MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Department of English Language and Literature

Grammar Translation Method and

Communicative Approach in Teaching English

Bachelor Thesis

Brno 2009

Author: Supervisor:

Gabriela Vašátová Mgr. Irena Hůlková

1
I declare that I worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed
in the bibliography. I agree with this bachelor thesis being deposited in the Library of the Faculty of
Education at the Masaryk University and being made available for study purposes.

Brno, 20 April 2009 Gabriela Vašátová

2
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Mgr. Irena Hůlková for her patience, kind guidance and valuable
professional advice.

3
 CONTENTS

page
Introduction …………………………………………………………………......…… 5
1. Grammar ……………………………………………………………………...….. 6
1.1 Attitudes to grammar …………………………………………………..…. 6
1.2 Case for and against grammar ……………………………………………. 7
2. Language teaching methods …………………………………………………….… 9
2.1 History of foreign language education…………………………………….. 9
2.2 Methods of teaching foreign languages………………………………….... 9
3. Grammar Translation method ………….................................................................. 13
3.1 History ......................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Method ......................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Criticism........................................................................................................ 14
4. Communicative language teaching ........................................................................... 16
4.1 History .......................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Method …………………………………................................................…. 16
4.3 Criticism ...................................................................................................... 17
5. Research ................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 18
5.2 Lesson plans ............................................................................................... 18
5.3 Questionnaire for pupils ............................................................................. 22
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 33
Resume .......................................................................................................................... 35
References ...................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix 1: Picture ....................................................................................................... 38
Appendix 2: Vocabulary List ......................................................................................... 39
Appendix 3: Text ............................................................................................................ 40
Appendix 4: Sample of Questionnaire ............................................................................ 41
Appendix 5: Sample of Completed Questionnaire .......................................................... 42

4
 Introduction

English has become the most spoken and written language worldwide and it has
become the language number one at our primary schools as well. The system of
teaching foreign languages at our schools has changed a lot. Nowadays, teachers can
choose their textbooks and other supplementary materials, they can also choose methods
or activities they want to use in their lessons. It is a big advantage but also a big
challenge. In my opinion, it is very difficult to find an approach suitable for all learners.
The aim of the present thesis is to compare grammar translation method and
communicative language teaching. I have chosen these two approaches because, in my
view, these are two main streams in language teaching nowadays. Although grammar
translation method is said to be outdone, it is still used very often at our schools. On the
other hand, communicative approach is highly recommended but not many teachers
really use it. In my opinion, it is very difficult to say which method or approach is the
best. Some activities might be suitable for one person and wrong for someone else. The
central factor in the choice of method is the learner and his or her needs. That is why I
decided to ask my pupils which method or approach they prefer.
For my experiment I decided to use grammar lessons, because I find grammar an
important tool for students to speak English with confidence. According to Leibnitz: “A
language is acquired through practice; it is merely perfected through grammar” (qtd in
Thornbury 2000: 25).
The theoretical part of this thesis is devoted to different attitudes to grammar and its
teaching. The second chapter is devoted to an overview of methods and approaches used
for teaching foreign languages. It contains the historical and theoretical background.
The main emphasis is placed on grammar translation method and communicative
language teaching.
In the practical part I intended to discover students’ point of view to these two
approaches. This part consists of two lesson plans; one is based on grammar translation
method and the second introduces communicative language teaching. After that students
and teachers evaluate the lessons using a questionnaire.

5
 1. Grammar

Grammar is an essential part of a language. Its correct usage is very important for
communication, because incorrect grammar structures can influence understanding.
Language teachers and language learners are often frustrated by the disconnect between
knowing the rules of grammar and being able to apply those rules automatically in
listening, speaking, reading and writing. It is important to know that grammar is not just
a dry list of a fixed set of word forms and rules of usage. According to Scrivener,
“grammar only makes any sense if you can use it” (Scrivener 2003: 1).

1.1 Attitudes to grammar

The question arising here is whether knowing grammar is important for the learner
or not. Generally speaking, at a very basic level, words on their own are often enough
for communication in the most common situations. However, when we need to express
more complex meaning, words may not be enough. Thus, grammar is essential if we
want to communicate more effectively and more precisely.
According to Thornbury the role of grammar is “a subject that everyone involved in
language teaching has an opinion on” (Thornbury 2000: 14). Subsequently, he points
out a number of statements on the subject:
 “There is no doubt that a knowledge – implicit or explicit – of grammatical rules
is essential for the mastery of a language.”
(Penny Ur, a teacher trainer, and author of Grammar Practice Activities)
 “The effects of grammar teaching ... appear to be peripheral and fragile.”
(Stephen Krashen, an influential, if controversial, applied linguist)
 “A sound knowledge of grammar is essential if pupils are going to use English
creatively.”
(Tom Hutchinson, a course book writer)
 “Grammar is not very important: The majority of languages have a very
complex grammar. English has little grammar and consequently it is not very
important to understand it.”
(From the publicity of a London language school)
 “Grammar is not the basic of language acquisition, and the balance of linguistic
research clearly invalidates any view to the contrary.”

6
 (Michael Lewis, a popular writer on teaching methods)”
(Thornbury 2000: 14, 15)
It is apparent that differences in attitude to the role of grammar are enormous.

1.2 Case for and against grammar

Thornbury gives many arguments in favour of grammar teaching and against it as
well. Let me mention some of them.
The case for grammar:
 The sentence-machine argument: Without grammar we cannot generate new
sentences. We can only use individual items such as words and phrases.
 The fine-tuning argument: Without knowing grammar we can do many errors
which can confuse the listener or, especially reader.
 The fossilisation argument: Learners without any formal study reach a point
beyond which it is very difficult to progress, thus their linguistic competence
fossilises. Research suggests that learners who receive no instruction seem to be
at risk of fossilising sooner than those who do receive instruction.
 The learner expectation argument: Many learners come to language classes with
precise expectations. They want to feel that the classes are efficient and
systematic. Thus, they demand grammar rules and instructions.
(Thornbury 2000: 15, 16, 17)
Finally, I would like to mention one more, very practical argument in favour of
teaching grammar. Many students are required to pass a standardized national or
international examination. A major component of such exam is grammar, which means
that students have to know and apply the rules of grammar if they want to be successful.
The case against grammar:
 The knowledge-how argument: Language learning can be viewed as a skill and
thus language should be learned by doing it, not by studying it. This concept is
called experiential learning.
 The communication argument: Knowing grammar is not the most important
thing. We have to know how to use the grammar to achieve communicative
goals, and how to do this in a socially appropriate way. This means that
communicating is much more important than learning grammar.

7
  The acquisition argument: We should distinguish between learning and
acquisition. Learning results from formal instructions, while acquisition is a
natural process when the learner is exposed to the contact with speakers of the
language. Learnt knowledge can never become acquired knowledge.
 The learner expectations argument: As mentioned above, there are many
learners who come to language classes in the expectation that they will be
studying grammar of the language. Nevertheless, there are many others who just
want to talk. This is the teacher’s job to respond sensitively to these
expectations.
(Thornbury 2000: 18, 19, 20)
Other interesting opinion on the phenomenon in dispute is that held by Celce-Murcia
and Hilles. They point out that it should also be borne in mind that students have
different learning strategies or styles. They use at least two distinct strategies –
analytical and holistic. Analytical learners form and test hypotheses. They need rules.
Holistic learners, on the other hand, learn by exposure to the language. They do little or
no analysis (Celce-Murcia & Hilles 1988: 5).
Celce-Murcia and Hilles subsequently discuss it in more detail. They claim that
learning strategies are affected by age and task type. Children seem to prefer a holistic
approach while the majority of adults switch to an analytical style (Celce-Murcia &
Hilles 1988: 5).
It is also known that some learners prefer visually-oriented grammar instructions
while others respond better to auditory input.
The discussion above has shown that the teacher should vary the approach in order to
accommodate all learning styles and encourage learners to use their eyes, their ears, and
as many of the other senses as possible.

8
 2. Language teaching methods

There are many methods of teaching language. Before investigating differences in

teaching methods, let me briefly explain the terms approach, method and technique. An
approach is the broadest term of the three. It is the theory of language teaching, but it
does not involve procedure or provide any details. A method is a plan for presenting the
language material. It gives the advice how to teach. A technique is a specific classroom
activity or device.

2.1 History of foreign language education

Generally speaking, the need to learn foreign languages is almost as old as human
history itself. However, modern language education started about 500 years ago. The
dominant language of education was Latin. It was claimed that its study developed
intellectual abilities and students were taught especially the grammatical aspects of
Classical Latin (“Language education” n.d.).
In the 18th century, modern languages started to be taught at European schools.
However, teachers used the same method, based on the purely academic study of Latin.
Students were required to memorise grammatical rules and translate abstract sentences.
As late as in the 19th and especially in the 20th century the linguists started to come
up with new principles and approaches. Older methods are rejected as newer ones are
invented and promoted as the only solution for foreign language students (“Language
education” n.d.).
Some of the methods are still used nowadays, while others had fallen into relative
obscurity.

2.2 Methods of teaching foreign languages

There are many methods that can be used in foreign language teaching. Let me
mention some of the most important ones.

Grammar Translation Method

The grammar translation method focuses on grammatical rules and their
memorisation. This method is discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

9
Direct Method
The direct method was established in Germany and France around 1900 as a reaction
to the grammar translation method in an attempt to integrate more use of the target
language. It is sometimes also called ‘natural method’, as it operates on the idea that the
second language must be learned as the first language – in a natural way. This method
places great stress on correct pronunciation. Grammar and translation should be
avoided. The learners are supposed to deduce the grammar rules from the example
provided by the teacher (“Language education” n.d.).
According to this method, printed language and texts must be forbidden to the
learners for as long as possible. This can be considered the disadvantage of this method.
When the learners are able to read why they should avoid the written text (Celce-Murcia
2001: 56).
The other disadvantage could be seen in the exclusive usage of the target language.
When explaining new vocabulary the teacher should not translate the word but must
explain or demonstrate it somehow, which can be sometimes very lengthy and hard to
understand for the learners (Celce-Murcia 2001: 58).
I am not a supporter of avoiding grammar at all, as I believe that at least the most
essential grammar rules ought to be taught and practised. I am not convinced that the
second language can be learnt as the mother tongue.

Series Method
The series method is a variety of the direct method. The father of this method,
Francois Gouin, suggested that “students learn a language more quickly and retain it
better if it is presented through a chronological sequence of events” (“Language
education” n.d.). Gouin found that if the series of sentences are shuffled, their
memorisation becomes nearly impossible. The learner must use the new concept
frequently after presentation, either by thinking or by speaking.
The biggest weakness of this method is that it is entirely based on one experience of
a three year old (“Language education” n.d.).

Audio-Lingual Method
The audio-lingual method was developed in the USA during World War II. They
needed people who were orally proficient in the languages of their allies and enemies

10
alike. The Army Specialized Training Program created intensive programs, where
students interacted intensively with native speakers in guided conversations. They
considered language as simply a form of behaviours, students have to stop thinking
about the language and its rules and instead start using it automatically. All grammar
rules are deduced (“Language education” n.d.).
This method was attacked by Noam Chomsky, who claimed that “language ability is
not habituated behaviour but an innate human capacity, prompted a reassessment of
drill-and-repeat type teaching practice” (Thornbury 2000: 21).
I admire the focus on communication, although I would not use audio-lingual
method as the primary method of instruction.

Silent Way
The silent way is a discovery learning approach. It is called the silent way because
the teacher is supposed to be silent. Students talk and explore the language in practice. It
was thought that it is in learner’s best interest to develop independence and autonomy
and cooperate with each other in solving language problems. The teacher’s role is to
monitor students’ progress, to choose relevant material, and to guide students to reveal
their own mistakes (Mora 2008).

Communicative language teaching

This approach focuses on all of the components of communicative competence,
because the language is seen as a means of communication. This approach will be dealt
with in Chapter 4.

Suggestopedia
Suggestopedia was developed by Lozanov, a Bulgarian psychotherapist. It is “a
teaching method which is based on a modern understanding of how the human brain
works and how we learn most effectively” (Welford 2005).
This method works with relaxation. Students must feel comfortable and confident.
The most important is the atmosphere in the classroom. This method is teacher-
controlled, but it does not mean that the teacher should act directive (“Language
education” n.d.).

11
 The most important feature is using music, especially classical music, such as
Beethoven or Mozart. It is used both in the background and as an accompaniment to
certain activities (Bowen 2008).
I have no experience with this method. I find it interesting and I agree that the stress-
free environment is very important and helpful. However, I cannot imagine teenagers
listening to Beethoven’s symphony during the English lesson.

Total Physical Response

This method was developed by James Asher, a professor of psychology. It combines
information and skills through the use of the kinaesthetic sensory system. It functions
on the same principle as when the children learn their mother tongue where they
respond physically to parental commands. The students are required to carry out the
instruction by physically performing the activities (Celce-Murcia 2001: 85).
This method, in my view, is intended mainly for beginner level, especially for
children.

12
 3. Grammar Translation Method

This method derived from the classical method of teaching Greek and Latin. It
requires students to translate whole texts word for word and memorise numerous
grammatical rules as well as enormous vocabulary lists.

3.1 History
The grammar translation method of foreign language teaching is one of the most
traditional methods, dating back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. At
that time, it was believed that the body and mind were separated and the mind consisted
of three parts: the will, emotions, and intellect. They supposed that if the intellect is
sharpened enough, it can control the will and emotions. It was believed that learning
classical literature of the Greeks and Romans, as well as mathematics, is necessary for
the development of mental discipline. In other words, the aim of teaching Latin and
Greek was not the learners’ ability to speak them. The aims were rather to develop
logical thinking and intellectual capacities, to have a generally educational and
civilizing effect and also to improve the standard of learners’ mother tongue.
The approach was later generalized to teaching modern languages (“Language
education” n.d., “The grammar translation method” n.d.).

3.2 Method
The major characteristic of the grammar translation method is the focus on learning
the rules of grammar and their application in translation from one language into the
other. The lessons are taught primarily in students’ mother tongue, with little active use
of the target language. Long explanations of grammar rules are provided. The
instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of words (Thuleen 1996).
Vocabulary is taught in the form of isolated word lists. Readings in the target
language are translated directly and then discussed in the native language. Disconnected
sentences are also translated very often as little attention is paid to the content of texts;
the texts are treated as exercises in grammatical analysis (“The grammar translation
method” n.d.).

13
 Very little attention is placed on pronunciation or any communicative aspects of the
language, which means that students have almost no chance to produce their own
sentences (“Language education” n.d., “The grammar translation method” n.d.).
Larsen-Freeman provides typical techniques associated with the grammar translation
method:
 translation of a literary passage (from target language to mother tongue)
 reading comprehension questions (finding information in a text)
 antonyms, synonyms (finding antonyms and synonyms for words or sets of
words)
 fill in the gaps (filling in gaps in sentences with new words or items of a
particular grammar)
 memorisation (memorising vocabulary lists or grammatical rules)
 use words in sentences (students create sentences to illustrate that they know the
meaning and use of new words)
(Larsen-Freeman 1986: 130).

3.3 Criticism
There have been various criticisms of the use of the grammar translation method for
the teaching of modern languages. Marks provides a few objections:
 Speaking and understanding are more important for learners of modern
languages than reading and writing. However, the grammar translation method
prefers written language to spoken language.
 This method uses a graded grammatical syllabus and learners must gradually
accumulate and accurate command of each item in the syllabus. This may be a
big disadvantage for learners who want to start using the language straight away.
 Learning through exposure, experience and use is preferred nowadays. But
grammar translation method uses conscious memorisation of grammar rules or
vocabulary instead.
 In grammar translation method the teacher and the learners speak mainly in their
mother tongue. But the last experience shows that the target language should be
used as much as possible.
 In the grammar translation method the teacher plays a very prominent role and
learners interact with the teacher, not with each other. Nowadays it is

14
 recommended that learners should make their own discoveries independently.
They should be able to co-operate as well.
 At present it is believed that translation, a basic technique in the grammar
translation method, is not the best way how to learn a new language. It is better
to think in that language instead.
 The grammar translation method insists on accuracy. However, nowadays it is
believed that fluency is more important.
(Marks 2008).
I personally agree that translation is not the best technique for teaching foreign
languages. Although it is sometimes the quickest way in which to explain some words,
foreign language learning is not a study of isolated words. Moreover, it is not always
possible to translate exactly because “not all languages have words for exactly the same
concepts” (Harmer 2001: 71).
Another big disadvantage of this method, from my point of view, is the passive role
of students. They have no chance to produce their own sentences and thus they are not
able to communicate in everyday situations. I also think that this passive role is not
enjoyable and motivating.

15
 4. Communicative Language Teaching

Communicative Language Teaching is usually characterized as a complex approach

to teaching, rather than as teaching method. Nowadays, it is probably the most
fashionable and recommendable approach, especially in Europe (“Language education”
n.d., Widdowson 1990: 160).

4.1 History
The Communicative Language Teaching could be said to be a reaction to audio-
lingual method and grammar translation method. The linguists felt that students did not
know how to communicate, they were not learning realistic language. This approach
was developed by Robert Langs in the early 1970s. It became quite popular and it has
been adapted to the elementary, middle, secondary, and past-secondary levels (“The
Communicative Approach in English as a Foreign Language Teaching” n.d., “What is
the Communicative Approach?” n.d.).

4.2 Method
As already mentioned, communicative language teaching is a broad approach to
teaching. Littlewood explains that “foreign language teaching must be concerned with
reality: with the reality of communication as it takes place outside the classroom and
with the reality of learners as they exist outside and inside the classroom. Because both
of these realities are so complex and poorly understood, nobody will ever produce a
definitive teaching methodology” (Littlewood 1991: 95). This means that we cannot
clearly define a set of classroom practices, but only some general principles or features.
Five basic features of communicative language teaching were listed by Nunan:
1. “An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target
language.
2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus not only on the language but
also on the learning process of itself.
4. An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important
contributing elements to classroom learning.

16
 5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside
the classroom” (qtd in “Language education” n.d.).
To sum up, communication language teaching helps learners to use the target
language as much as possible. The recommended amount of learners’ mother tongue in
classroom is about 5% of a lesson. This approach places great emphasis on helping
learners create meaning rather than helping them develop perfectly grammatical
structures (“Language education” n.d.).
In the classroom pair work and group work it is very common as it requires
cooperation between learners. It is very important to develop students’ confidence and
thus the teacher should use a lot of fluency-based activities. The most common
classroom activities used in this approach are role play, interviews, information gap,
games, pair work, learning by teaching or surveys (“Language education” n.d.).
The communicative methodology is a learner-centred approach to language learning.
It does not mean that there is no role played by the teacher in this approach. On the
contrary, a highly competent and imaginative teacher is a major requirement for the
successful application of the approach (Majid Al-Humaidi 2007).
Very important are the materials used in the classroom. They have to be authentic
and relate to pupils’ own lives, otherwise it cannot be interesting and motivating. Errors
are a natural part of learning language. Constant correction is unnecessary and even
counter-productive (“Communicative approach” n.d.).

4.3 Criticism
Communicative language teaching is considered the best approach nowadays, so it is
rarely criticized. However, Brown warns that there are certain caveats. He claims that a
teacher should not overdo certain features of this approach, they have to combine it with
common sense and balance the approach moderately. Brown further claims that teachers
need to be aware that there are numerous interpretations of communicative language
teaching. It is intended as an umbrella term covering a variety of methods (“The
Communicative Language Teaching Approach” n.d.).
There is no doubt that communication is the key ability of person in today’s world.
In my opinion, the communicative approach should be the basis but teachers can also
employ other methods and approaches.

17
 5. Research

5.1 Introduction
It is said that nowadays the best, and also the most common, method is
communicative language teaching. Even so, I think that grammar translation method is
still used very often. I myself try to avoid using this method, although it is sometimes
very difficult. I try to teach my students to communicate in English and I speak to them
in English quite often. On the other hand, I also use Czech, especially while explaining
grammar, and from time to time we also do a bit of translation from English into Czech.
Using grammar translation method is also very quick when checking pupils’ knowledge
of vocabulary.
In this part of my thesis I will present how I applied the two approaches (i.e. the
grammar translation method and the communicative approach) and with what effect.
The aim of my experiment was to find out pupils’ opinion on these two approaches.
For purposes of this thesis I created two groups of pupils in the eighth class of
primary school. Both groups consisted of 16 persons of similar age and their English
was approximately at the same level. One group was taught by me and the other one by
my colleague, who helped me with this experiment. Both groups were exposed to both
methods so that they could compare them and choose what they liked more. For this
purpose I prepared a questionnaire for pupils.

5.2 Lesson plans

The first lesson was based on the grammar translation method. It was mostly
grounded on Angličtina pro jazykové školy written by Zábojová, Peprník and
Nangonová in 1981. I believe that this textbook is a great representative of grammar
translation method.
In the second lesson I used communicative language teaching. Activities in this
lesson were taken from Project 2 by Hutchinson (1999) and from the book Teaching
grammar by Scrivener (2003).

18
Lesson plan A
Date: 9th March 2009
Class: 8th class
Number of pupils: 30 (divided into two groups)
Length of lesson: 45 minutes
Materials: text and exercises from Angličtina pro jazykové školy, cards with activities,
board, chalk
Aims: to explain and practise Infinitive of purpose

Warmer:
Pupils look at the picture (Appendix 1) and say where the Prokops are (at the theatre).
Ask pupils a few additional questions, e.g. Do you like going to the theatre? When did
you last go to the theatre? What did you see?
Reading:
Pupils look at a bilingual vocabulary list (Appendix 2). Read the words. Pupils repeat
them aloud. Focus on the correct pronunciation.
Pupils take turns to read the text (Appendix 3) aloud and translate it.
Then test pupils’ memory. Call a word in Czech, pupils translate into English.
Grammar presentation:
Write a sentence with Infinitive of purpose on the board (e.g. He stayed at home to look
after her). Explain the grammar. Highlight that the subject must be the same.
Pupils try to find other sentences with Infinitive of purpose in their text. Write them on
the board. Tell pupils to repeat all the sentences, drill the pronunciation.
Practice:
Exercise 1: Ask pupils questions and show the activity on the card. Students answer
using Infinitive of purpose.
Example: T: Why did Mr. Prokop stay at home? (to look after his wife)
S: He stayed at home to look after his wife.
1. Why did Mr. Prokop hurry with his homework? (finish it as soon as possible)
2. Why did Mr. Holub phone? (ask about their homework)
3. Why will Jack go to the department store? (buy a new suit)
4. Why did Michael borrow that book? (read it again)
5. Why did that man turn round? (look at that pretty girl)
6. Why will Susan go to the office? (meet Jack)

19
7. Why did Mr. Prokop get up early? (water the flowers)
8. Why did Mr. Holub come? (discuss the homework)
Exercise 2: Join the sentences.
Example: We stayed at home. We wanted to watch TV.
We stayed at home so as to watch TV.
1. He goes to his cottage every week. He wants to be far away from the noise of the
town.
2. These students always use a dictionary. They want to make fewer mistakes.
3. He’s waiting for us. He doesn’t want to miss us.
4. He drives slowly. He doesn’t want to have an accident.
5. We do our shopping in the morning. We want to spend less time on it.
Exercise 3: Translate
1. Četl to pomalu, aby tomu lépe rozuměl.
2. Dal si to do tašky, aby to neztratil.
3. Vzal si jen padesát korun, aby nemohla utratit příliš mnoho peněz.
4. Vyjel brzy ráno, aby nemusel pospíchat.
5. Šel rychle, aby nepřišel do kina pozdě.

Lesson evaluation:
The warmer activity was not very encouraging, as not many pupils go to the theatre
regularly. That is why pupils did not have much to say. On the other hand, they liked
the text and new vocabulary and I felt it a pity we had little to practise it more.
While presenting the grammar rule pupils seemed to understand it well, but later they
had problems to create correct sentences. They used a given pattern and they did it
automatically without thinking about the meaning and thus they made mistakes.
Translation exercise was quite difficult for them, they wanted to translate sentences
word by word. After a few tries they usually resigned, because they were afraid of
making another mistake.
At the end of the lesson I could see that pupils were very tired.

20
Lesson plan B:
Date: 11th March 2009
Class: 8th class
Number of pupils: 30 (divided into two groups)
Length of lesson: 45 minutes
Materials: board, chalk
Aims: to teach and practise will in spontaneous offer of help and promises

Warmer:
Ask someone when they last went to a party. Say: Did you help? What did you do?
Brainstorm a few ideas. Write the ideas on the board, e.g. do the shopping, bring some
CDs, arrange the furniture, put some drinks and glasses on a table, make some
sandwiches, clear up, send the invitation.
Grammar presentation:
Write two short dialogues on the board:
A: It won’t be much of a party without a DJ.
B: I’ll do it.
A: I’d like a glass of lemonade.
B: OK. I’ll get it for you.
Check pupils understanding of offer. Explain in Czech if necessary.
Pupils read the two exchanges and underline the offers.
Ask pupils what ’ll stands for (will), and tell them that the short form ’ll is usually used
instead of will in offers.
Practice:
Exercise 1: Pupils use their ideas from the warmer and make offers beginning I’ll ...
Exercise 2: Write a preparation grid on the board and ask pupils to copy it.
Role A/B
Who are you?
Who are you talking to?
Where are you?
What are you talking about?
Divide the class into pairs – one person taking role A, the other role B. They should
write their roles in the grid, for example:

21
Role A Role B
Who are you? : A friend with no bag Who are you? : A friend
Who are you talking to? : A friend Who are you talking to? : A friend
with no bag
Ask the class to help you fill in the other boxes. Write it on the board and ask the
learners to copy them, for example:
Where are you? : At school
What are you talking about? : Friend’s problem – no books, pens, food, sweater, etc.
Tell the pairs that they should now have a conversation between the two people. The
first friend will say the problem he/she has, the other friend will offer to help.
When they have finished get feedback on what they talked about.
Use the preparation grid again. This time one person will role play an old person with
heavy bags at a station, the other person is a tourist. Let them choose who is who and
fill in the preparation grid. Pupils try this new conversation.
Pupils can think of another situation where someone makes offers.

Lesson evaluation:
The main aim of the lesson was to teach and practise new grammar using the
communicative approach. The biggest surprise for the pupils was that I did not use any
Czech. From the beginning they were a bit confused and some of them did not
understand although I tried to explain it in many ways. The others, on the other hand,
realized that they are able to understand and react and they seemed to be very pleased
and they started to use English more naturally, without stress and anxiety about
mistakes.
The grammar presentation was clear, pupils were able to elicit the grammar rule
from the example.
For practising I chose role play because I find it one of the most typical activities for
communicative language teaching. From the beginning the pupils were afraid to say
anything and I had to provide a few examples. Afterwards they started to be more active
and creative and they enjoyed the activity.

5.3 Questionnaire for pupils

Pupils were asked to fill in the questionnaire after each lesson. The questionnaire
consisted of five closed ended questions, where students were asked to choose from the

22
scale, and two open ended questions, where I expected pupils’ own evaluation of the
lesson. After the second lesson I added one more question where I asked pupils to
compare the two lessons. The questionnaire was in Czech, as I did not want to stress the
pupils, especially when answering the open ended questions.

1. Did you understand what you were taught?

strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree
GTM 9 17 3 1
CLT 12 10 6 2

If we look at these numbers we can see that more pupils who strongly agreed with
this statement were taught communicatively. On the other hand, other columns show
that grammar translation method was probably clearer for the pupils. I think that it was
by virtue of the exclusive usage of English in the communicative approach. Those
pupils who understood what was said identified the lesson clear, while the others
preferred the grammar translation method.

2. Was the new grammar pattern practised enough?

strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree
GTM 17 12 1 0
CLT 12 14 3 1

23
 From the chart and the graph it stands to reason that pupils considered the grammar
pattern practised enough in both cases. It shows that although grammar is not of great
importance in communicative approach, it can be practised fairly well.

3. Are you able to use the new grammar pattern in real life?
strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree
GTM 2 9 16 3
CLT 7 10 8 5

24
 The results in this question confirmed my expectations which I had before
conducting this research. In the lesson based on the grammar translation method pupils
used a given pattern automatically while creating their sentences and they felt that
without the pattern they are not able to use it. In the second lesson, by contrast, we
simulated real situations and thus pupils felt more confident.
Another possible reason for these results is that pupils found the grammar taught in
the first lesson (infinitive of purpose) more difficult than the grammar from the second
lesson (‘will’ for offer).

4. Was the lesson interesting for you?

strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree
GTM 11 8 9 2
CLT 13 8 5 4

It can be said that the communicative lesson was more interesting for the pupils,
although I expected more obvious results. I supposed that using real situations should be
interesting for the pupils. I think that the results were again affected by the exclusive
usage of English during the second lesson.
I find these results very important because an interesting lesson might be one of the
biggest motivating factors. Only motivated learners are willing to invest effort in
learning activities and thus to progress.

25
5. Was the lesson enjoyable for you?
strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree
GTM 6 9 9 6
CLT 8 6 8 8

From the chart and the graph we can see that it is very difficult to prepare a lesson
enjoyable for everyone.
In case of the grammar translation method it can be said that pupils considered the
lesson ordinary, as the majority of pupils were somewhere in the middle of the scale.
In case of the communicative approach there were pupils who enjoyed the lesson
very much and, by contrast, those who did not enjoy it at all. These results are not
surprising for me. During my teaching I have already realized that when we do some
unusual activities there are people who like it very much and others who hate it. I think
that it is a normal reaction to something new. There are people who welcome new
things and enjoy them and there are also people who are a bit sceptical and reject all
new ideas.

26
6. What did you like?
grammar translation method
reading text 11
learning new grammar 2
exercises 1
learning new vocabulary 1
no opinion 15

communicative language teaching

having conversation 2
working in pairs 2
lesson in English 1
it was fun 1
no writing 1
no opinion 23

27
 It is important to say that not all the pupils answered this question hence the results
are very tentative.
In the lesson based on grammar translation method the most favourite activity was
reading the text. It was quite surprising because the text was about going to the theatre
and I supposed that children were not interesting in theatres. The topic was probably not
too important. Pupils may like reading in English because they can speak English
without any effort or anxiety about mistakes.
The other three reasons were less important, only two pupils chose learning new
grammar and doing exercises and learning new vocabulary was mentioned only once.
As regards the communicative lesson, the difference between the obtained points
was not so high. Two of them enjoyed having conversation and other two working in
pairs. These are main features of communicative approach.
Only one pupil appreciated using English during the whole lesson, which was not
surprising for me. While teaching the lesson I felt that they were not satisfied with it.
I liked the last two arguments. Pupils stated that they liked the lesson because it was
fun and they did not have to write anything.

28
7. What did you dislike?
grammar translation method
learning new grammar 4
reading text 1
learning new vocabulary 1
not enough exercises 1
translation 1
no opinion 22

communicative language teaching

lesson in English 10
it was boring 2
having conversation 1
no opinion 17

29
 This question was not answered by all the pupils either.
The only argument which was introduced more than once (four times) was learning
new grammar. It was not clear from the questionnaire if they did not like the particular
grammar or if they did not like learning grammar at all.
The other four reasons (reading text, learning new vocabulary, little exercising,
translation) were important only for one pupil each.
As I presupposed, in case of the communicative approach the biggest problem was
the exclusive use of English language. The majority (57%) of pupils who answered this
question were dissatisfied with no Czech in the lesson.
Two pupils considered the lesson boring and one person did not like having the
conversation.

30
8. Which lesson was better?
GTM CLT no opinion
pupils 13 11 6

After finishing the second lesson I asked pupils to compare the two lessons. I
wanted to know which one they preferred and why. Six pupils were not able to decide
which lesson they liked more.
Thirteen pupils (nine boys and four girls) found the lesson based on the grammar
translation method better. The most frequent reasons were:
 he/she understood it better
 it was more interesting
 the teacher used Czech while explaining something important
 he/she liked reading the text
Eleven pupils (seven boys and four girls) preferred the second lesson based on the
communicative language teaching. This fact can be quite surprising. In my view, it was
caused mainly by the superiority of the English language. Pupils are accustomed to
basic commands in English but grammar or some more complex commands are usually
explained in Czech.
The most frequent arguments in favour of using communicative language teaching
during the lesson were:
 they worked in pairs, groups
 it was interesting
 they used English a lot
 it was fun
31
  they used English communicatively
6. Conclusion

In this part I would like to summarize the goals I set at the beginning and review
whether they were achieved or not.
The aim of my thesis was to compare grammar translation method and
communicative language teaching. The main focus was placed on pupils’ attitude to
these two approaches. For this purpose I prepared two grammar lessons, each based on
one of these approaches.
In the theoretical part I attempted to find a place for grammar in foreign language
teaching. I summarized different attitudes to this issue. Although there are some voices
that grammar is not very important, I support its essential position in the English
teaching process.
Further, I described grammar translation method and communicative approach –
their historical backgrounds, main features and criticism. I also added an overview of
other methods and approaches that can be used while teaching a foreign language.
The practical part was realized as an experiment in class. Pupils were exposed to one
lesson prepared according to grammar translation method and one lesson based on
communicative language teaching. Subsequently, they were asked to evaluate the
lessons.
It should be emphasized that it was not an exhaustive study and there is still a plenty
of room for further investigation. It only exemplifies one small aspect of different
methods. Nevertheless, some interesting conclusions can be pointed out.
Thirteen pupils out of 24 (54%) who were able to choose one approach, preferred the
lesson based on grammar translation method and 11 out of 24 pupils (46%) liked the
communicative lesson more. It is obvious that the difference is very small and I find this
worthy of further research.
Although some pupils found the lesson using communicative approach interesting
and funny, the majority of them were dissatisfied with enormous amount of
communication in English. It does not mean, in my view, that the communicative
approach is worse, but it simply shows that pupils are not accustomed to such activities.
The majority of teachers still use traditional methodology, and not only English

32
teachers. The pupils cannot communicate, they are afraid to express their ideas even in
their mother tongue.
It is necessary to shift from monotonous teaching requiring encyclopaedic data to
creative pupils’ work. We should motivate children to think, communicate and
cooperate. It is desirable that they find the learning process interesting, contributory and
also achievable for them.
This is not work for a year or two. A lot has already changed in the Czech
educational system in recent years but even so many changes are yet ahead of us.

33
Resumé

Cílem této bakalářské práce je srovnat gramaticko-překladovou metodu a

komunikativní přístup.
V teoretické části se pokouším shrnout různé přístupy k výuce gramatiky. Druhá
kapitola je věnována přehledu metod a přístupů používaných při výuce cizího jazyka.
Hlavní důraz je kladen na gramaticko-překladovou metodu a komunikativní přístup.
V praktické části chci zjistit názor žáků na tyto dva přístupy. Tato část se skládá ze
dvou učebních plánů, jeden je založen na gramaticko-překladové metodě a druhý
využívá principů komunikativního učení. Poté žáci za pomoci dotazníku hodnotí obě
hodiny .

Resume

The aim of this bachelor thesis is to compare grammar translation method and
communicative language teaching.
In the theoretical part of this thesis I try to resume different attitudes to grammar and
its teaching. The second chapter is devoted to an overview of methods and approaches
used for teaching foreign languages. The main emphasis is placed on grammar
translation method and communicative language teaching.
In the practical part I intended to discover pupils’ point of view to these two
approaches. This part consists of two lesson plans; one is based on grammar translation
method and the second introduces communicative language teaching. After that pupils
evaluate the lessons using a questionnaire.

34
References

Al-Humaidi, M. (2007). Communicative Language Teaching. King Saud University.

Retrieved March 4, 2009, from
http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/alhumaidi/Publications/Communicative%20Language
%20Teaching.pdf
Bowen, T. (2008). Teaching approaches: what is suggestopedia?. Onestopenglish.
Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.onestopenglish.com/section.asp?
docid=146499.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching
grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Communicative Approach. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2009, from Aberystwyth
University: http://www.aber.ac.uk/~mflwww/seclangacq/langteach9.html.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.
Language education (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2009, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_education.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Marks, J. (2007). Methodology – the grammar translation method. Onestopenglish.
Retrieved February 23, 2009, from http://www.onestopenglish.com/section.asp?
docid=146406.
Mora, J. K. (2008). Second-language teaching methods. Principles & Procedures. San
Diego State University. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from
http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/almmethods.htm.
The Communicative Approach in English as a Foreign Language Teaching. (n.d.).
Retrieved March 3, 2009, from Monografias:
http://www.monografias.com/trabajos18/the-communicative-approach/the-
communicative-approach.shtml.
The Communicative Language Teaching Approach. (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2009,
from English Raven:
http://www.englishraven.com/method_communicative.html.

35
The Grammar Translation Method. (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2009, from English
Raven: http://www.englishraven.com/method_gramtrans.html.
Thornbury, S. (2000). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Longman Pearson Education.
Thuleen, N. ( 1996). The Grammar-Translation Method. Retrieved February 23, 2009,
from http://www.nthuleen.com/papers/720report.html.
Welford, J. (2008). Suggestopedia. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from
http://www.jwelford.demon.co.uk/brainwaremap/suggest.html.
What is the Communicative Approach? (n.d.) Retrieved March 3, 2009, from European
Society for Communicative Psychotherapy: http://www.escp.org/approach.html.
Widdowson, H.G. (1990). Aspects of languge teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Sources
Hutchinson, T. (1999). Project 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scrivener, J. (2003). Teaching grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zábojová, E., & Peprník, J., & Nangonová, S. (1983). Angličtina pro jazykové
školy I. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.

36
Appendix 1: Picture

37
Appendix 2: Vocabulary List

38
Appendix 3: Text

39
Appendix 4: Sample of Questionnaire

Dotazník pro žáky

Ráda bych tě požádala o vyplnění následujícího dotazníku, který mi má pomoci pochopit,
který způsob výuky angličtiny je pro tebe nejlepší.
Při vyplňování buď, prosím, co nejupřímnější, aby mohl mít tento průzkum vypovídající
schopnost a mohl pomoci nejenom mně, ale i ostatním vyučujícím v další práci.
Tvé odpovědi jsou zcela anonymní.

chlapec
dívka

Rozuměl/a jsi probíranému učivu? ano spíše ano spíše ne ne

Byla nová gramatika dostatečně procvičená? ano spíše ano spíše ne ne

Dokázal/a bys novou gramatiku použít v praxi? ano spíše ano spíše ne ne

Byla pro tebe hodina zajímavá? ano spíše ano spíše ne ne

Byla pro tebe hodina zábavná? ano spíše ano spíše ne ne

Co se ti líbilo nejvíce? ........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

Co se ti líbilo nejméně? ......................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................

Pokus se srovnat minulou a dnešní hodinu. Která se ti více líbila a proč. Snaž se být konkrétní.
..........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................

Děkuji

40
Appendix 5: Sample of a Completed Questionnaire

41