Teaching grammar communicatively to EFL students: A mixed-methods study

Ha Nguyen; Thanh Thao Vo

doi:10.65956/procia.2026.105

Authors

Nguyen Thi Manh Ha Corresponding author email: asokonguyen@gmail.com Saigon Information Technology College https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5807-2856
Thanh Thao Vo Nguyen Tat Thanh University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65956/procia.2026.105

Keywords:

teaching grammar communicatively, communicative learning, English grammar learning

Abstract

This study employed a mixed-methods exploratory design. It aimed to focus on gaining insights and understanding of EFL communicative teaching approach, which employed AI-generated illustrations as an English-medium instruction (EMI) technique to provide rich visual input that supported comprehension of grammar items and communicative tasks in teaching English tenses to EFL learners using pictures at a foreign language centre. Participants were 40 university students (30 female and 10 male) from 19 to 22 years old voluntarily taking part in the study. First, those participants were divided into two groups with 20 students each: The control group (CG) learned English basic tenses through traditional methods, while the experimental group (EG) was taught with AI-prompted images as EMI devices which supported a communicative approach, aiming to enhance understanding and practical use of tenses. Then, EG students were required to respond via post-task Think-Aloud protocol (TAP) after each session. Last, they were interviewed (IDI) to probe deeper insights into their improvement in English grammar, particularly in understanding and applying tenses. The statistical analysis of experimental data was followed by thematic analysis of data sets of post-task TAP responses and the interview. Results and findings revealed the impact of grammar teaching by using images on the research site. The results indicated that when students grasped grammatical items more quickly, they developed a deeper understanding, retained the knowledge longer, and showed greater enthusiasm in using grammar actively and effectively. This increased engagement supported their achievement of EFL classroom learning goals.

Author Biographies

Nguyen Thi Manh Ha, Saigon Information Technology College

Nguyen Thi Manh Ha is an English teacher and a book author for children and young adults with elaborative style in her publications. She teaches culture-related topics and English courses at a college in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Nguyen’s research interests focus on Language acquisition, intercultural communications in language learning, and Asian intercultural lingo studies.
Thanh Thao Vo, Nguyen Tat Thanh University

Vo Thanh Thao is an English language teacher specializing in English for Communication, IELTS, APTIS, and TOEIC. She holds an M.A. in TESOL and currently teaches at a language center in Vietnam. Her teaching approach focuses on enhancing learner performance and motivation through communicative and image-based instruction. Thao is particularly interested in innovative teaching methods, and curriculum development.

References

Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2018). Interactive lecturing: A handbook for college faculty. Jossey-Bass.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Dang, T. T. (2025). AI tools for language learners: The promotion of learning independence or reliance. In V. P. H. Pham, A. Lian, A. Lian, & J. White (Eds.), Empowering educators: Integrating AI tools for personalized language instruction (pp. 263-280). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-01348-4_11

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1982.tb00476.x

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Heinle ELT.

Reinders, H., & Pegrum, M. (2021). Supporting language learning on the move: An evaluative framework for mobile language learning resources. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 224-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1640255

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024532

Thomas, A., & Nair, P. K. (2022). Investigating teacher influence on student engagement in high schools. The Australian Educational Researcher, 49(3), 633-651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00511-w

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Longman.

Vo, T. D., Nguyen, L. T., Ho, M. T., & Nguyen, M. V. (2026). Technology-mediated instructional differentiation in CALL. In I. F. A. Badiozaman & A. R. Segar (Eds.), Pedagogical innovation through technology-enhanced learning design: Global case studies and implications for practice (1st ed., pp. 191-212). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003665472-14

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.