RESEARCH PROJECT 1

 

Student ID number U3016077

Student NAME PHAN CAM TU

Student first name CAM TU

Unit name Professional Projects in Language Teaching and Learning

Unit number 006154

Name of lecturer Dr. Yanyin Zhang 

Assignment name Research Paper

Topic Teaching grammar with CLT helps improving speaking accuracy

Word count 07 pages (excluding list of references and appendices)

Due date 15 July, 2008

You must keep a photocopy or electronic copy of your assignment.

Student declaration

I certify that the attached assignment is my own work. Material drawn from other sources has

been acknowledged according to unit-specific requirements for referencing.

Signature of student :

Date :15 July 2008

PHAN CAM TU

RESEARCH PROJECT 2

TEACHING GRAMMAR WITH CLT HELPS IMPROVING

SPEAKING ACCURACY

INTRODUCTION

In this part, firstly I will discuss the advantages of CLT and show reasons why I chose

it for my teaching approach in this study. Secondly, I will investigate the link between

teaching grammar by CLT and speaking accuracy improvements of my students. According

to Deriwianka (2001, pp. 244:262), totally there are five grammar teaching approaches

including traditional grammar, structural grammar, transformational generative grammar,

functional grammar and communicative language teaching (CLT). In the meanwhile, the

early four traditional approaches based heavily on learn by heart “a set of grammatical rules”.

That is, language was regarded as a static subject and its grammar was considered as an

object to be studied, not to communicate for daily use. Moreover, language learners must

study the Standard English, namely British English, and only grammar rules and patterns

mentioned in the descriptive books are correct (Huddleston and Pullum, 2005, pp. 4:5).

Generally speaking, the communication purposes were not emphasized on at that time, drill

and manipulation were made use of, errors were strictly controlled by teachers and creativity

was unnecessary.

On the contrary, the CLT focuses more on communication aim. That is, through

communication, language is learnt, not reverse, and its designed activities in classrooms

involved in real communication to promote speaking (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, pp. 155-

174). In addition, CLT considers that the grammar plays a role as a tool, not a subject to be

studied, in order to communicate confidently, effectively and competently. The role of

teachers is to encourage students to speak English without being afraid of errors. More

exactly speaking, teachers will correct them in a way that is more indirect and not all the

times, and the peer-correction is made use of. Moreover, teachers’ role is to try to connect

between grammar lessons and favorite topics inherent in practical situations (at the airport, in

the market).

Zhong (2001 p. 326) stated that grammar is a catalyst for accuracy and fluency in

speaking skill. By adducing the case of immigrants moving to English speaking countries,

they could speak English naturally, in terms of accent, as native speakers. Nevertheless, they

have not yet acquired the correct and perfect speech patterns. That is, they usually misused

RESEARCH PROJECT 3

the verb forms after modal auxiliaries (could, may + uninfected verbs), tenses and irregular

past participle form of verbs (bear bore born). Once they have learnt grammar, it gradually

helps them overcome these defects. Furthermore, for adult learners, the grammar “provides

rules and general guidance that facilitate better understanding of the structures of the target

language”. That is, the grammar enhances the development of linguistic competence of

language learners. They have been aware how a language structured and composed, how

about its classifications (nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.) and how to use it appropriately in

relation to specific contexts. From that, they know ways to use that of language more

accurately.

Coughlin (2006) showed that in order to speak accurately, language learners should

be equipped with the control capability of the grammar. The accuracy that Coughlin referred

to therein is a combination between content and form. That is, form or grammar used

correctly is a must, but not enough. The point is that it is inherent in particular situations

(formal vs. informal), relations (father and son) and power distance (teacher and students).

The teaching approach Coughlin discussed is CLT with some worthy note taking points.

Firstly, students are free of errors, that is, teachers should not correct them the whole time.

The self and peer corrections are taken advantage of. Secondly, with the learner center

approach, teachers sit back and give way to students. Students are engaged in the natural

interaction process and granted more opportunities to take stage or speak out.

Azar (2007) proposed the blending approach of the grammar teaching and

communicative methods. That is, the grammar is used as “a springboard for interactive and

communicative practice opportunities”. Language learners are required to be aware of and

understand English structures, in terms of form, meaning and use. These help them formulate

how and what to say accurately, meaningfully and appropriately and thus they will be more

successful in communication (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). In addition, the grammar mentioned

herein is attached to favorite topics to students and daily lives. That is, students find out the

link between the learning and life. They learn what they could implement right away.

In sum, according to the studies investigated so far, most of authors support the

connection between grammar teaching and speaking accuracy. However, in order to check

out whether it is correct as well in my own teaching situation or not, I carried out a project in

which my students were taught grammar by CLT approach. Depending on the practical

results, I will opt for or again the connection presumption.

RESEARCH PROJECT 4

HYPOTHESES

In this research, I tried to investigate the hypothesis one: there is a difference between

teaching grammar by CLT and speaking accuracy improvements. Teaching grammar by CLT

means that depending on the practical situations, I built up the key grammatical points to

teach my students. In turn, right after learning them, my students could apply them by

practicing with disposal situations in the classroom. That is, they were taught the grammar

rules first and then implemented them in the contexts of being at a restaurant, hotel and

tourist destination.

In order to measure their advance in speaking accuracy, I majorly based on their

grammar usage. This means that in the wake of the treatment, they have to utilize English

grammar in more appropriate and accurate way than before. They must strictly obey the

grammar rules on sentence level such as tenses (present/past/future

simple/perfect/continuous), subject-verb agreement (e.g. she/he has vs. I/they have),

adverbial usage (adjective + ly: beautifully) and passive voice. Moreover, on the text level

they ought to express their ability to link ideas in a clear-cut and cohesive way. That is, they

use either the cohesive and coherent devices or conjunctions (therefore, on the contrary,

firstly…, secondly…, lastly…) to help listeners catch up easily with their idea flows or

without recourse to them, but still ensure to express their ideas in the clearest way. On this

level, they also were supposed to be use correctly references (he/she/it/they,

his/hers/its/theirs, this/these/that/those) and lexical cohesion (indefinite articles: a/an vs.

definite article: the).

METHODS

The subjects that this study mainly aims to are 20 students taking part of the treatment

process.

This research project was divided into three major stages including preliminary stage

with pre-test, data analysis 1 and treatment 1, on-going stage with post-test 1, data analysis 2

and treatment 2, and final stage with post-test 3 and data analysis 3.

RESEARCH PROJECT 5

In the preliminary stage, the data collection procedure consists of the pre-testing, data

analysis 1 and grouping, and teaching process or treatment 1. Firstly, 70 students in two

classes (35 students per class) participated in the oral test. There were 20 questions and

students cast lots to choose their question to answer (see the Appendix 1).

Secondly, recourse to the marking criteria (see the Appendix 2) I marked these two

classes. The criteria hinged on the text and sentence levels as discussed earlier. That is, on the

sentence level, the students were assessed their tense, subject-verb agreement, adverb and

passive voice usages. On the text level, I evaluated their conjunction, reference and lexical

cohesion usages. Based on their results, I grouped 20 students with equivalent levels in one

class and named as the experimental group. The others in another class regarded as the

control group. The experiment group received the treatments and the control group was

taught as usual. In general, both groups have the same mean or average mark of 4.95, min

mark of 4 and max mark of 6 (see the Appendix 3).

Thirdly, with respect to the teaching process for the experimental group, I classified

that of 20 students into four sub-groups in advance and taught the grammatical points adhered

to the practical situations. That is, after students learnt the grammar rules, they applied them

right away in the classroom. More specifically, on the first teaching day, students learnt how

to ask for information with the model sentences such as “Do you have…?” And “Would you

like…?”. They then implemented them in the restaurant context through role-play activities.

Each group had 15 minutes and there were two groups joined these activities on each day (see

the Appendix 4). In each group, some students were in charge of guest role and others cast as

waiters and waitresses. Each topic last in two consecutive days; in other words, there were

two parts for each topic. On the next days, the topic was the communication at a hotel, and its

procedure is the same. That is to say, some students played role as new-coming guests and

others as receptionists.

After having a week off, students moved to the on-going stage including the post-test

1, data analysis 2 and the treatment 2. Firstly, they took the oral test with the similar format

as the pre-test. In order to make sure of the consistency and validity of the tests, analyses and

evaluations, I utilized the same questions for both tests and marking criteria for assessment.

RESEARCH PROJECT 6

Secondly, based on the results of the post-test 1, I realized that there was a

diversification among these groups. This means that the experimental group, which enjoyed

the treatment, had higher mean or average mark of 5.15 as compared to the control group,

which received no treatment, had 5.05. In addition, the max mark of the experimental group

is 7 in comparison with 6 of the control group. This tendency was in favor of the previous

hypotheses that the teaching grammar with CLT actually helps students improve their

speaking accuracy. However, I am sure that I should wait until the final results revealed to

come to a holistic conclusion.

Thirdly, in the treatment 2, its topics consisted of the communication at a tourist

destination and group presentations. The first topic process was alike as the two topics above.

As for the group presentation, students felt free to choose either play role activity at a

restaurant or hotel or a speech with visual aids at a tourist destination. For example, if they

chose the situation at a restaurant, they had to build up real activities happening regularly in

there with the presence of waiters, waitresses and customers. All members in a group had to

speak out or no one can hide himself. If they chose to be at a tourist destination, they had to

include the introduction, body and conclusion parts in their speech. The introduction briefly

mentioned the special features at the tourist spot. The body expanded what introduced. The

conclusion summarized what discussed. The group leader divided tasks for each member.

Two were in charge of the introduction and conclusion parts and three left managed the body.

Each group had 15 minutes to complete their presentation and then it was time for the

question and answer section and the feedback of mine.

The final stage embraced the post-test 2 and data analysis 3. Firstly, students, as usual,

took the oral test. Lastly, relying on its results, I reached to my general conclusions of the

study. According to the calculation of SPSS software, the mean or average grade in post-test

2 of the experimental group (5.45) was higher than in control group (5.45) as the tendency of

the post-test 1. In the broad view, the experimental group always enjoyed the better and

higher marks than the control group. As for experimental group, from the mark of 4 at the

initial stage, its grade surged to 9 at the final stage and there was no grade of under 5.

RESEARCH PROJECT 7

FINDINGS

Based on the literature review and the results of my study, in fact the teaching

grammar with CLT helps improving the speaking accuracy of my students. Generally

speaking, in the experiment group, after the treatment process, in both sentence and text

levels of the grammar, the students used grammar more appropriately. The confusion among

tenses was reduced significantly. Previously, they misused simple present and simple past

and even messed them up. They turned from past sentences into present sentences

spontaneously; as a result, listeners did not understand what speakers meant. They also used

incorrect irregular verbs and conjunctions. They added “–ed” after any verb to turn it into

past, even the word “understand”. As for the cohesive and coherent devices, in order to add

more information, they should use “in addition/moreover/furthermore”; they used “however”,

instead. After the treatment, they know how to use language in more polite, appropriate and

clearer way. They used “Would you like/please…” in replacement for the phrase “Do you

want/need…”. Most of the previous grammatical errors that my students made, according to

my observation, day-by-day have been decreased. Their speaking skill, namely accuracy, has

been improved significantly.

DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION

My study one more time concretes over the contribution of grammar towards the

speaking accuracy of language learners. In the previous time, at my university, grammar was

supposed to assist the writing skill only. At the present time this project proved that grammar

plays an important role in speaking improvement as well. One point that is more salient is

that it negated the myth “grammar is boring”. Actually, whilst compounding between

grammar teaching and CLT approach, from my point of view, students were so eager to learn

and participated enthusiastically in class activities. The topics I chose to teach in the

treatment process were familiar with their subject (English for tourism). Students did not feel

overloaded with many grammatical rules to remember because I composed only key points to

teach. Most of the time in the class, students took the stage. That is, they implemented what

they have learnt immediately and remembered the rules right in the class. My roles in class

were to give feedback and remind of focused points (if they were out of track). My students

were immersed in the communicative environment. Definitely, at the first time, some

students felt uncomfortable with the new teaching method. They were acquainted with the

RESEARCH PROJECT 8

traditional one in which some students represented the whole group to present. The others

stayed behind these backs and enjoyed marks. I talked with a few students about this and they

admitted two half of them never spoke in the speaking units. That is, some outstanding

students dominated the classes and the others did not want or did not have opportunities to

speak. With the new teaching method, everyone had to speak or could not hide. Once they

spoke and were parts of the class, the teacher and other students knew their pros and cons to

help them. These students tried their best as well to catch up with the others. As a result, all

of them moved forward and their speaking skill has been better and better. In sum, with the

interesting topics, I attracted the students’ attention and with the key grammatical points, the

students learnt them at ease. Once they had an interest in learning grammar and not been

afraid of speaking, the speaking accuracy aim has been within the reach.

As always, any coin has two sides. My project could not cover all of the things

influencing the speaking accuracy of students. Firstly, not all students could learn grammar.

Some students learn the next lesson and forget the previous one. They said that these rules

messed up in their mind and they could not link among these grammatical rules. Secondly, it

is the inborn timid and unconfident characteristics of each person. That is, they possessed a

solid background of grammar; yet, they felt uncomfortable when speaking in front of people.

In other words, face to face with a crowded class, their face turned red and they kept silence

at all times. It is imperfect as I could not mention all in this project. I hope in the later ones, I

could return to this interesting topic to analyze it into root.

CONCLUSION

The teaching grammar with CLT improved speaking accuracy of language learners,

indeed. Recourse to the CLT approach, the students were attracted into the class activities. By

learning key grammar points, they gradually improved their speaking accuracy. However, the

memory ability and innate characteristics also decide the speaking advance of language

learners. These points will be analyzed in the next studies.

RESEARCH PROJECT 9

REFERENCES

Azar, B. (2007). Grammar-Based Teaching: A Practitioner’s Perspective. Retrieved on 09

July 2008 from

http://tesl-ej.org/ej42/a1.html

Coughlin, M. (2006). Teaching Speaking & Conversation. Retrieved on 09 July 2008 from

http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/teaching-speaking-conversation.html

Deriwianka, B. (2001). Pedagogical Grammers: Their Role In English Language Teaching

(Ch.15). In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analyzing English In A Global Context (pp. 240-

269). London: Routledge.

Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G.K. (2005). Introduction (Ch. 1). In A Student’s Introduction To

English Grammar (pp. 1-10). Retrieved February 12, 2007 from Cambridge University Press

website.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Grammar and Its Teaching: Challenging the Myths. Retrieved

on 09 July 2008 from

http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/larsen01.html

Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Zhong, G. G. (2001). Second Language Learning And The Teaching Of Grammar. Education,

vol. 122, issue 2, p. 326.

RESEARCH PROJECT 10

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: ORAL TEST QUESTIONS

1) What do you think about the advantages and disadvantages of Vietnam tourism

when it became an official member of WTO since 2007?

2) Mention the weak and strong points of Vietnam tourism in recent years and your

recommendations to fix its drawbacks.

3) Suggest your measures to reserve Vietnamese cultures and natural beauty in the

wave of the globalization in tourism.

4) What do Vietnamese people gain and lost from tourism industry?

5) What are the morality and ethics of a tour guide?

6) If you have a chance to guide your guests to visit only one ideal tourist destination

in Vietnam, which one will you choose? Give us your authentic and critical reasons

to support your response.

7) Tell us reasons why you choose tour guide as your future career.

8) What are the most interesting and valuable lessons and experiences you have

learned or expect to learn and accumulate throughout the speaking unit?

9) What do you like and dislike the most in the speaking unit?

10) What are disadvantages that you face when leaving home at the times due to the

specialty of your job. How would you overcome them?

11) What have you learned from your trips?

12) How will you react before complaints of a customer in front of crowded people?

13) What will you do in the case of losing luggage of a guest in the airport?

14) What will you do if someone gets lost in a busy tourist destination?

15) What will you do if a tourist lost his/her passport in a foreign country?

16) What are the most important points will you remind your guests prior to a long

trip?

17) What will you do if your customers say that they do not get familiar with foods in

the nation whilst travelling?

18) What will you do if a baby gets sick along the journey?

19) What will you do if a local tour guide comes late to pick tourists up in the airport?

20) Tell me the procedure of check-in and check-out in a hotel?

RESEARCH PROJECT 11

APPENDIX 2: MARKING CRITERIA

Grade scale Title Marking Criteria

10 - 8 SUPERIOR

Use most of grammar rules correctly

Sentence level:

tenses

subject-verb agreement

adverbial usage

passive voice

text level:

conjunctions

references

lexical cohesion

Is able to describe topic in the most clear-cut way and develop supporting ideas logically

7 - 5 ADVANCED Use some of grammar rules correctly

Sentence level:

tenses

subject-verb agreement

adverbial usage

passive voice

text level:

conjunctions

references

lexical cohesion

Is able to describe topic in a clear-cut way

RESEARCH PROJECT 12

Grade scale Title Marking Criteria

and develop supporting ideas logically

RESEARCH PROJECT 13

4 - below LOW

Unable to use grammar rules

Sentence level:

tenses

subject-verb agreement

adverbial usage

passive voice

text level:

conjunctions

references

lexical cohesion

Unable to describe topic in a clear way

RESEARCH PROJECT 14

APPENDIX 3: RESULT ANALYSIS OF THE THREE TESTS

Pre-test Post-test 1 Post-test 2G11_G12 G21 G22 G31 G32

N Valid 20 20 20 20 20

Mean 4.95 5.05 5.15 5.45 6.35

Std. Error of Mean 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.30

Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00

Mode 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Std. Deviation 0.76 0.76 0.93 0.83 1.35

Variance 0.58 0.58 0.87 0.68 1.82

Range 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00

Minimum 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

Maximum 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 9.00

Sum 99.00 101.00 103.00 109.00 127.00

N.B.

Group 1: the control group

Group 2: the experimental group

G11Group 1 in the Pre-test

G12Group 2 in the Pre-test

G21Group 1 in the Post-test 1

G22Group 2 in the Post-test 1

G31Group 1 in the Post-test 2

RESEARCH PROJECT 15

G32Group 2 in the Post-test 2

RESEARCH PROJECT 16

Task Time Duration

Pre-test3 & 4 Mar 2 days Purpose

To sort out the equivalent level Ss

Format Oral test (refer to the Questions, see the Appendix 1)

Subjects 35 Ss x 2 classes

5'/student

Data analysis 15-8 Mar 4 days Purpose

To group the equivalent level Ss

Format Import pre-test results into SPSS software and it calculates and exports necessary data (see the Appendix 3)

Subjects 35 Ss x 2 classes

APPENDIX 4: DETAILED PROJECT PROCEDURE

RESEARCH PROJECT 17

Treatment process 1

10 Mar-7 Apr 4 teaching days Purpose

To test whether the grammar teaching with CLT improves speaking accuracy of Ss or not

1 day off Format Teach grammar with CLT

Subjects20 Ss of the experiment group

10-Mar 17-Mar

Topic/Theme

Communication in a restaurant (part 1)

Communication in a restaurant(part 2)

Teaching

Approach

Focus: Welcoming guests, taking orders for the starters, main course and drinks (15')

Teach grammatical points: Would you like…? Shall I…? Do you have a reservation? Are you ready to...? Implement grammar points taught above to

Focus: Dealing with orders for desserts and coffee; payment (15')

Teach grammatical points: Can I take your order for…? Would you like to…?

Implement grammar points taught above to

RESEARCH PROJECT 18

Greet the guest

Build a conversation

Ask, recommend and explain

Main dishes

Drinks

Recommend items on the menu

Explain the desserts

Ask and correct a mistake

Remark that language should be clear and polite.

Learning

Approach

Students practice by role play activities (waiter/waitress vs. customers) (15'/group x 2 groups = 30')

Students practice by role play activities (waiter/waitress vs. customers) (15'/group x 2 groups left = 30')

Pre-readin

gs

O’Hara, 2002, pp. 48-51 O’Hara, 2002, pp. 12:5

RESEARCH PROJECT 19

24-Mar 31-Mar 7-Apr

Topic/Theme

Communication at a hotel(part 1)

Communication at a hotel(part 2)

Tuition free

Teaching

Approach

Focus: Check-in: replying to the requests for rooms and welcoming the guests

Teach grammatical points: There is/are...

Apply grammar rules that have just been learnt to

Welcome

Check out reservation

Ask customers' room requirements

Check available rooms

Suggest rooms

Direct way and turn key

Focus: Check-out: dealing with payment, queries on the bill, and saying goodbye

Teach grammatical points: present perfect tense and past tense

Apply grammar rules that have just been learnt to

Ask about which services customers used

Answer customers' queries on the bill

Cross-check if there is a mistake

Payment (checque/cash)

RESEARCH PROJECT 20

Say goodbye

Learning

Approach

Students practise by role play activities (receptionist vs. guests) (15'/group x 2 groups = 30')

Students practise by role play activities (receptionist vs. guests) (15'/group x 2 groups left = 30')

Pre-readin

gs

O’Hara, 2002, pp. 64:7More readings: Stutts, 2001, pp. 56-84

Wagen, 1997, pp. 1-27

Post-test 1

14 & 15 Apr 2 days Purposes

Figure out progress of experimental group by comparing with control group's results

Find out and resolve possible problems provoked

Modify treatments if necessary

Format Oral test as the pre-test

RESEARCH PROJECT 21

Subjects 20 Ss x 2 classes

5-7'/student

Data analysis 2

16-19 Apr 4 days Purposes

Compare and assess results of both groups

Adjust treatments

Format Import post-test 1 results into SPSS software and it calculates and exports necessary data (see the Appendix 3)

SubjectsTwo groups (experimental and control)

Treatment process 2

21 Apr-19 May 4 teaching days Purposes

To test whether the teaching with CLT improves speaking accuracy of Ss or not

1 day off Format Teach grammar with CLT

Subjects 20 Ss of the experiment

RESEARCH PROJECT 22

group

RESEARCH PROJECT 23

21-Apr 28-Apr

Topic/Theme

Communication at a tourist destination (part 1)

Communication at a tourist destination (part 2)

Teaching

Approach

Focus: Guiding to a historical spot (15')

Teach grammatical points: simple past and past perfect

Apply grammar rules in the contexts of

Welcome

Overview of the destination/location

Introduction of its history

Developments in recent years

Farewell

Focus: Guiding to a modern spot (15')

Teach grammatical points: simple present, present continuous, present perfect and simple future

Apply grammar rules in the contexts of

Welcome

Overview of the destination/location

Introduction of spectacular points

Farewell

RESEARCH PROJECT 24

Learning

Approach

Students practise by role play activities (tour guide) (15'/group x 2 groups = 30')

Students practise by role play activities (tour guide) (15'/group x 2 groups left = 30')

Pre-readin

gs

Wagen, 1997, pp. 37-74 Be ready for group presentations

RESEARCH PROJECT 25

5-May 12-May 19-May

Topic/Theme

Presentation of Group 1 and 2 Presentation of Group 3 and 4

Tuition free

Teaching

Approach

Learning

Approach

Presentation of Groups 1 & 2: (3'/member x 5 members = 15") x 2 groups = 30'Questions & Answers and Feedback of the teacher (5')

Presentation of Groups 3 & 4: (3'/member x 5 members = 15") x 2 groups = 30'Questions & Answers and Feedback of the teacher (5')

Pre-readin

gs

Post-test 2

26 & 27 May 2 days Purposes

Compare and evaluate holistically two groups

Format Oral test as the pre-test

Subjects 20 Ss x 2 classes

RESEARCH PROJECT 26

5-7'/student

Data analysis 3

28-31 May 4 days Purposes

Generally investigate practical results of the two groups vis-a-vis the previous hypotheses

Format Import post-test 2 results into SPSS software and it calculates and exports necessary data (see the Appendix 3)

Subjects 20 Ss x 2 classes

N.B.

Ss: Students

' : minutes

RESEARCH PROJECT 27