Teachers’ difficulties in teaching grammar
communicatively to social work students at
Vietnam Youth Institute

Võ Thị Mỹ Hạnh University of Languages and International Studies
M.A Thesis: English teaching methodolody, Code: 60 14 10
Supervisor : Dr. Dương Thị Nụ
Year of graduation: 2011

Abstract: This thesis deals with the teachers’ difficulties in applying CLT
in teaching grammar to the social work students at Vietnam Youth Institute.
It also points out the reasons leading to those difficulties and the solutions
to overcome them as well. A mixed methods research design was used for
this research. Participants for this study were 120 social work students and
four teachers of English at Vietnam Youth Institute. The main modes of
data collection consisted of questionnaire for both teachers and students and
interviews. The results show that the teachers confront various difficulties
in implementing CLT in their classrooms. These difficulties stem from four
directions, namely, the teacher, the students, the education system and CLT
itself. The teachers at VYI are not quite optimistic about the complete
adoption of CLT, and thus feel that only by overcoming the difficulties
form those sources, and by establishing more favorable conditions for the
implementation of CLT can teacher truly benefit from CLT in their English
classrooms.

Keywords: Ngữ pháp; Phương pháp giảng dạy; Tiếng Anh

Content

language teaching approaches. The next is about the CLT which includes the definition,
characteristics, and stages in teaching grammar communicatively. The final is some
factors to be considered of CLT application.
- Chapter 2 (THE STUDY): presents the study. Firstly, there is an overview on situation
of teaching and learning English grammar at Vietnam Youth Institute. Secondly, the
methodology is performed in the study. It provides subjects, the instruments and data
analysis process. Finally, the data collected from the survey questionnaire and interviews
is analyzed and discussed.
- Chapter 3 (FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS): reveals the major findings of
the study and presents the recommendations.
PART III (CONCLUSION): summarizes the study, gives conclusions and some
limitations during the process of doing the research as well as some suggestions for
further study. PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Definitions of grammar
Richards, Platt and Platt (1992: 161, Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &
Applied Linguistics) defines grammar as “a description of the structure of a language and
the way in which linguistic units as words and phrases are combined to produce sentences

realistic spoken speech but artificial connected sentences. The weakness of the method is
also stated in River (1983:34): “In the pure form of the DM, insufficiency is made for
systematic practice and requesting-practice of structures in a coherent sequence. As a
result, students often lack a clear idea of what they are trying to do, and they make
haphazard progress”.
1.3.3. The Audio-Lingual method (AM)
The first and most successful point of this method is to develop students’ listening
comprehension and fluency in speaking in the target language. Students are encouraged
by the sense of being able to use what they have learned in the very early days of their
study. In addition, the study is reinforced by repetition, so the students have good
repetition and this is suitable for learners of different abilities. Another point is that this
method provides a good systematic progression of the materials. However, there still
remain some problems. The success or failure of this method depends largely on the
qualities of the teachers and the availability of resources. That is why Brumfit (1983:8)
comments “the objective is generally the mastery of sentence patterns rather than creative
or communicative use of language”.
1.4. Application of CLT in grammar teaching
1.4.1. Communicative competence
Communicative competence is now recognized as the primary goal of language teaching.
Canale and Swain (1980) consider that communicative competence is made up of four
factors namely grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse
competence, and strategic competence. Grammatical competence includes a
comprehension of linguistic code, the ability to recognize the lexical, morphological,
syntactic and phonological features of a language and to manipulate these features to
form words and sentences. Sociolinguistic competence is the best described through
appropriateness, the degree to which one person understands the social context in which
language is used: the roles of participants, the information they share, the functions of
interaction. Discourse competence indicates the ability to interpret series of sentences or
utterances to form a meaningful whole and to achieve a coherent text that is relevant to a
given context. Strategic competence includes the strategies a person uses to compensate

Substitution Drills, Word Prompts, and Picture Prompts. The teacher tries to provide
maximum practice within controlled, but realistic and contextualized frameworks and to
build students’ confidence in using the new language.
5. The teacher provides students with opportunities to use new language in a freer,
more creative way. The teacher creates activities in which students can integrate new
language with the previous learnt language and apply what they have learnt to talk about
their real life activities.
1.5. Factors to be considered of CLT application
- Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes
- Teachers’ qualities and personalities
- Learners’ motivation
- Learners’ beliefs and attitudes
- Learners’ learning style
- Learners’ anxiety and confidence
- Classroom conditions
- Language environment
- Syllabuses and textbooks


copies were delivered and collected within 1 week.
2.2.2.1.2. Questionnaire for the teachers
The second questionnaire was designed for 4 teachers of English at VYI (see Appendix
2). It contains 10 closed and open ended questions in English. The questionnaire was
delivered to the teachers and collected within 1 week.
2.3.2. Interviews
Question 1: How often do you apply CLT in teaching English grammar?
Question 2: What difficulties have you experienced when CLT is
Question 3: What are your suggestions to overcome difficulties applying CLT to English
grammar lessons?
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS
3.1. The difficulties faced by the teachers at VYI in teaching grammar communicatively

It is evident that teachers should improve their authentic teaching materials initiatively
and creatively.
What is more, grammar should be presented in context in order to make clear the
relationship between grammatical forms and communication functions.
Mistake correction should be positive and effective.
+ Collecting mistakes made by the student and involving the whole class as much as
possible in the correction process.
+ Spending less time correcting what is only problem for one student and more time on
problems common to the whole group.
+ Helping students understand why they are wrong by indicating that a mistake has been
made (by gestures), showing the students where the mistake is and what kind of mistake
is (wrong tense, wrong-stressed word…), getting him/her try again if he/she can get it
right.
+ Not interrupting the student before he/ she finishes his/her utterances because he will
find it disconcerting or frustrating.
+ Trying not to repeat the mistakes, even in mocking and astonishing way.
Last but not least, the teachers should be trained and retrained in CLT.

PART III: CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the study has found out what are the students and teachers’ difficulties in
learning and teaching grammar communicatively. The study also reveals the
recommendations for overcoming these difficulties as well as having effective grammar
lessons. Obviously, when applying CLT to teach grammar, there is no ready-made recipe
for which techniques and activities can work best for which structure, but the primary

5. Brumfit, C. (1984), Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: the
Roles of Fluency and Accuracy, Cambridge University Press.
6. Canale, M and Swain, M. (1980), Approaches to Communicative Competence,
SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
7. Canale, M and Swain, M. (1993), Theoretical Basis of Communicative
Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing, Applied Linguistics, pp.3.
8. Celce- Murcia, M (1988), Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar,
Oxford University Press, pp.16.
9. Celce- Murcia, M (1992), Formal Grammar Instruction: An Educator Comment,
TESOL Quarterly 26,2,406, pp.5.
10. Doff, A. (1988). Teaching English: A training course for teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
11. Ellis, P. (1996), How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach, ELT
Journal.
12. Freeman, D. (1998), Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding.
Pacific Grove, CA: Heinle and Heinle.
13. Finocchiaro, Mary and Christopher Brumfit. (1983), The functional-notional
approach, Oxford University Press.
14. Fromkin, V et al. 1990, An Introduction to Language (2nd ed), Sydney: Holt,
Rinerhart & Winston, pp.12.
15. Hall, D and Hewings, A. (2001), Innovation in English Language Teaching: A
Reader, Routledge , pp. 150.
16. Harmer, J. (1988), Teaching and Learning Grammar, Longman, pp.1.
17. Harmer, J. (1991), The Practice of English Language Teaching, London:
Longman.
18. Hawkins, E. (1984), Awareness of Language: An Introduction, Cambridge
University Press, pp.150-1.
19. Jacop, R.A. (1993), English syntax-A grammar for English language
professionals, Oxford: OUP.
20. Johnson, K. (1981), Communication in the Classroom- applications and Methods

35. Tumposky, N. R. (1991). Student Beliefs about Language Learning: A Cross-
Cultural Study. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 8, 50 -65.
36. Woodward, T. (2001), How do people learn and so how can he teach: Planning
lessons and courses; Designing sequences of work for language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
37. Wilkins, D. A. (1972), The linguistic and situational content of the common core
in a unit/credit system. Ms. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
38. Wilkins, D.A. (1974), Linguistics in Language Teaching, London: Edward
Arnold.