ary 39
C hap ter 4: DISCUSSION O F TH E FIN D IN G S
40
4.1 Research question 1 40
4.2 Research question 2 40
4.3 Research question 3 41
PART III: CO NCL U SIO N 41
1. Conclusion 41
2. R ecom m endations 42
3. Lỉm itations of the study and suggestions for ĩu rth er study

43
4. Suggestions for the fu rth er stu dy
44
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
1
PA RT I: IN TR OD U CTIO N
1. R ationale of the study

2
progress in leaming the language and the quality o f English language. All the above-
mentioned ĩactors seem to be disadvantageous to teaching Engỉish, especially in
dcveloping students' communicative competence. In the context o f this school, teaching
grammar, therefore, should be done and needs to be done appropriately.
After twelve years o f teaching English in which five years by the new English
textbooks in this mountainous school, the researcher observed that the teachers and
leam ers there faced a number of difficulties not only in teaching and leaming the four
language skills but also in teaching and leaming grammar during the Language Focus
lessons, especially for grade 10' , the starter in upper secondary school program. The
researcher o f this study has always wondered how she should present grammar to be
effective beíore a preparation for a grammar period. Luckily, during the course as a post
graduate student at University of Languages and International Studies, she has been
considering the ‘consciousness-raising’ approach, which she subjectively thinks
appropriate to her school context. Consequently, she decided to do an action research on
applying consciousness-raising activities and investigating their effect on students’
grammatical competence with the hope to make a small contribution to improve the quality
o f teaching English grammar in a mountainous province. The research was entitled “The
effect of consciousness-raising activities on grade 10lh students’ grammatical competence
at Tran Nhat Duat Upper Secondary School”.
Overall, the researcher hopes that this study would provide a possible solution
to teaching gram mar in everyday classroom situation; thus, it vvould be helpíul to not
only the researcher herselĩ in making better teaching decisions in her classes but also
to the school adm inistrators and policy makers for íurther im provem ent o f English
teaching and learning.
2. Aims of the study
With the above-presented rationale, the aims o f the study are:
• To investigate attitudes towards grammar lessons o f mountainous stuđents who
are considered as weak grammatical competence, to find out their diíĩĩculties and their
desires in teaching and leaming grammar.

herself actually experienced traditional methods and saw their advantages on tests and
disadvantages on communication; she then tried the communicative methods vvith a lot of
difficulties in a mountainous school and deeply wanted to take some actions for
improvement. However, teaching of grammar is the most controversial and each teacher
has their own reasons to choose a suitable grammar teaching approach for their own
4
context. Thereíore, the activities which the researcher applied may be appreciated in this
context but unappreciated in others and the results need a reílective phase for action during
the next circle.
This study employed both qualitative and quantitative data collection Instruments
including interview, class observation, questionnaire and test.
Firstly, a review o f literature was conducted, critically examining the various
theoretical issues conceming communicative competence, grammatical competence, and
approaches on grammar teaching, especially consciousness- raising approach.
Secondly, an intervievv was conducted with some guided questions. The
interviewees were given the questions before for better preparation of ideas and thoughts.
Because the questions gathered information o f a rather diffícult topic to the students and it
involved a great recall of grammar teaching and leaming experiences, they obviously
needed time to prepare. The prepared questions also kept the intervievver as an
inexperienccd researcher ííom losing tract. Besides, students’ interviews were taken to
provide preliminary data on their thinking for the researcher to identify their difficulties
and their desires tovvard grammar teaching and leaming beíore CR activities were applied.
Furthermore, to identify once again the problem, class observation was etnployed
to investigate teaching approaches in grammar lessons and students’ ways of leaming in
class, and to compare betvveen what the students said and the fact. Three grammar lessons
taught by three different teachers were observed and then transcribed in details to identify
gaps betvveen what the students said in the intervievv and what actually happens in class.
The grade 10,h Language Focus lessons, not other lesson skills, were chosen because the
researcher prefers a real picture of grammar teaching and the grammar teaching cannot be
conducted carefully in any lesson, but only in Language Focus lessons.

1.1.1 Com municative competence
The íĩrst challenge with which the researcher has to be encountered is how to
detlne communicative competence. As far as her restricted knovvledge, the term was
originally coined by Hymes (1966), reacting against the perceived inadequacy of
Chomsky's (1965) linguistic competence with the distinction between
competence and
performance. For Chomsky, linguistic competence (LC) was deíĩned as the innate system
o f linguistic knowledge possessed by native speakers of a language. This is in contrast to
linguistic períbrmance which refers to the actual use of a language. According to Chomsky,
it is the 'ideal' language system that makes it possible for speakers to produce and
understand an iníìnite number of sentences in their language, and to distinguish
grammatical sentences from ungrammatical sentences. This is unaffected by
"grammatically irrelevant conditions" such as speech errors. LC includes components such
as phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics and morphology.
For Hymes, competence is integral to attitudes and values conceming language and
other codes of communication. Here is reíerence to "social factors" which he exempliíìes
as positive productive aspects of linguistic engagement in social life: “there are rules of use
without which rules of grammar vvould be useless” (Hymes, 1972). Hymes was interested
in what degree o f competence speaker/hearers needed in order to give themselves
membership of particular speech communities. Hymes examined what factors-particularly
socio-cultural ones in addition to "grammatical competence" are required for
speaker/hearers to participate in meaningful interactions. He asserted that a sentence must
not only be grammatically correct but it must be appropriate in reaction to the context in
which it is used as well. For Hymes, what an individual needs to know in order to be
communicatively competent in a speech community is to understand the rules of use,
7
vvhich determine “when to speak, when not, and as to talk about with whom, when, where,
in what manner” (Hymes, 1972, p. 277)
As much as there has already been much debate about linguistic competence (LC)
and communicative competence (CC) in the second and íòreign language teaching

previous views with prominent representative Noam Chomsky in which GC vvas
commonly given top priority.
In relatively simple terms, there has been a change of emphasis from presenting
languagc as a set of forms (grammatical, phonological, lexical) which have to be leamed
and practiced, to presenting language as a fùnctional system which is used to íulíill a range
of communicative purposes. This shift in emphasis has largely taken place as a result of
íairly convincing arguments, mainly from ethnographers and others who study language in
its context of use, that the ability to use a language should be described as
cc.
To conclude, communicative competence is a term in linguistics which refers to a
language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and the like, as
well as social knovvledge about “when, where and how to use language appropriately”
Díaz-Rico and Weed (2010, p. 58). The notion of cc intended by Hymes does not provide
any priorities for any does not need to have an accurate knovvledge of linguistic form or
usage, but rather claimed that the perfect knowledge of linguistic form is not enough to
make hiin/her a communicatively competent language user. WoIfson (1980) points out that
GC is an intrinsic part o f cc but in many cases, the term c c misinterpreted for language
teachers and curriculum developers as the separation o f GC from cc.
1.1.2. G ram m aỉical competence
It is necessary to determine the term grammar as well as grammatical competence
in vvhich the latter needs more emphasis. Grammar is known as a íìeld of linguistics that
involves all the various things that make up the rules of language. Subíĩelds of linguistics
that are considered a part of grammar include syntax, phonetics, morphology and
semantics. Grammar is also used as a term to the prescriptive rules of a given language,
vvhich may change over time or be open to debate.
Different linguists deíine grammar in different ways depending on their particular
field o f interest: A traditional grammarian might see grammar as the “part of speech”
together with a set o f rules goveming how they can 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 o f sentence pattems in which the words o f particular

In short, GC is not an opposite extreme of cc but it is an important part of cc. It is
the students’ ability to recognize the distinctive grammatical structures of a language and
then to use them to communicate effectively, accurately and íluently. However, to
motivate students successfully, it depends a lot in teacher’s methods. More importantly,
grammar needs to be taught in context. As Larsen-Freeman (2000) points out, we need to
pay attention to the three dimensions o f grammar: form, meaning and use. Simply teaching
10
grammar rules and/or having student memorize verb conjugations will not help students
acquire grammatical competence.
1.2 Methodology for teachỉng grammar
Methodology in language teaching has been characterized in a variety of ways.
Within methodology is a distinction often made between methods and approaches, in
which methods are held to be íixed teaching systems with prescribed techniques and
practices, and approaches are language teaching of different ways in the classroom.
Teachers may follow the same approach but use various methods to reach the íĩnish.
To make an analysis of grammar teaching methodology, let’s start the point with
Ellis (2002)’s questions: 1. Should we teacher grammar at all?
2. If we should teach grammar, how should we teach?
1.2.1. Pro and A nti - g ram m ar perspectives
To answer for the first question, it is simple “Yes” or “No” but the controversy is
not really simple. A lot o f linguists and researchers have supported grammar teaching. The
c c model o f Canale and Swain (1980) consists o f four components: grammar competence,
discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence, which clearly
illustrates the signiíìcance of grammar as one component o f c c . Smith (2001) also worries
that if we do not pay attention to grammar nor create opportunities for leamers to improve
their grammar, they are likely to stand the risk o f “fossilization”.
Rutheríord and Smith (1985) report that grammar teaching can be beneíìcial to
leamers in the sense that it raises leam ers’ consciousness conceming the differences and
similarities of LI and L2. Therefore, grammar teaching can be used as a “linguistic map”
with the road signs to help students as they explore the “topography” o f the new language.

acquiring through leaming, opposed to Krashen’s claim that leaming need not precede
acquisition.
Personally, I think it is important to teach grammar in secondary schools, especially
in Vietnamese settings because of these two reasons: Firstly, the English language
examinations that secondary students have to take have a lot of grammatical elements in
spite of the fact that these exams have been improved. Secondly, students are not leaming
English just for basic oral communication, motivated students will continue to study in the
universities for academic purposes.
1.2.2. The Evolution of Language Teaching Methodology
Linguists and those involving in language have seen a lot of exciting developments
in language teaching. Some have been at the level of syllabus design; others are concemed
12
vvith niethodology as we are seeing the growth o f new procedures and techniques, many of
which challcnge our traditional views o f what should happen in the classroom.
The history of language teaching methodology is the history of never-ending search
for effective teaching methods with different approaches, especially for grammar, a focal
point which has aroused a great deal of controversy among educational researchers,
linguists, methodologists and teachers. Opinions differ not only with reference to whether
or not to teach grammar, and if so, how to teach it. Language teaching methodology has
changed in approaches and so do methods o f grammar teaching. What follows is a brief
description of grammar is taught.
From a traditional point o f view, the goal should be to teach language from a
formal perspective. Since the mid to late 19th century, the dominant trend was a non-
communicative approach. With the Grammar Translation Method, grammar was taught
deductively, by studying grammar rules and translating from L2 to LI and vice verse.
Richards and Rodgers (1986) noted that it is a method without theory or without any
literature.
The Direct Method was introduced by the German educator Wihelm Vicktor in the
early 1800s as a reaction to the Grammar Translation Method, based on the belief that
language could best be taught by its vivid use in the classroom. There is no translation

are encouraged to reílect upon and discuss the way the target language operates” (Nunan,
1991, p. 233).
Another prominent method is Community Language Leaming vvhich was primarily
concemed with converting the classroom into a warm and supportive “community” in
which leamers were helped to move from complete dependence on the teacher to complete
autonomy. It is referred to as an aíĩectively-based method. For Brown (1994b): what is
íĩrst needed is for members to interact in an intemational relationship in which students
and teacher join together to facilitate leaming in a context of valuing and prizing each
individual in the group. Although it has been attacked for its non-directiveness, lack of
cohesion, its valued contributions assumes that leaming takes place best in an environment
of mutual trust, mutual support and cooperation between teacher and leamers and among
leamers themselves.
Other language teaching methods that iníluence a lot are The Silent Way,
Suggestopia, Total Physical Respond and Natural Approach. Each method has its own
advantages and disadvantages; the problem is that how teachers choose or combine
appropriated and relevant methods to the aims and objectives of their language course,
their leamers and their own teaching context.
14
CLT, which aims at íocusing on communicative proficiency by replicating
contextual features o f real communication in the classroom, has been the dominant
language teaching methodology emerged in the mid 1970s and 1980s. However, different
and even contradictory views emerged during the latter half of the twentieth century.
As Winddowson (1990) mentions “Knowing a language does not mean to
understanđ, speak, read or write sentences, it means to know how sentences are used to
communicate effect.” Since the purpose is to accept language as a tool for communication,
the teachers should tum this principle into action by using íiinctional syllabus in their
language class.
CLT is grounded on a theory o f language as communication. The goal of CLT is to
create a realistic context for language acquisition in the classroom in order to develop what
Hymes (1972) reĩerred to as “communicative competence”. His theory of c c o f what a

need to communicate. Knowing what is involved in putting sentences correctỉy is only one
part of what we niean by knowing a language, and it has very little value on its own: It has
to be supplemented by a knovvledge of what sentences count as in their normal use as a
mean of communication. Teacher’s role in CLT is supporting and assisting the students in
their production of acceptable responses rather than towards assessing and correcting.
Teacher should be alert to sense vvhen and where help is needed and what form it should
take. “I, the teacher, am here to help you, the leamers succeed and progress in your
leaming, not to judge, scold or make you feel inferior” (Ur, 1998). Leamers’ activation
depends on teacher’s organization. A well-designed grammatical activity should be based
on task that has clear objectives and entails active use of the structure being practice; and it
should maintain leamers’ interest and motivation through careful choice of topic, with
different kinds of suitable activities.
Unlike the traditional methods of leaming and teaching, in a CLT approach,
leamers are required to take part in a number of meaningíul activities with different tasks.
This is to improve leamers' cc by encouraging them to be a part of the lessons themselves.
Our students can use the foreign language to deíĩne, classify, generalize, promise, predict,
describe, and so on. They can aware of how the language is used for the particular kind of
communication they are concemed with, special the nature o f different communicative
acts, the way they are realized, the way they combine in diíĩerent varieties of language use.
This way can enable leamers to manage the new structures and develop their
communicative skills at the same time. However, the question is whether CLT is
appropriate to local contexts and cultures, and how it might be adapted and used by
teachers and leamers in relevant ways. Communicative needs are diversiíied in diíĩerent
16
settings or c c can mean different things for different groups of foreign language leamers.
One size doesn’t fit all. Canh (2000, p. 77) finds out:
‘Although Vietnamese teachers take a positive view of the communicative
approach to language teaching, they find it difficult to use this approach for their
pedagogical practice. There are various reasons for this constraint in using
communicative methods but the most important ones are the diữìculty in creating

17
traditional grammar based approaches. This rather static view can be challenged by a
different One considering the evolution of language teaching methođology through the past
decades: The claim that the teaching of grammar is a waste of time is thus to be seen as a
reaction to older approaches using extensive grammar drilling and consequently
Rutherford's CR stands for the pendulum svvinging back but taking into account more
recent findings of second language acquisition research as well as benefits of
communicative approaches.
It has to be pointed out, however, that grammatical CR cannot be considered
simply as a movement 'back to grammar’ because it is characterized by several important
differences to older approaches: First of all, it does not aim the production of the target
structure in the short term but íbcuses on long-term leaming objectives, accepting that at
the moment a structure is taught it may not be leamable for the leamer. Furthermore,
grammar does not have to be taught in the form of explicit rules, the leamer may also be
led to grammatical insights implicitly (this is not a new ideal but seems to have been
overlooked in strictly grammar-based approaches). Thirdly, the focus on meaning
introduced by the communicative movement is not abandoned and texts that have been
produced for communication are preferred over concocted examples (Willis & Willis,
1996). Reíerring to what has been said about the term CR in its everyday use meaning, one
might dare to say that grammatical CR postulates that 'the language is grammatical' rather
than 'the language is grammar'.
1.2.3.1 What isC R ?
Most authors using the tenrn 'grammatical consciousness-raising' rely on Rutheríord
(1987). CR is an important topic throughout Rutherford’s book, but interestingly he also
offers a strikingly brief (while very broad) explanation of the term in his glossary: "the
drawing o f the learner's attention to /eatures o f the target language" (my emphasis).
Hence the ĩunction of grammar CR is to highlight certain grammatical topics for the
leamer to develop his or her awareness of them for the moment he or she wil! be ready to
insert this specific feature into the developing L2 system, thus to acquire it. While a
considerable number of such topics can be handled by the leamers themselves, grammar

as far as possible those texts should have been produced for a communicative
purpose, not simply to illustrate íeatures of the language.
The requirement that leamers ‘utilize in te ỉỉe ctu a l
e ff o r t ’
to understand
the targeted íeature. There is a deliberate attempt to involve the leamer in
hypothesizing about the data and to encourage hypothesis testing.
(Original emphasis)
CR, then, can be seen as guided problem solving. Leamers are encouraged to
notice particular features of the language, to draw conclusions from what they notice and
to organize their view of language in the light of the conclusions they have drawn.