A negotiated-interaction perspective on Vietnamese secondary school students’ text-based discourse within and beyond English language classrooms.docx

Dịch vụ viết thuê đề tài – KB Zalo/Tele 0917.193.864 – luanvantrust.com
1
Kham thảo miễn phí – Kết bạn Zalo/Tele mình 0917.193.864
DECLARATION
I declare that the thesis entitled “A negotiated-interaction perspective
on Vietnamese secondary school students’ text-based discourse within and
beyond English language classrooms” 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 universities or institutions.
Binh Duong, November 2017
Huynh Thi Hong Nhien

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to the people who have, in various
ways, contributed to the completion of this thesis. First and foremost, I would
like to give my most sincere thanks to Dr. Pham Huy Cuong, my supervisor,
not only for his responses to any of my questions but also for his encouragement
at any time of during my research journey.
I am grateful to the students and teachers at Phu An secondary school for
their participation in my research and their cooperation during my data
collection period.
Both academic and emotional support of these individuals have
contributed to shaping and improving the quality of my thesis as well as fueling
my endeavor to complete it; however, there are unavoidably remaining
weaknesses in this thesis, all of which belong to my responsibility, and all of
which I should learn from.

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................. 2
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 8
1.1. Settings for the present study.................................................................. 8
1.2. Research objectives ................................................................................ 9
1.3. Research questions...............................................................................10
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................12
2.1. Theorical framework ............................................................................12
2.2. Interactions............................................................................................13
2.3. Text messaging .....................................................................................14
2.3.1. Text- based CMC ...........................................................................14
2.3.2. Unique Affordances of Text-based CMC for Language Learning 15
2.4. Communicative Language Teaching: Principles and Characteristics ..16
2.5. Learning Activities in Light of CLT.....................................................20
2.6. Communicative Activities ....................................................................21
2.7. Role of Teacher and Learner in CLT....................................................22
2.8. Teaching English grammar to young learners......................................25
2.8.1. Characteristics of young learners...................................................25
2.8.2. Techniques to teach grammar to young learners ...........................26
2.9. Previous studies on teaching grammar to young learners ................27

4
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY...............................................................31
3.1. Research Design ...................................................................................31
3.2. Participants in the study........................................................................32
3.2.1. Participants.....................................................................................32
3.2.2. Data collection................................................................................32
3.2.2.1. Class observation.....................................................................32
3.2.2.2. Teacher interview ....................................................................32
3.2.2.3. Questionnaire to students.........................................................33
3.3. Data collection procedures ...................................................................33
3.3.1. Implementing class observation and teacher interview .................34
3.2.2. Conducting questionnaire for students...........................................35
3.4. Ethical considerations...........................................................................35
3.5. Data analysis.........................................................................................36
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................38
4.1. Findings and discussion........................................................................38
4.1.1. The results of teacher interview and questionnaire for students....38
4.1.1.1. Teachers’ responses on how English is taught in Vietnamese
Secondary school ..................................................................................39
4.1.1.2. Teachers’ responses on how English grammar should be taught
to Secondary school students................................................................39
4.1.1.2. Teachers’ response on methods and techniques......................39

5
4.1.1.3. Teachers’ responses on problems they often meet when teaching
grammar ................................................................................................39
4.1.1.4. Teachers’ responses on what they need to support their grammar
teaching.................................................................................................39
4.1.2. The results of class observation .....................................................39
4.1.2.1. Teachers’ using of traditional method in presentation stage...39
4.1.2.2. Teachers’ inappropriate mistake correction method ...............39
4.1.2.3. Teachers’ poor activities in practice and production stages....39
4.1.2.4. Teachers’ irregular recycling of learnt structures....................39
4.2. Suggestions on improving teachers’ grammar teaching in Phu An
Secondary school.........................................................................................39
4.2.1. Raising teachers’ awareness of teaching grammar in CLT ...........39
4.2.2. Improving teachers’ teaching methods ..........................................39
4.2.2.1. In presentation stage ................................................................39
4.2.2.3. In practice stage .......................................................................39
4.2.2.4. In production stage...................................................................39
4.2.2.5. The recycling of learnt structures ............................................39
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................40
5.1. Recapitulation.......................................................................................40
5.2. Conclusions...........................................................................................40
5.3. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further study...........Error!
Bookmark not defined.

6
REFERENCES..............................................................................................40
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................43
Appendix 1: A Model for Second Language Learning (Spolsky, 1989, p.28)43
Appendix 2: Questions for Teachers...............................................................44
Appendix 3.1: Transcript of teacher interviewError! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 3.2: Transcript of teacher interviewError! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 4: Students’ Belief of How Learning Should Take Place ..............48
Appendix 5: Students’ Belief about the Role of Teacher and Learner...........49
Appendix 6: Students’ Preference for English Learning Activities ...............50

7
ABSTRACT
. This thesis investigates text-message interactions between students
and students, teacher and students inside and outside English language
classrooms at Phu An secondary school. The findings of this study are based
on the survey results with sixty secondary students and nine teachers.
The survey method and collecting data from the participants will be
done in this study. This paper presents the new understanding of the role of text
messages interaction drawing on the English language classrooms, which
advocates to co-construct the learner’s self and cognitive development.

8
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introductory paragraph
1.1 The reserch problem
1.2 Rationale for the present study
1.3 Research objectives
1.4 Research questions
1.5 Significance of the study
1.6 Settings for the present study
1.7 Structure of the thesis
1.1. Settings for the present study
To determine the useful of text-based in language classroom. I make
research about a negotiated interaction perspective on Vietnamese secondary
school students’ text-based discourse within and beyond their language
classroom. I make research at Phu An seconday school. There are ninety-seven
teachers and forty-seven classes in the school. The total students are one
thousand and five hundred. This school is located in Phu An village, Ben Cat
Town, Binh Duong Province.
This is the largest school with the largest number of students in Ben Cat
town so I have variety selection about the participants and my research result
will be copious.

9
1.2. Research objectives
Advancements in communication technology have created opportunities
for foreign language learners to access more authentic communication than
those available within classrooms. The Internet helps people to communicate
or exchange information with each other across vast distances for minimal cost.
Computer-mediated communication tools (CMC) allow learners to practice
real-time sending and receiving messages online with their teachers, their
friends or native speakers of their target language. Text-based CMC has
received a lot of attention because logs of participant interactions can be
accessed easily. Log data has proved to be an invaluable resource providing
researchers with insights into learner interlanguage development.
This research explores the use of text-based communication which
impacts on literacy and the English language. There are many ways of text-
based interactions on the Internet such as Facebook, Zalo, Skype, Email that
students can use to send documentaries, discuss their exercises, share their
experiences to support their studies. In addition, students can submit their
exercises to teachers and receive their teachers’ feedback through such an
online environment. Text messaging is very popular among secondary students
and in their text messages ‘texters’ use a specific language which has a set of
features that make it different from the language of standard writing (Ling,
2005 ; Thurlow: 2003).

10
Many students use text messages to stay in touch with friends, relatives,
to discuss their homework and to set up weekend activities. Such informal
everyday use and exchange of text messages foster the development of texting
as a social practice associated with sets of values that influence students to use
texts in specific ways. Therefore, I decided to choose topic about text-based to
explore the influences of it on students’literacy ability Text-based discourse
resulting from interactions between teachers and students, and students and
their peers are significant for language use and development. The value of this
within the context of secondary school students learning English both inside
and outside of language classroom is therefore the main focu of the present
thesis.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and spelling aspects
in text messaging. In order to find out observable linguistic changes of SMS
texts, the ways in which the participants use language to construct their
messages, and the kind of orthography used in such messages. The study will
identify the advantages of text-based communication through the Internet.
1.3. Research questions
This study respond to the following research questions:
1 What features of negotiation do Vietnamese secondary school students
use in there text messaging in English?
2 How do students negotiate for meaning during text-based computer-
media comunication?

11
3 What’s effect of text-based on how students negotiate for meaning
through computer-media communication?

12
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theorical framework
The examination of text messages in this study is based on the New
Literacy Studies Theory (NLS) (Barton: 2007, Barton and Hamilton: 1998 and
Gee: 1996) which argues that reading and writing are more than decoding
letters and words but rather but human activities in context.
Many students use text messages to stay in touch with friends, relatives,
to discuss about homework and to set up weekend activities (America Online,
2005).Such informal everyday use and exchange of text messages fosters the
development of texting as a social practice associated with sets of values that
influence students to use texts in specific ways. which are considered a subset
of ‘literary practices’ within a social theory of literacy, or what is called the
New Literacy Studies Theory (Barton: 2007, Barton and Hamilton: 1998,
Street: 1993).
The NLS is relevant to the aims of this research because it brings together
aspects of people, texts, literacy events and literacy practices. The NLS enabled
the researcher to study how to use text messages as literary practices associated
with ‘cultural ways of utilising literacy’ and their ‘associated values, attitudes
,feelings and social relationships’(Barton andHamilton:2000,8).This paper is
specifically concerned with the impacts of text messages which is closely
related to text-making practices(Bazerman and Prior:2004).

13
2.2. Interactions
Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics defines the term negotiation
as follows:
(in conversation) what speakers do in order to achieve successful
communication. For conversation to progress naturally and for speakers to be
able to understand each other it may be necessary for them to:
(a) indicate that they understand or do not understand, or that they want
the conversation to continue [...]
(b) help each other to express ideas [...]
(c) make corrections when necessary to what is said or how it is said [...].
These aspects of the work which speakers do in order to make successful
conversations is known as negotiation from the perspective of discourse
analyssts (Richards et al. 1985: 190).
Scarcella and Higa (1981) also offer an insightful definition of negotiated
interaction, suggesting that “when participating in face-to-face interaction,
conversationalists cooperate to sustain the conversation and establish
understanding” (Goffman 1974). As Garfinkel (1967) points out, this is an
ongoing negotiation process. Here we describe it in terms of the "work"
involved in helping one another to communicate, for example, by jointly
expressing messages, filling in lapses in the conversation, indicating gaps in
understanding, and repairing communication breakdowns (Scarcella & Higa
1981: 410).

14
The above definitions have been useful in locating 'negotiated
interaction', in the data. Negotiation is an important element in language
learning . Negotiations seem to work better with lexical items (Gass & Torres,
2005) than grammatical areas that are more abstract and complex. Pica (1994)
summarizes that negotiation helps in making input comprehensible to learners,
help them modify their own output and provides more opportunities for the
learner to access L2 form and meaning.
The combination of both input and interaction in the classroom are
important tools for the acquisition of language both in adult and young learners.
Negotiated interaction allows for practice in the target language especially
when there is little opportunity for the learner to do this outside classroom
situations. Moreover, studies (Varonis & Gass, 1985; Pica, Young & Doughty,
1987) have shown that negotiation of meaning helps students notice gaps in
their language which enables them to work towards mutual understanding. The
act of negotiation is supposed to have a lasting effect on memory and research
has shown that negotiated interaction is especially beneficial for the acquisition
of vocabulary items, in particular concrete nouns.
2.3. Text messaging
2.3.1. Text- based CMC
Text-based CMC is an umbrella term including a host of technologies
that allow people send and receive text messages on different computers. These
technologies include Internet Relay Chat, Face book, Zalo, and email which

15
require users to connect via a server; network based programs that allow people
to communicate across a local computer network; instant messenger programs
allowing users to connect across the Internet in which people can meet online
and learner interactions in virtual online environments in which they can not
only chat but also change textual descriptions of rooms and objects. Text-based
CMC has several features that may make it an especially useful media for
language learning.
2.3.2. Unique Affordances of Text-based CMC for Language Learning
Researchers have argued that text-based SCMC has unique potential as
a language-learning tool. Features of text-based CMC that may be beneficial to
language learning such as the real-time nature of the communicative
interaction, the textual nature of output, and chat logs. Text-based allow people
to give quick replies to maintain the flow of conversation. Text-based CMC is
similar to spoken communication. Learners are forced to produce quick output
in order to maintain their interlocutor’s interest. Further more, language
learners need to modify their output in order to make interlocutor understand
them. Research has shown that communication via text-based CMC can result
in varied amounts of negotiation of meaning both between non-native speaker
and non-native speaker (Blake, 2000; Pellettieri, 2000; Smith, 2003, 2005) ,
native speaker and non native speaker (Iwasaki & Oliver,2003; Kötter, 2001,
2003, Lee, 2006; O’Rourke, 2005; Tudini, 2003). One consistent finding of
investigations of negotiation of meaning in text-based CMC is that lexical

16
negotiations are far more common than grammatical negotiations (Blake, 2000;
Lee, 2006; Pellettieri 2000; Tudini, 2003; Smith 2003), and negotiations focus
more on overall meaning than on structure (O’Rourke 2005).
2.4. Communicative Language Teaching: Principles and Characteristics
Communicative Language teaching (CLT) is resulted from a shift in the
way language is viewed. Accordingly, while language is still considered as
consisting of vocabulary, structures and rules with which, through learning,
learners can make grammatically correct sentences, it is not a static system of
interconnected units but social behaviour, which is used purposefully, and
always in context (Savignon, 1991, 2002). Its primary function is for interaction
and communication: people communicating with others to accomplish some
course of action. Therefore, language is said to be instrumental to
communicative functions such as making, expressing, exchanging and
negotiating meaning (Ma, 2009; Hu, 2002). The assumption is that there is
always interdependence between form and meaning, or between structural and
functional aspects of language within a language (Hu, 2002). Thus, knowing a
language means not solely knowing how to construct sentences in isolation, but
also knowing how to combine sentences into texts and to put texts in discourse
of the speech community in order to fulfil some task and meet some need. CLT
has made this one of its most characteristic features when “it pays systematic
attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language, combining
these into a more fully communicative view” (Littlewood, 1981, p.1, cited by

17
Dornyei, 2009). Moreover, it also puts more emphases on meaningful use than
on the form with the guiding principle that “accuracy and acquisition of the
formal features of the L2 [second language] are less a measure of successful
language learning than are fluency and an ability to get something across
comprehensibly to a native speaker” (Sanders, 1987, p.222, cited by Beale,
2002, p.19).
In order to communicate effectively in a language, people need to have
the following four aspects of abilities (Stern, 1983, cited by Ma, 2009):
+ The intuitive mastery of the forms of language
+ The intuitive mastery of the linguistic, cognitive, affective and social-
cultural meanings expressed by the language forms
+ The capacity to use the language with maximum attention to
communication and minimum attention to form
+ The creativity of language use
Hymes (1971 cited in Ma, 2009), while reacting to Chomsky‟s
conception of competence and performance, is concerned more with language
in the speech communities and in its integration with communication and
culture. To him, linguistic knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for successful communication. People also need to understand about
culture, through which they know how to interact in culturally acceptable ways
with others in different situations and relationships. He proposes an influential
theory of communicative competence.

18
Communicative competence is defined as “the ability to communicate in
a personally effective and socially appropriate manner” (Trenholm and Jensen,
1988, cited by Ma, 2009, p.41). Canale and Swain (1980) conceive it more
broadly by relating it with the con- cept of social behaviour: communicative
competence is the ability to interpret and enact appropriate social behaviours
which requires the active involvement of the learner in the production of the
target language. For this reason, communicative competence plays a not only
necessary but very important role in language proficiency. It is even identified
as “the most important linguistic ability”, which helps to “produce or
understand utterances which are not so much grammatical but, more important,
appropriate to context in which they are made” (Campbell and Wales, 1970,
p.247, cited by Canale and Swain, 1980, p.4, italics in original).
Communicative competence consists of four components, including
grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence,
and strategic competence (Ma, 2009; Canale and Swain, 1980; Latha and
Rajan, 2012; Beale, 2002; Richards, 2006). The grammatical (or linguistic)
component refers to the knowledge of lexis, syntax, morphology, phonology
and the like. It concerns the language users‟ understanding about how
phonemes are combined into words, how words come together to form phrases,
clauses or sentences, and how sentences are sounded with stresses and with
different into-nations. Briefly speaking, grammatical competence is the
cognition of linguistic rules, which enables people to create and understand

19
grammatically correct sentences.
Sociolinguistic competence implies knowing what is expected socially
and culturally by members of the speech community. This element transcends
its linguistic counter- part because with knowledge of language alone, people
cannot use language appropriately, and therefore, effectively. They need to
know about sociolinguistic rules, which stipulate, for example, what to say to
people of different statuses and different relationships in different
circumstances. This knowledge is also about how to response nonverbally in
particular ways basing on the purpose of the interaction. It enables people to
vary their use of language according to the setting and the participants.
Discourse competence is related to the logical meaning relationship
between sentences, that is to say, in a text or a discourse. It concerns the ways,
for instance, how sentences are grouped, with different discourse markers,
and rules of cohesion and coherence, in different discourse structures, in
meaningful ways to serve language users‟ purposes. These discourse principles
are also important clues for processing different types of texts, and perceiving
and comprehending the meaning that the conversational partners want to
convey.
Strategic competence is the knowledge of communication strategies that
people employ in interaction. It is, for example, “the ability to know how to
keep a conversation going, how to terminate the conversation, and how to
clear up communication breakdown as well as comprehension problems” (Ma,

20
2009, p.41). Basically, when people use communication strategies, they
manipulate their language to meet their communicative purpose. For this
reason, it can be said that this kind of understanding is the compensation for
the limita- tion in or reinforcement of people‟s understanding of linguistic,
sociolinguistic and discourse rules.
From the communicative competence perspective, learning a language is
to facilitate the integration of the four types of knowledge for learners (Canale
and Swain, 1980; Asassfeh et al., 2012; Richards, 2006; Savignon, 2002; Hu,
2002; Ma, 2009; Latha and Ra- jan, 2012), as dissected above.
2.5. Learning Activities in Light of CLT
CLT emphasizes “activities that involve real communication promote
learning” (Richards and Rogers, 1986, p.72). It requires that the input language
for teaching and learning must be “realistic samples of discourse use
surrounding native speaker and non-native speaker accomplishments of
targeted tasks” (Doughty and Long, 2003, p.61). On the other hand, since the
language classroom aims at preparing for learners‟ survival in the real world,
the relationship between classroom activities and real life is essential; therefore,
learning and use of language must be contextualised and must utilise authentic
materials, situations, activities, and tasks (Richards, 2006; Hu, 2002), through
active participation into which, learners are better prepared to function in real-
world communicative events. Furthermore, the input language must also be
rich, meaning that it is complex in terms of not only language but also quality,

21
quantity, variety, genuineness, and relevance.
In addition, since CLT activities are required to involve real
communication, they must promote cooperative and collaborative learning. As
pointed out by Vygotsky (1978), teacher‟s assistance and social interactions
play a crucial role helping learners reach a potential that exceeds their current
level of development; therefore, conversational interaction must be used as a
means of developing communicative competence, which relies on learners‟
own ability to interactively negotiate meaning with each other.
Norris et al. (1998, p.31) explain that:
the best way to learn and teach a language is through social interactions.
[. . . they] allow students to work toward a clear goal, share information and
opinions, negotiate meaning, get the interlocutor‟s help in comprehending
input, and receive feedback on their language production. In the process,
learners not only use their inter-language, but also modify it, which in turn
promotes acquisition.
Savignon (1991) shares this view and comments that communicative
tasks determine the opportunities for language use, for the interpretation,
expression, and negotiation of meaning.
2.6. Communicative Activities
By definition, communicative activities are those which focus on
practice in using language within a real communicative context, in which real
information is exchanged, and in which the language used is not totally

22
predictable (Richards, 2006). They have some of the following typical
characteristics (Richards, 2006, p.23):
 They seek to develop students‟ communicative competence through
linking grammatical development to the ability to communicate.
They create the need for communication, interaction, and negotiation of
meaning through the use of activities such as problem solving, information
sharing, and role play.
+ They provide opportunities for both inductive as well as deductive
learning of grammar.
 They make use of content that connects to students‟ lives and interests.
+ They allow students to personalise learning by applying what they have
learned to their own lives.
+ Classroom materials typically make use of authentic texts to create
interest and to provide valid models of language.
Examples of activities of this type are information-gap activities, jigsaw
activities, task-completion activities (puzzles, games, map-reading),
information-gathering activities (surveys, interviews, and searches), opinion-
sharing activities, information-transfer activities, reasoning-gap activities,
role plays.
2.7. Role of Teacher and Learner in CLT
It is widely accepted that changes in teacher‟s and learner‟s role are one
of the big- gest differences between traditional language teaching approaches

23
and CLT, which results from the type of classroom activities, i.e.
communicative activities, proposed in CLT, which are in turn led from the
emphasis in CLT on the processes of communication, rather than mastery of
language forms. For this reason, CLT is conceived to derive from “a set of
principles about the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language,
the kinds of classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of
teachers and learners in the classroom” (Richards, 2006, p.2, italics added).
Jacobs and Farrell (2003), cited by Richards (2006), see the shift toward CLT
as marking a paradigm shift in our thinking about teachers, learning, and
teaching.
Accordingly, language education with CLT is no longer a “banking”
system with bank-account-learners into which regular deposits (knowledge and
skills) are made to be drawn later for specific purposes like examination
(Choudhury, 2011), but “landscapes of practices” (Wenger, 2010, p.3), in
which learners have greater choice over their own learning, both in terms of
the content of learning as well as processes they might employ (Rich- ards,
2006). They can develop their own routes to language learning, progress at
different rates, and have different needs and motivations for language learning.
They are considered to be the centre of the learning process in which diversity
among learners is paid greater attention and viewed not as impediments to
learning but as resources to be recognized, ca- tered to, and appreciated.
Learning language with CLT, learners have to participate in classroom

24
activities which are based on a cooperative rather than individualistic approach
to learning. They have to become comfortable with listening to their peers in
group work or pair work tasks, rather than relying on the teacher for a model.
They are expected to take on a greater degree of responsibility for their own
learning (Richards, 2006).
On the other hand, teachers in CLT classroom no longer play a dominant
role in the classroom; they are not authorities, like the Titans or Atlas of Greek
mythology, who bear the burden of the whole class and learners‟ learning on
their shoulders. They are no longer viewed as the source of all knowledge (and
the model or exemplar of morality as in the case of Vietnam), who fill, through
teaching-as-modelling-and-explanation, receptacle learners with knowledge
(and virtue). The role of teachers in the CLT classroom is that of a facilitator,
who creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning and provides
opportunities for students to use and practice the language and to reflect on
language use and language learning. Rather than being models for correct
speech and writing and ones with the primary responsibility of making students
produce plenty of error-free sentences, teachers have to develop a different
view of learners‟ errors and of their own role in facili- tating language learning
(Richards, 2006). Besides, teachers can also play the role of an independent
participant within the learning-teaching group, a researcher and learner, or that
of an analyst, a counsellor, and a group process manager (Richards and
Rodgers, 1987).

25
For this reason, CLT has been considered to be a learner-centred
approach to language teaching; it takes into account learners‟ backgrounds,
language needs, and goals and allows learners some creativity and role in
instructional decisions (Canale and Swain, 1980; Beale, 2002).
2.8. Teaching English grammar to young learners
2.8.1. Characteristics of young learners
The study is carried out in a Secondary school whose students are from
11 to 14 years old. They are called, according to linguistics, young learners.
Slattery and Willis say that generally we can characterize
all young children by these characteristics.
They:
- are developing very quickly as individuals
- learn in variety of ways, by watching, listening, imitating, doing things
- are not able to understand grammatical rules and explanations about
language
- try to make sense of situations by making use of non-verbal clues
- talk in their mother tongue about what they understand and do – this
helps them learn
- can generally imitate the sounds they hear quite accurately and copy
the way adults speak
- are naturally curious
- love to play and use their imagination

26
- are comfortable with routines and enjoy repetition
- have quite a short attention span and so need variety (Slattery, Willis,
2006)
The above list includes psychological and perceptional factors which
affect students in this group when they learn any subjects. Having awareness
of these characteristics, teachers will be able to find the most suitable methods
for the students.
2.8.2. Techniques to teach grammar to young learners
Unlike adults, children are not self-motivated to learn English, their
world is their daily games, events of interest to them, and teachers should
capitalize their curiosity, the desire to play and explore. Teaching must be
planned in such a way that learning becomes an interesting, at times even
entertaining process. Developing such interest will lead children to a
spontaneous use of language forms. The teacher‟s participation in games and
activities helps children to overcome any inhibitions they may have. If we want
teaching to be successful we should consider the learners‟ interests and
motivations, because theywill paymore attention if theyare motivated.
In Teacher books of the series Tieng Anh 3, 4, 5 which are be used in
Vietnamese Secondary schools, the authors provided helpful recommendations
for teachers. “Young learners of English begin their English grammar learning
based on formulaic sequences and unanalyzed chunks of language met in
the context of dialogues, readings, chants, songs, rhymes, stories, and games.

27
Through activities, students develop a sense of achievement and gradually
transfer chunks to new contexts and use them creatively. One way to enable
students‟ language awareness is drawing their attention to specific language
pattern or features of grammatical forms and, if necessary, comparing or
contrasting these with other patterns and forms in Vietnamese. The appropriate
steps to be used to teach students are:
 Focusing students‟ attention on the new grammatical patterns in the
texts;
 Playing the recording for students to listen and follow in their books,
and asking them some questions to check their comprehension;
 Playing the recording again for students to listen the second time;
 Providing models for students to practice the new grammatical item in
a spoken or written activity, using the cued pictures or prompts in their books;
 Reinforcing the new grammatical item with a variety of spoken and
written activities.” (Teachers‟ book)
Indeed, teaching grammar to young learners is not an easy job. Teachers
need to use different techniques to teach structures without reducing students‟
happiness and comfortableness. In a limited time in class, much more pressure
will be put on teachers‟ shoulders if he/she reallywants their students
understand and use grammar well.
2.9. Previous studies on teaching grammar to young learners
While there have been many studies working teaching English

28
vocabulary in Secondary schools, numbers of studies, which also paid attention
to teaching grammar to young learners, have been introduced recently.
In 2009, a study named “Grammatical awareness among Secondary
school English language teachers” was launched in GEMA Online Journal of
Language Studies by Munir Shuib from School of Humanities, University
Sains Malaysia. In particular, the study examined the English language
teachers‟ nature and level of grammatical awareness. He emphasized that
teachers‟ low grammatical awareness can influence students‟ grammar
competency. The study had valuable findings; however, it did not paymuch
attention on teachers‟ methodologyin grammar teaching.
In 2011, a study named “Effectiveness of using games in teaching
grammar to young learners” was designed as a descriptive study with the aim
of exploring the beliefs and habits of Turkish EFL teachers‟ towards using
games in young learners‟ English classes. The author found that while Turkish
EFL teachers accepted the effectiveness of using games in grammar teaching,
they did not use games as frequently as expected in their classrooms. However,
the study only pointed out the problem without any particular solutions or
suggestions.
In 2012, Alexandra Povjakalová from Masaryk University in Brno
conducted the study named “Teaching Grammar to Young Learners using
Interactive Whiteboard”. The main aim of his work is to design teaching objects
for Interactive Whiteboard to teach English grammar in the 5th grade of

29
Secondary school and to find out how this technical tool helps learners in the
complex process of education. In this study, the author approved the use of
modern technology in today‟s schools, particularly Smart Board or Interactive
Board, which can raise students‟ motivation in learning grammar because he
found that grammar is still taught in standard way where students sit passively
working with their books and worksheets. 21 teaching objects including useful
activities were designed to provide teachers with available interesting lessons
to teach grammar in a new way. However, this can be said a kind of expensive
solution which is hard to apply widely in Vietnamese schools.
One more study which also investigated into teaching grammar
communicatively was implemented by Vuong Thi Hai Yen in 2008.
Although focusing on Ethnic Minority students at Ha Giang Medical Secondary
School, the research provided many valuable findings about the application of
CLT in teaching English grammar in Vietnam.
In the scope of this study, I conduct the research on real situation of
English grammar teaching of Secondary school teachers to students of grade 4
and grade 5. The study focuses on finding out problems in teachers‟
methodology and conception of teaching grammar in CLT. Finally, I am going
to suggest some teaching techniques which are effective and easy to apply in
Vietnamese Secondary schools in order to improve the situation.
Summary

30
In this chapter, an overview of grammar and grammar teaching is
considered. Useful techniques to teach grammar are also mentioned in detail.
Teacher, however, find it difficult to teach grammar to young learners because
of their insufficient development of psychology and perception. Therefore, to
improve the effectiveness of students‟ learning grammar, there is a need for
great effort from teachers. Teachers should adjust their way of teaching so that
it is not only easy to understand but also can motivate students to learn grammar
better.

31
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design
To enhance students’ English ability, we make research to explore the
advantages and disadvantages about text-based which students use within and
beyond their English language classes through the internet tool. We used semi-
structure interview and survey method to find out the influences of text-based
from the internet tool such as Zalo, Facebook, and Email and so on.
The survey method, semi-structure interivews and document analyses
were used in this study The survey contains questions about text-based. The
survey method obtain feedback from students about the influences of text-
based by internet tool to their English language classroom. The content of the
survey includes of fifteen questions based on impacts of text-based. The
questions’ answers are based on how the text-based impact to participants. The
survey forms is going to be distributed to ninety students at intensive English
class grade seven, eight, nine and six English teachers by the researcher. The
researcher will collect the data when participants complete all answers. The
data collected from the questionnaires is processed and analyzed using Excel
software.
The second method was used in this study is semi-structure interview.
Researcher randomly chooses five students from every grade and all English
teachers interview. All the answers are going to be copied and analyzed.

32
3.2. Participants in the study
3.2.1. Participants
Participants consisted of seven English teachers at the age 24 to 48 years
old and sixty seven students at an intensive English language class at Phu An
secondary school who ranged in age from 12 to 14 years old.
3.2.2. Data collection
To identify the problems, instruments were chosen. They are: Class
observation, Teacher interview, Questionnaire for students
3.2.2.1. Class observation
Each teacher had two periods of 45 minutes to be observed. I came to
class and recorded all activities of the lesson from the beginning to the end.
Simply, a camera was used in order to catch every important action and word.
The result of the observation will reveal real situation of grammar teaching in
the school.
3.2.2.2. Teacher interviews
Teachers were also interviewed with 6 questions about their awareness
toward grammar teaching in Secondary school. Question 1 explores teachers‟
knowledge of English teaching for young learners in Vietnamese in general. In
this question, teachers were asked about how English is taught in Secondary
school and what matter teachers should take into consideration while working
with children.Question 2 examines teachers‟ methodological knowledge when
asking about steps in teaching grammar basing on PPP model. The answers of

33
teachers will be used to compare with their real teaching. The next question
requires teachers to report main methods and techniques they are applying in
teaching grammar. The answers of question 4 and 5 reveals problems and
difficulties teachers often meet when teaching grammar to Secondary school
students. And the last question asked teachers to tell what they need to support
their grammar teaching.
3.2.2.3. Questionnaire to students
In order to examine the truth value of teachers‟ answer, a questionnaire
including 8 questions was designed for students in observed classes. They are
all multiple choice questions and written in Vietnamese so that students can
understand and answer them. The first two questions ask students about their
awareness of English learning. Question 3 explores teachers‟ use of fun
activities and games in class. The next 4 questions are the most important ones
because their answers will reflect the ways in which teachers often teach
grammar in the school. The last question asks about form of assessment of the
subject.
3.3. Data collection procedures
The researcher gives survey forms to the students at intensive English
language class and guides the students what they don’t understand. After an
hour, researcher will collect the data.

34
Researcher will invite seven English teachers to school on another day
and request them to complete the forms. All the survey forms from teachers
and students will be collected to process and analyze.
Researcher randomly chooses five students from every grade and all
English teachers to interview. Researcher has to record all the answers to
analyzed.
3.3.1. Implementing class observation and teacher interview
After deciding to study the teachers at Phu An Secondary school, I had a
formal meeting with them to present my intention. The aims and scope of the
study were also introduced. The most important thing is how to persuade them
to agree to be observed. The study was carried out at the end of the school year
when teachers and students were out of examination pressure. Moreover,
teachers were explained that the results of class observation and interview were
used for scientific purpose only, not related to their work at school.
The class observation was implemented first in order to get an honest
picture of teachers‟ grammar teaching. Teachers would teach normal lessons
in their normal ways. I sat at the last table in class and recorded all activities
of the lesson by a digital camera without any participation or interruption.
The interview was conducted after each teacher was observed 2 classes.
All the questions were about English teaching theory and teachers‟ real
experiences. At first, I tended to ask in English; however, the teacher wanted
to answer in Vietnamese because this would be easier for them to express

35
their ideas. Their answers which was used later to compare with their
teaching were recorded by a mobile phone.
3.2.2. Conducting questionnaire for students
The questionnaire for students was the last instrument to be conducted.
The chosen students were those who belonged to observed classes. As
predicted, a very carefully and thoroughly explanation was given in order to
make sure the young children all understand what to do and how to do. I
instructed students to answer question by question. After about 30 minutes, the
results were collected.
3.4. Ethical considerations
Researcher will meet the principle of Phu An secondary shool to request
him to conduct the research at this school. After receiving permission from the
principlal, researcher will meet students to exchange information and discuss
about the process. Researcher will ask English teachers for any help about the
survey and interview. Researcher will keep secret for the participants and hold
a small party to thank them.
The study utilised the systematic sampling frame; accordingly, the full
list of all students of the school was established, which included students‟ full
name and their class. In order to do this, the student name lists of all the classes
were collected in the form of computer files (Microsoft Excel). These
separated lists were then combined into one list, which was again sorted
alphabetically according to the students‟ names. As a critically important issue,

36
the research ethics was assured by observing the principles of confidentiality
and anonymity. No real name of the students was used in this thesis.
3.5. Data analysis
After collecting data from students and teachers, researcher will analyze
them and the information about advantages and disadantages about text-based
within and beyond their English language classroom.
To find out he answers for research questions, the collected data need to
be analyzed and evaluated carefully.
First, teachers‟ answers in the interview which were recorded by a
mobile phone were transcribed later. What they presented was compared with
theoretical knowledge and recent trend of teaching English in the country to
clarify their awareness of the subject. Moreover, their own opinions and
teaching habits were also shown clearly when answering different questions.
These points would be considered in order to see whether they were reflected
in their real teaching and how they influenced on their teaching. Besides, the
problems that teachers often meet when teaching grammar were studied to find
out the reasons and best solutions for those.
Second, the class observation results which are the most difficult things
to analyze were brought under the lights. Of course, not all aspects of the
teaching were necessarily worked on. However, I mostly focused on how
teacher taught students a new sentence pattern in each part of a PPP lesson,
including presentation, practice, and production. In the comparison with

37
theoretical background, teachers‟ weaknesses would be revealed. Furthermore,
I would consider the influence of teachers‟ teaching and students‟ learning to
figure out what is the real reason for all the problems.
Last, students‟ responses which were really honest were very important
to be concerned because these will be evidences to make sure what the teacher
said were trustworthy. The number of chosen answers would be presented by
percentage which was easier for the readers to imagine. Here, I would know
more about the real situation of grammar teaching and learning.
Summary
The methodology in which the study was carried out has just been
presented in this chapter. This is a case study with the 2 main participants who
were teachers at Phu An Secondary school. However, to clarify the problem,
three different instruments were used involving both teachers and students of
the school. The data was collected directly in classroom in several days. The
results which were analyzed thoroughly will be given in the next chapter with
further discussion.

38
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Findings and discussion
4.1.1. The results of teacher interview and questionnaire for students
The teacher interview and questionnaire for students aim at finding out
teachers‟ awareness of teaching English grammar to primary students. Being
asked 6 questions about English teaching in Vietnam in general and grammar
teaching in detail, the two teachers had some similar and also different answers.

39
4.1.1.1. Teachers’ responses on how English is taught in Vietnamese
Secondary school
4.1.1.2. Teachers’ responses on how English grammar should be taught to
Secondary school students
4.1.1.2. Teachers’ response on methods and techniques
4.1.1.3. Teachers’ responses on problems they often meet when teaching
grammar
4.1.1.4. Teachers’ responses on what they need to support their grammar
teaching
4.1.2. The results of class observation
4.1.2.1. Teachers’ using of traditional method in presentation stage
4.1.2.2. Teachers’ inappropriate mistake correction method
4.1.2.3. Teachers’ poor activities in practice and production stages
4.1.2.4. Teachers’ irregular recycling of learnt structures
4.2. Suggestions on improving teachers’ grammar teaching in Phu An
Secondary school
4.2.1. Raising teachers’ awareness of teaching grammar in CLT
4.2.2. Improving teachers’ teaching methods
4.2.2.1. In presentation stage
4.2.2.3. In practice stage
4.2.2.4. In production stage
4.2.2.5. The recycling of learnt structures

40
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1. Recapitulation
This paper was aimed at investigating real grammar teaching at Phu An
Secondary school. Aspiring to find out the reasons for the problem that young
students often meet difficulties in remembering and using English structures, I
conducted a case study with the assistance of three research instruments
including class observation, interview for teachers, and questionnaires for
students. The findings of the research reveal interesting facts about teachers‟
awareness and teaching methodology and result in doable suggestions on
improving grammar teaching in the school.
5.2 Theoretical implications
5.3 Methodological implications
5.4 Implications for language teaching
5.5 Limitations of the present study and directs for future research
5.6 Final words
REFERENCES
1. Bitchener, J. (2003). The value of negotiated interaction for learning
vocabulary. (Online)
2. Retrieved 15 May 2009, from de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation
and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the

41
receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 81-112.
3. Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language
Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102-120. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/laizhao/default.html
4. Collor, M., & Bellmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety
of English. In
5. S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic,
social and crosscultural perspectives (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
6. Long, M. H. (1996). Input, interaction and second language
acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. C Tagg (2009) - researchgate.net. A corpus linguistics study of SMS
text messaging R Ling, NS Baron - Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
2007 - jls.sagepub.com
Text messaging and IM linguistic comparison of American college data
H Hemmer - Journal of Undergraduate Research at ( 2014) -
cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu
Impact of text messaging on communication

42
C Wood, N Kemp, S Waldron, L Hart - Computers & Education( 2014)
– Elsevier.
Grammatical understanding, literacy and text messaging in school
children and undergraduate students: A concurrent analysis
C Thurlow, A Brown - Discourse analysis online,( 2003) - archive.is.
Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people's text-messaging
THV Tran – 2011. An Investigation into Linguistic Features of On-
line Chats in English and Vietnamese”
An Analysis of Language in University Students’ Text Messages L Ruan
- Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2012 - search.proquest.com.
Lexical Formation Rules and Chatting Language Online in English

43
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: A Model for Second Language Learning (Spolsky, 1989,
p.28)

44
Appendix 2: Questions for Teachers
1. How is English taught in Vietnamese Secondary school?
- What are the aims of teaching English for Secondary school students?
- What are the psychological matters that teachers should take into
consideration while teaching English to Secondary school students?
- What is teachers‟ role? What are students supposed to perfrom in
class?
- Should teachers teach English for Secondary school students in such
the way teaching for adult beginners?
- What skills should teachers pay more attention while teaching English
for Secondary school students?
2. How should grammar be taught for Secondary school students? In
presentation stage:
- Should teachers always introduce thestructures?
- Should teachers analyze all the sentence elements like S, V, O…?
- What should teacher explain to students? (usage, form, ..?) In practice
stage:
- What kinds of activities should teachers provide students?
- Should teachers use games to practice targetstructures?
- What should teacher do before, while and after students‟practice? In
production:
- What kinds of activities should teachers provide students?

45
- Are they different from activities of the practice stage?
- What is the teacher‟srole?
What methods and techniques are you applying in teaching grammar in
your classes?

46
3. Do you think your students understand well and remember all sentence
patterns you have taught them? Can they use the learnt sentence patterns well?
4. What difficulties you have encountered while teaching English
grammar to your students?
5. What do you need to support your grammar teaching?
- Teaching materials
- Teaching methods
- Others

47

48
Appendix 4: Students’ Belief of How Learning Should Take Place
Beliefs
Percenta
ge
SDA DA N A SA
The purpose of learning is to get good marks in exams
Learning is a hard and serious undertaking; it requires
students’ effort and patience; it is not an entertainment
activity
Learning is concerned with effort of individual
students, not involved with collaboration and
cooperation between students
Students should always avoid making mistakes in
learning
Teachers’ lectures are very important in students’
learning
In order for students to learn well, teachers have to give
clear explanation about grammar
In order to learn well, students need to spend a lot of
time memo- rising what they have learnt in lessons
Students learn better when learning takes place in the
class as a whole, not in groups
Students should maintain harmony with all of their
classmates
In the classroom, a student should not express his/her
opinions because in case of incorrectness he/she will be
laughed at by classmates
In the classroom, a student should not express his/her
opinions because their classmates may think that he/she
is boasting and not modest
In the classroom, a student should not debate with their
classmates; otherwise, they may be made ashamed
Students should not interrupt teacher’s lecture
In the classroom, students should not debate with the
teacher on the lecture
Students should only express their opinions when
allowed by the teacher
In class, students should not express their personal
opinions

49
Appendix 5: Students’ Belief about the Role of Teacher and Learner
Roles
Percenta
ge
SDA DA N A SA
The teacher has higher status than the student, and the
teacher- student relationship is the one of hierarchy.
Students must be respectful and polite to teachers.
One important role of the language teacher is to train
students to take initiative and responsibility for their
own learning.
Teachers must set an example for students in ethics
and life- style.
Teachers must have good expertise in order to be able
to answer all questions from students about
academic issues.
The most important role of the teacher in the
classroom is to impart knowledge to students.
Teachers are responsible for students’ learning and
academic performance.
Teachers have the right to decide what students learn
and how they learn in the classroom.
In the classroom, teachers are organisers and
controllers of all learning activities.
In the classroom, teachers are evaluators of students’
all activities and their performance.
If students make mistakes, it is the teacher, not other
students, who corrects these mistakes.
The most important task of students in lessons is
listening to teachers’ lecture.
In the classroom, students are the ones who decide
their academic program and are responsible for their
activities.
Students must self-monitor and self-assess their
progress in learning
Students are members of groups, and learning takes
place in interactive activities between students.
It is important for students to help each other to learn
in the classroom.
Teachers and textbooks are not the unique source of
knowledge; students can learn from their classmates
and from other available sources.

50
Appendix 6: Students’ Preference for English Learning Activities
Activities
Percenta
ge
SD
A
DA N A SA
Reading after the teacher loudly and correctly
Memorizing grammatical rules
Doing a lot of grammar exercises
Discussing with classmates in English
Speaking English a lot in lessons
Finding synonyms or antonyms for a word or sets
of words.
Doing filling-in exercises.
Doing a lot of vocabulary exercises
Making sentences with newly-learnt words to
remember their meanings and usage
Listening to the teacher speaking English to the
class
Role-playing a dialogue in the textbook
Reading a text and answering questions about it
Doing listening tasks with multiple-choice
question answering
Doing exercises to prepare for exams
Watching movies in English at home
Listening to TV programs in English at home
Reading funny stories in English on the internet
Discussing a particular issue with classmates in
English
Being error-corrected by the teacher in speaking
tasks
Listening to the teacher’s explanation in
Vietnamese about Eng- lish grammar
Translating a text into Vietnamese
Writing essays in English
Practicing English pronunciation basing on
recorded sounds

A negotiated-interaction perspective on Vietnamese secondary school students’ text-based discourse within and beyond English language classrooms.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a A negotiated-interaction perspective on Vietnamese secondary school students’ text-based discourse within and beyond English language classrooms.docx

Similar a A negotiated-interaction perspective on Vietnamese secondary school students’ text-based discourse within and beyond English language classrooms.docx (20)

Más de Dịch vụ viết thuê đề tài trọn gói 👍👍 Liên hệ Zalo/Tele: 0917.193.864

Más de Dịch vụ viết thuê đề tài trọn gói 👍👍 Liên hệ Zalo/Tele: 0917.193.864 (20)

Último

Último (20)

A negotiated-interaction perspective on Vietnamese secondary school students’ text-based discourse within and beyond English language classrooms.docx