The Effect Of Communicative Language Teaching And Audio-Lingual Method On English Speaking Skill Across Different Learning Styles

Abstract

This study aims to determine whether there is an interactive effect between learning methods (Communicative Language Teaching/CLT and Audio-Lingual Method/ALM) and learning styles (Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic) on English speaking skill. The researchers used a quasi-experimental research design with a population of 383 students and samples of 70, assigned into two groups: experimental and control. The data were collected using three instruments (i.e., a pretest, a posttest, and a questionnaire) and then descriptively analyzed. A 2x3 factorial of Two-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with parametric statistical method was utilized because the data were normally distributed as well as homogeneous. The results of the analysis of the pretest scores show that the English speaking skills of the two groups of students applying the two different methods are the same at the significance level of 0.080. The analysis of the posttest scores show that there was no interactive effect between the learning methods and the learning styles on the English speaking skill at the significance level of 0.138. This implies that no matter what learning styles they have, students in CLT class performed better in speaking English than those in ALM.

Mathematical Connection Ability Instrument for Primary School Students

“…If the data obtained is invalid, it could make incorrect conclusions (Arifin, 2017;Creswell, 2009). The quality of an instrument was assumed to be reliable if the decisions were approximately the same even though it was practiced frequently (Ghofur, Degeng, Widiati, & Setyosari, 2017). The instrument was considered reliable if the source of measurement errors could be minimized because it had good validity and reliability, which were deemed to be trustworthy (Maruti, 2015).…”

Effects of the Vaughan Method in Comparison with the Audiolingual Method and the Communicative Language Teaching on Iranian Advanced EFL Learners’ Speaking Skill

“…They converse about their personal experiences with their instructors and fellow students. Unlike the Audiolingual method, where the students imitate what the teacher says, the communicative method uses only conversations (Ghofur et al, 2017;Tehrani et al, 2013;Zhenhui, 2002). Additionally, a teacher using the communicative method teaches topics on different situations and circumstances.…”

“…The present research aims to compare the effectiveness of Vaughan Method with two other alternative methods, namely the Audiolingual method and communicative language teaching. There are various studies (Gorsuch, 2001;Zhenhui, 2002;Tehrani at al., 2013;Ghofur at al., 2017) which showcase how the application of different methods has been influential for learner progress. While the application of each method depends on certain criteria, the main aim of applying the Vaughan method is to generate positive learner attitudes toward learning (Vaughan, 2016).…”

Language Learning Approaches: Unity in Diversity

“…There are many researchers who directly or indirectly have considered Audio-lingual and communicative methods to be on the same page as they have written articles specifically focusing on these two approaches jointly i.e. (Nita, & Syafei, (2012), Rahman, & Begum, (2006), Te-jung, (2009), Ögeyik, & Dogruer, (2009), Tambunan, & Gintings, (2012), Ghofur, (2016), Ghofur, et al, (2017). To conclude their ideas it can be said that the goal of both the methods is same, communicative competence through practical interaction.…”