i

IMPACT OF ACTIVITIES-BASED TEACHING

ON ENGLISH LEARNING AT INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
IN DISTRICT CHARSADDA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE BACHA KHAN UNIVRISTY

CHARSADDA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE DEGREE OF BS IN ENGLISH

BY

OBAID ULLAH

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH GOVERNMENT

POSTGRADUATE COLLEGE CHARSADDA
AFFILIATED WITH BACHA KHAN
UNIVERSITYCHARSADDA
SESSION: 2015-2019
 ii

IMPACT OF ACTIVITY-BASED TEACHING

METHODS ON ENGLISH LEARNING
By

OBAID ULLAH

A thesis submitted to the Bacha Khan University Charsadda in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the degree of (BS IN ENGLISH)

APPROVED BY

Internal Supervisor _ _

HAMID ALI
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH

External Supervisor ____________

Head of the Department of English ______________

BUKHARI SHAH
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH GOVERNMENT

POSTGRADUATE COLLEGE CHARSADDA
AFFILIATED WITH BACHA KHAN
UNIVERSITYCHARSADDA
SESSION: 2015-2019
 iii

DECLARATION

I, Obaid Ullah, hereby declare that this thesis titled “Impact of Activity-
Based Teaching Methods And Approaches on Learning English language”
is original and is the creation of my own study carried under the guidance and
supervision of Mr. Hamid Ali, assistant professor of English at the Department
of English, Govt. Postgraduate College Charsadda, The thesis has not been
previously submitted by any other scholar for the award of any degree. I
solemnly declare that the instant research thesis is free from plagiarism. It is in
my knowledge that if any plagiarized material is found in the thesis, I will be
liable to be punished under the relevant law.

______________________

Obaid Ullah
 iv

DEDICATION

This Research Paper is affectionately dedicated to my teachers especially

my dear supervisor Hamid Ali, for his scholarly supervision, guidance and sincere

support. Next, to my Papa who is my inspiration and influence.

 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On bended knee, I give glory to ALLAH Almighty, the Author of wisdom knowledge
and Excellence. I thank Him for granting me all the chances to reach this level of
Educational attainment.

My profound gratitude goes to my able, noble, humble supervisor Hamid Ali who never
got tired of going through my work, patiently supervised me through to the end. He left
no stone unturned.

My gratitude goes to my Papa who held my arm and set my tiny feet on the road to
greater heights and my Mamma who continued on the same path. Immeasurable
gratitude goes to my brother-in-law whose contributions financially, spiritually, physical
and otherwise cannot be measured. Inestimable gratitude goes to my seniors whose
contribution cannot be quantified. I extend my appreciation to all my colleagues both at
home and abroad.
 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
ABSTRACT 2

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 overview 3

1.2 Delimitation on of the study 7

1.3 Significance of the study 7

1.4 Objectives of the Study 8

1.5 Research Questions 8

1.6 Null Hypotheses 9

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW 9

2.1 Overview 9

2.2 Introduction to Activity-Based Teaching Method 10

1
 ii

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of various activity based teaching
methods and approaches on English language learning. English is being taught to the
pupils adopting GTM (grammar translation method), DM (direct method), Audio-
lingual method, and structural approach. Since last 3 decades English has mostly been
taught in traditional method which, with the invention of new and advanced methods
and approaches proved ineffective. The researcher conducted a questionnaire to
explore the positive impacts of newly invented methods and approaches in
comparison to GTM (grammar translation method) among secondary students. A
sample of 80 students were randomly selected made up of 37 male and 43 female, pre
– tested and categorized into experimental and control groups. After the comparison
the researcher concluded that GTM has been proven ineffective and that students take
much time in learning English language. On the other hand, direct method, structural
approach and audio lingual methods are swift and effective in carrying the desired
purpose of learning English language.

2
 iii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 overview

The field of English language teaching (ELT) that is categorized under applied linguistics is
based on two major pillars: linguistics and psychology. The close interrelation of these two
fields has constructed the route for ELT and the current know-how possessed by ELT
researchers and practitioners has built upon the contributions of numerous outstanding
linguists and psychologist. Accordingly, ELT a highly rich background that should be
considered while discussing the latest developments in the field and designing a future
projection.
Today , our focus is mostly on the current trends in ELT like learner-and learning-
centered approaches, meaningful learning, construction of knowledge, action and process-
orientedness, communication and interaction, and professional development. Nevertheless, the
great body of information on the methodological background in ELT cannot be ignored. The
today and yesterday of ELT should be handled in an integrated manner.
The history of English Language teaching (9ELT), as we know, has a long tradition.
Memorization of vocabulary and translation of sentences often formed the major part of such
learning process in the past. Ancient languages such as Sanskrit and Pali were mastered in
India through the process of memorization of texts and vocabulary lists. “Learning vocabulary
lists indeed formed the core of language learning.” But this tradition of language teaching has
been subjected to a tremendous change, especially, throughout the 20th century.

In case of English language teaching, there are some milestones in the development of this
tradition. According to D.Kanta Rao and J.M.Kanthi Thilakha: “If language teachers teach as
they taught earlier, then one may not achieve the required goals of teaching English in the
present global scenario.” So, there could be as many ways of learning languages as there are
people learning them. The way one learnt English is not exactly the way one is teaching it.
Again, the way one acquired one’s mother-tongue may be quite different from the way one
learnt English. The following observation by V. Saraswathi is very important to quote in this
connection. She says: “There is no best method. The history of language teaching presents a
fascinating variety of methods. If there is such a variety of methods, which one are we to
choose.? There is no definite answer to this question, what works with one learner may not
work with another. One may be a wizard in grammar but another may just hate it. Others
might enjoy memorizing sentences.” She further adds: “Different methods may be appropriate
to different contexts. If we start searching for the perfect method or the ideal single solution to

3
 iv

the problem of language learning, we bound to fail” Like V. Saraswathi, Diane-Larsen-

Freeman’s remark on language teaching methodology sums up a major trend away from unity
to diversity in the following words. They comment: “There is no single acceptable way to go
about teaching language today.”
The statements quoted above make it clear that no single approach or method is appropriate
for all learning styles. A good lesson will, therefore, be one in which the teachers use a
smorgasbord of activities taken from a variety of sources. By varying our techniques, we will
give students of all styles the chance to shine some of the time. Learning is acquiring new
knowledge, behavioor, skills, values, preferences or understanding, and may involve
synthesizing different types of information. Further, it is a process that brings together
cognitive, emotional and environmental influences and experiences for acquiring, enhancing
or making changes to one’s knowledge, skills and world view (Illeris, 2000). For learning to
take place, it is necessary that the student understands and engages with the information to be
learnt. It is also important that the student processes the information with higher order thinking
such as comprehension, analysis, synthesis, application, and metacognition. When this
happens, the student is able to relate the information to any life situation, connect it with past
learning, build his or her own knowledge (Garner, 1987) and become a knowledgeable and
contributing citizen as an adult. One important method of facilitating such engagement with
information is through activity.

The dictionary definition of ‘activity’ is ‘work that involves direct experience by the student
rather than textbook study’. Thus, activity-based learning, should allow students to engage
with and process information in such a way that he/she understands and builds his/her
knowledge about a particular subject. An outcome of successful learning would be that the
student has acquired the basic literacy skills and is able to apply this knowledge or skill learnt
in a relevant situation. The idea of activity-based learning follows the constructivist
educational theory and is child-centered pedagogy. Activity-based learning may be defined as
a method of instruction, where activities of different types, suitable and relevant to specific
subjects are integrated seamlessly into the regular instructional materials and methods to
involve students in the teaching – learning or instructional processes and engage them
fruitfully (Suydam & Higgins, 1977). The main purpose of the method is making the
classroom more student-friendly and reduce the intimidation and domination of the teacher.

Active learning is a crucial element of the new thrust toward what is now commonly called
“learner-centered” or “learning-centered” teaching (Weimer, 2002). Most definitions of active
learning focus on two key components: “doing” and “reflecting.” The most commonly cited
4
 v

definition of active learning comes from Bonwell and Eison (1991): “Involving students in
doing things and thinking about what they are doing.” The overall quality of teaching and
learning is improved when students have ample opportunities to clarify, question, apply, and
consolidate new knowledge. In this case, instructors create opportunities for students to
engage new material, serving as guides to help them understand and apply information.

. Various studies such as those of EMI, (1992) and Usman, (2007) have shown that teachers of
English are, sometimes, not qualified and competent and this in turn affects best performance
in learning English language. One major problem of the teachers is their inability and
incompetency to use appropriate activity based teaching method. They often resort to
traditional lecture method or grammar translation method that has been shown to lead to poor
academic performance in Junior Secondary Schools, (Shamim, F., and Qureshi, R. (2009)
[Inspite of the Federal Government of Pakistan’s encouragement in the teaching and learning
of English in Pakistan schools by providing both moral and financial support, e.g. the
establishment of National University of Modern Languages (1998). National Policy on
Education Federal Republic of Pakistan (FRP, 2008) etc,.

The structures of English language are still presented to pupils as facts that young
people are expected to memorize, thus less emphasis is placed on drills and practical
application of English structures which makes English more relevant to the need and
aspiration of the society]. Shah, (1978) feels that learning of English language suffers from
pedagogical deficiency as a result of which most people cannot see the connection between the
scientific knowledge they learn and daily life. Mari (1994) observed that English subjects are
taught in Pakistan schools today predominantly by using the traditional method, commonly
known as lecture method, grammar translation method or natural method. Isa (2000) observed
that “most English teachers do not encourage students` active participation in the teaching
process. Sarwar Z (1991) compared the effectiveness of problem solving teaching methods
with traditional method in promoting students’ learning of English language in evolution
concept, and found that the former was more effective than the latter.

The use of inappropriate teaching methods and approaches and lack of adequate
instructional materials have been a major challenge to effective learning of English language.
The poor performance in English language learning is partly s a result of the way in which
the teachers teach language Abdullahi, M. (2005). This study investigates the impact of
Activity-Based teaching methods and approaches on learning English language.

According to Inekwe (2002), Activity-Based Teaching method is the method that enables

5
 vi

students to learn English language with the same vigour that marks their natural activity.
David (2007) said it has the impact and element of joy, team spirit, respect for each others`
opinions and it reduces the abstractness in learning several structures of English language.
Mari (2001) said that in this method, the teaching of English language is carried out in friendly
manner, gladly with motivating spirit and activeness throughout the whole lesson, even to an
uninteresting topic. Activity- Based teaching methods are in-line with Piagetian(Jean Piaget, a
Swiss psycholinguist remembered for his studies of cognitive development in children 1896-
1980) tasks as it affords the students a variety of activities and experiences that involve the use
of concrete objects. This hastens the learners’ ability to order events through application,
knowledge and predict changes. According to Mari (1994) adequate and appropriate use of
activity based method through a rich variety of stimulating experiences, drills and practices,
progress from concrete to abstract and then a powerful conceptualization of English language
maybe achieved.

Thus the learner now will reason or make hypothesis with symbolic or ideas rather than
needing objects, in physical world as the basis for thinking. The learner according to him can
therefore use a hypothetical, deductive procedure that no longer ties his thought to existing
reality but could consider all possible explanations to problem of learning English language
and can evaluate alternative explanations or solution to the problem.

In the Activity-Based teaching methods and approaches, local resources are effectively
utilized in the teaching process. Activity-Based English language teaching is a type of
research-oriented teaching technique recommended for basic instruction of English by
National Policy on Education, Federal Ministry of Education (2004). Activity-Based English
language teaching promotes instruction in the three domains of knowledge. Activity-Based
English language teaching enables students to handle concrete materials which reduce the
abstract nature of the basic structures learned. This makes learning of English language more
meaningful and when concepts or structures are meaningfully learned, it enhances retention
and heightens students` performance and achievement. Activities given to students in learning
of English language help to widen the mental horizon of the students. Students begin to see
that many other matters, besides those of purely English structures are involved when practical
knowledge is used to benefit a community. Besides, the Pakistan Integrated English Project
(NIEP) is built around activities that are expected to encourage the development of English
language learning skills in the learners, Abdullahi, M. (2005).

Activity-Based English language teaching encourages group interactions among pupil,

and if properly used, the spirit of teamwork, exchange of ideas and respect for each other’s
6
 vii

point of view will be enhanced at early stages of learning. Another feature of Activity-Based
English language teaching is that local resources can be effectively utilized in the teaching
process. In typical students’ Activity, costly audio-lingual equipment are often substituted with
locally available teaching aids. According to Rahman, T. (2006) Activity-Based English
language teaching makes students active participants, aids retention of materials learnt, builds
confidence, helps students maximize their potential and favor intrinsic motivation. This
according to him is fundamental to academic achievement and effective teaching and learning
of English language in schools. Usman (2000) attributed the poor performance of students in
basic English concepts to rote learning. This according to him is as a result of non-exposure of
students to activities in their classes due to lack of English teaching facilities. However,
Adeniyi (1997) and David (2007) agreed that though English teaching facilities are necessary
but many teachers of English are ill- equipped and ill-prepared to guide students towards
inquiry. They seem to find activity-oriented instruction difficult to manage. This study
investigates the effectiveness of Activity-Based English language teaching methods and
approaches on academic achievement and retention of basic English structures among JSS in
district charsadda.

The concept “retention” is the ability to retain and consequently remember basic English
structures learned or experienced by an individual at a later time. And this takes place when
learning is coded into memory. Thus the appropriate coding of incoming information provides
the index that may be consulted so that retention takes place without an elaborate search in the
memory lane (Rafi, T. (1987). The nature of the materials to be coded contributes to the level
of retention. Thus materials are related to the quality of retention in terms of their
meaningfulness, familiarity, concreteness and image evolving characteristics. This study
investigated the impacts of Activity-Based methods and approaches on English language
learning among JSS in district charsadda.

1.2 Delimitation on of the study

This research has been delimited to exploring the impacts of activity-based methods
and approaches on English language learning among junior secondary students. A sample of
80 students were randomly selected made up of 37 male and 43 female in district charsadda.
Thus the study was carried out in: Government Higher secondary school Tarnab which served
as the experimental group and Government High School no. 1 Charsdda which served as the
control group.

7
 viii

1.3 Significance of the study

This research investigated the impacts of Activity-Based teaching methods and
approaches on learning English language among junior secondary students. The findings of the
study provide empirical evidence for further research in the area of the study. Besides, the
instructors of English language would have insight and awareness of the effectiveness of each
of the teaching method and approach being compared in the study.

Curriculum designers would hopefully benefit from the findings of this study, fitting in
activities to topics that require activity. Such findings may be developed in future curriculum.
Text book writers would hopefully find this study relevant to their profession in view of the
fact that the effectiveness of two teaching methods and approaches being investigated would
be incorporated into their publications for effective teaching and learning of English language.
Stakeholders in education would hopefully benefit from this study in that teachers, lecturers
will be aware of the topic that required activities in their teaching of English language.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The concern of the study is to investigate the impacts of activity-based teaching methods and
approaches on English language learning among junior secondary students. Specifically, the
study has the following objectives to:
Determine the impacts of activity-based teaching methods and approaches on English
language learning among junior secondary students.

 Establish whether impacts of activity-based teaching methods and approaches on English

language learning enhances learning among junior secondary students.

Find out whether the effect of Activity-Based teaching method is appropriate among junior
secondary students for learning English language and its concepts among male and female
students.

1.5 Research Questions

The study investigates the following research questions:

a. What is the impact of Activity-Based teaching methods and approaches on learning English
language on students’ academic achievement?

8
 ix

b. What is the effect of Activity-Based teaching methods and approaches on learning English
language on retention ability
c. What is the difference in academic achievements between male and female students taught
English language using the Activity-Based Direct method and Traditional method of
teaching language?

1.6 Null Hypotheses

The study has the following null hypotheses:

H01: There is not a significant difference in academic performance between junior

secondary students taught English language using Activity- Based direct method and their
counterparts taught same concepts using lecture teaching method or grammar translation
method.

H02: There is not a significant difference in learning ability between students using
Activity- Based direct method and their counterparts taught same concepts using lecture
teaching method or grammar translation method.

H03: There is not a significant difference in academic performance between male and
female students taught English language using Activity-Based teaching methods and
approaches.

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview
This chapter will provide us an elaborate overview of the body of literature pertaining
to the aforementioned title of the study. Every facet of the concerned literature has been
touched and in the light of which an in depth overview is created.

9
 x

2.2 Introduction to Activity-Based Teaching Method

Activity based learning is a general term for a variety of activities which make different
demands on the abilities of both pupils and teachers and which have different purposes (Frost,
2010). Activity based learning has constructivist purposes, and activities both access to
information-rich possessions and cooperative interaction. The series of activities is considered
as the central backbone of the course pedagogy which extant the students with prospects for
“learning by doing” (Macdonald & Twining, 2002). Activity method is that students learn by
doing different activities, by trying new challenging ideas and comparing these with the
existing ones. A child can be helped by providing safety, learn interesting experiences to
enhance knowledge in supportive environment. Activities that must be followed are designed
specifically for students to use it at home and in the society for promoting knowledge. The
activities are intended to show the students that how science is useful at home and in the
community and to make them realize that science plays an important part in everyday
activities. Applying Activity Based Learning in Improving Quality of Teaching 40 PJERE and
it is used in many places and in solving different environmental complications. Learning
English language does not require any expensive equipment and complex experiments
(Malhotra, 2006).Students learn by doing. It is employed when the teacher allows the students
to do piece of work and they learn at the same time. Students endeavour to do the work as
someone else has done it successfully. Students in doing the work should know the purpose
before they become interested in doing it. Students learn little by listening, a little more by
watching but learn most by actually doing (i.e. direct contact with actual/natural situation).
Inekwe (2002), Activity Based method is the method that enables students learn with the same
vigour that marks their natural activity. (David, 2007) opines that, Activity Based teaching
method introduces element of joy, team spirit, respects for each other opinions and reduces
abstractness in science concepts. Mari (2001) says in this method, the work is done in friendly
manner, gladly with motivating spirit as active throughout the whole lesson even to an
uninteresting topic/work.

There is no single method of teaching that is absolute in meeting the learning needs of
every individual learner in the classroom. According to Maduabum in David (2007) all
teaching methods have their limitation and strength however Felder and Brent (2005) assert
that a more balance approach that attempts to accommodate the diverse needs of the students
in a class and allow for optimum learning is by the direct involvement of students in the
teaching-learning process. They further stated that this approach is scientific and conform to
the tenets of acquisition of knowledge by doing or direct participation by learners. These

10
 xi

leaner-centered or activity oriented approach employs the processes of learning English

language in gathering, transforming and interpreting data, a major objective of teaching
English in the secondary school. Brekke (2005) assert that through such activities, students
will not only learn English structures and concepts but that they would also practice and
understand the larger structures and work to acquire knowledge relevant to solve problems
that surrounds the world around them. Contemporary theories of learning indicate that learners
get actively involved in the teaching-learning procedure if presented with variety of learning
activities, Brennan in David (2007). Also it was opined by Piaget (1967) that intelligence is a
continuing process of “adaptation” and “organization” as the learner interacts with the physical
and social environment. He further shows that when learners are provided with adequate rich
experiences and activities, it enhances cognitive development and movement from one level of
the domain to another.

This experience according to Bakare in David (2007) will cause cognitive stimulation
seen as the availability richness and the use made of various learning materials which are
designed to foster such cognitive skills as perception, conception, memory, language,
reasoning and creativity. These can only be favored according to Bloom (1976) if
consideration is given to appropriate cognitive and effective entry behaviors in English which
involve expertise in organized and systematized sequencing of tasks and topics within the
syllabus. This way learning will not only be promoted but time taken to accomplish task will
be reduced. Also Gague in David (2007) opined that such procedures will provide a firm
foundation in acquisition of four skills to learn concepts and broad principles. Features are that
this method is connected with real life as lived outside the school, lesson learnt are real,
practical, interesting and meaningful. It develops social living or awareness in students, also
self- education is encouraged, it frees the teacher from being termed a “talking teacher”. It
leads to cooperation and led to a sense of responsibility, it develops self discipline although it
requires much space, encourages laziness in the teacher, plenty money is required and
encroaches upon the leisure of the teacher (David, 2007).

2.3 Basic Difference Between Approach and Method

In English language teaching pedagogy the three key terms viz- Method, Approach and
technique are used frequently and interchangeably. This tripartite arrangement is hierarchical
in order.
The term ‘Method’ is very ambiguous, and refers to the overall plan for the orderly
presentations of language material, no part of which contradicts and all of which is based on

11
 xii

selected approach and procedure. The term ‘Method’ is sometimes compared with the term
‘Approach’. An ‘approach’ is concerned with the theory of the nature of language and
language learning. According to Yardi “Method is rigid while Approach is flexible”.
Pointing out the different views often held in less informed circle of teachers about the
importance of method. He further asserts: “What matters is the man (the teacher) not the
method.” Yardi further explains the connotational difference between the terms ‘method’
‘methodology’, and ‘methodics’. These are often used in English language teaching pedagogy.
Each one of them carries a different shade of meaning. ‘Method’, in his opinion ‘is used in the
context of language- teaching methods like ‘Direct Method’, ‘The grammar- translation
Method’ or ‘The Bilingual Method’.8 Yardi further went on to add that the term ‘method’ is
not strictly speaking a ‘technical term’. It is a popular one, and means ‘a way of doing
something’. It is often used loosely as a substitute for ‘methodology’. And ‘Methodology’,
according to Yardi, ‘is a technical term which refers to a body of principles and techniques of
teaching’.
An ‘approach’ is concerned with the theory of the nature of language and language learning.
“Methods are evolved for quick and effective results” says A.D. Kulkarni in his article
presented at a seminar on the Teaching of English held in February,1972 at the then
Marathwada University, Aurangabad. “The natural method of learning by trial and error has
no place today as human beings cannot afford to waste time in experimenting”,12 he opines.

The skill of a second language teacher lies in selecting an approach, method, and a technique
in view of the learner’s educational, social and economical background; the syllabus and the
textbooks prescribed, and the goals / objectives to be achieved. He should be flexible enough
to swift to multiple approaches so as to enable him / her to make learning effective. K. Bose
cautions the teaching community regarding their pedagogical duties in the following words:
“...It is expected of a teacher that he / she should think and reason out some fundamental
assumptions that lie underneath the syllabus construction, that might bind together the
syllabus, objectives, and instructional materials (method), and that might justify the use of
any/ every classroom techniques that he /she adopts while teaching. It should under no
circumstances appear like a layman’s trick to teach the second language.”
The above statement makes it evident that the teachers of English should be cautious about
some of the fundamental assumptions that lie underneath the syllabus construction.

With this backdrop, it would be proper at this juncture to review the methods and approaches
that have been used by the teachers of English in India in general and Maharashtra in
particular. A teacher at times uses a single approach, a single method, or even resorts to
12
 xiii

multiple approaches and methods in view of several factors including the background, age of
learners, and the teaching items. The skill of a teacher lies in shifting to and evolving new
approaches and methods of teaching English. Therefore, an attempt has been made to review
some of the methods and approaches which are being used commonly by the teachers of
English.
2.4 Inductive Method and Deductive Method
Inductive method of teaching English grammar is that method in which the teacher
presents some examples first and then the students are asked to find out or figure out rules by
themselves. This method gives students opportunity to work on their own. It also encourages
pupils or learners to think and discover some principles. This method encourages active
participation of the students in the learning process.
Deductive method means to proceed from rules to examples. In this method rules are first
taught to the student and the examples are given afterwards. This method discourages
creativity and makes the students passive in the learning process. It is a teacher-centered
process.

2.5 English Language Teaching Methods

a) Background and definition of Grammar Translation Method
Grammar Translation Method was first introduced in Germany especially in Prussia.

Hence it was also called Prussian Method. This method is the oldest method of foreign
language teaching, having existed for more than 2000 years which dominated European and
foreign language teaching from the 1840s to the 1940s and is being modified and used in
different countries of the world today. But this method was spread for teaching English
language during colonial period which is being used till today. Grammar translation method
was called the classical method since it was first used in the teaching of the classical language
Latin and Greek (Chastain 1988). The origin of this method lie in an attempt to teach
languages by grammar and translation where the learners have to gather knowledge of foreign
languages by studying a number of grarnmatical rules and applying these knowledge to the
interpretation of texts with the use of a dictionary. Through the study of the grammar of target
language, students would become more familiar with the grammar of their native language and
that is familiarly would help them speak and write their native language better. (Larsen-
Freeman, Diane). The principal aim of the grammar translation method was to make language
learning easier and the central feature was the replacement of traditional texts by exemplary
sentences (Kumar Mondal Nitish). Austin (2003) in his paper "The Grammar Translation

13
 xiv

Method of Language Teaching" states "As a teacher, I liked using the grammar translation
method because I could assume the intelligence of my students; I could talk to them like the
intelligent people that they are, and we I could talk about the grammar and vocabulary that I
was teaching. In another method, I would have had to use simple language and familiar
phrases to communicate in the target language, and even then, I could not be sure that my
students knew and understood what it was that they were saying." This method, also known as
the classical method, is one of the oldest or traditional methods of teaching English. In Europe
it was used in the teaching of Latin and Greek for several centuries, and got introduced in
India with the arrival of the British. This method as Tickoo said: “came to English Language
Teaching in most of Asia in general and India in particular with support in the long-
established tradition of teaching classical languages in the United Kingdom. The system of
education in the country served as a model for schools in most of its colonies. The
psychological beliefs that prevailed then were (a) that classical languageswith their intricate
systems of grammar were capable of training human faculties including memory, and (b) that
learning these languages was part of a truly liberal education. Teaching and learning primarily
aimed at the ability to read full texts rather than to communicate orally in everyday situations”.

Thus, the above statement makes it clear that this method makes no provision for training in
speech but lays stress on reading. Commenting on how this method operates in our schools
and colleges, Bhatia and Bhatia assert: “This method gives equal importance to grammar in
the course in as much as the linguistic material presented for study is graded on a grammatical
plan, and teaches the meaning of new English words, phrases and sentences, by means of
word-by-word translation in the vernacular.”5 They further add that: “the unit of speech or
reading is not a sentence-a sentence comes last of all, first letters and words and then
sentence.” This method, according to Pahuja, “has no psychological basis but has two
suppositions: that a foreign language can easily be learnt through translation and that
grammar is the soul of language.”

Criticizing this method, Rouse remarks that the aim of this method was “to know
everything about something, rather than the thing itself.” Students found the method
frustrating as they had to memorize words and rules. The use of ‘L1’ in the classroom
prevented the learner from developing confidence to communicate in English. The learners
found it very difficult to emancipate themselves from the clutches of their mother- tongue.
They were unable to use English in their day-to-day communication. The excessive obsession
with accuracy and competence in written rather than oral language inhibited learners who
often preferred to remain silent rather than expose their ignorance. The emphasis in this
14
 xv

method is mainly on translation of English words, phrases, and passages into and from the
mother-tongue of a learner. Tracing out the roots of this method Yardi observes: “Latin
became very popular as the Roman Empire grew, and attained the status of an international
language. It became the sole medium of instruction and remained so until after the middle
ages. The emphasis in teaching Latin was, by and large, on formal grammar. This method
grew out of this practice...”. J.B. Carroll, however, is of the view that this ‘traditional
approach’ is of a comparatively recent origin. He states: “In the colonial days of America,
language instruction seems to have included considerably more attention to oral aspects of
language, even when the language was Latin, Greek or Hebrew. The ‘traditional’ approach
then seems to have been developed to meet the needs of rapidly expanding popular education
in the latter part of the 19th century. Before 1875, members of the elite classes learned foreign
languages through individualized instruction by native instructors ...”.The advocates of this
method, as stated by Bhatia and Bhatia, assert that it is based on some sound principles such
as:

“(i) foreign phraseology is best interpreted through translation.

(ii) foreign phraseology is best assimilated in the process of interpretation.

(iii) The structure of foreign language can best be taught by comparing and contrasting it with
that of mother-tongue; and this is best effected through translation.”
Grammar Translation Method is an old method of teaching a foreign language or second
language. This method is also called the classical method of teaching L2 and which was
originally employed for the teaching of Latin and Greek languages to children and pupils in
Europe.
Grammar Translation method is a very popular method of teaching a foreign language
and is still widely practiced. In GTM (grammar translation method) English text or vocabulary
is taught to the students in class rooms through translation into the mother tongue or native
language of the students. Grammar is taught to the students deductively in which a rule or a
definition is given first and examples are given later. In GTM (grammar translation method)
equivalence of word , phrases, and sentences are given to the students in their mother tongue.
Likewise in this method the unit of teaching is a word and a word for word translation is made
to the pupils in their native language. It is believed that a foreign or second language is best
learnt though translation into their mother tongue. Grammar translation method is also known
as natural method , traditional method or classical method.
This is the method of teaching that emphasizes “talk and chalk” to the teaching of English
language. More than 70% of information and principles are delivered as lectures. English
15
 xvi

teachers embraced this method for easy coverage of the school syllabus. This method is
sometimes referred to as the “talk and chalk”, method.

●Positive Impacts of GTM (grammar translation method )

Grammar Translation method has certain advantages and features which are
enumerated below:
° Vague and difficult concepts and abstract ideas are easily explained to the students
through translation into their mother tongue, better and quicker comprehension is the merit of
this method. The students learn the grammar of the foreign language easily through
comparison and contrast of the two systems of the to languages.
° Rapid expansion of vocabulary or vocabulary building by the students is another merit of
this method. The use of mother tongue helps the students in getting a rich stock or storage of
the vocabulary without much effort.
° The main focus of Grammar Translation method is reading and writing. Students
develop these two language skills. Similarly students also acquire the skill and art of
translation. Moreover, students develop retention capability, as a strong memory bond is
created when foreign words are associated with the translated words.
° GTM (grammar translation method ) is based on the principle of ‘’proceed from known
to unknown’’. The working of the mother tongue (known) helps the students learn the
grammar and vocabulary of the foreign language. (unknown).
° Grammar Translation method is a less-timing-consuming method. It saves a lot of time
of the teacher as lengthy explanations and definitions are avoided.
° GTM is not a costly and expensive method of teaching a foreign language as it does not
require many audio-lingual aids.
°this method is also an easy method for the teacher. It’s a convenient and suitable method
for average and mediocre teacher.
°GTM is also a useful and utilitarian method for a large and over-crowded classes.

●Negative Impacts of GTM (grammar translation method)

Grammar translation method is characterized by the one-way flow of information. From the
teacher who is always active, to the students will always be passive. In its true nature the
lecture approach is not effective for English language teaching, Abdullahi (2005), and Usman
(2000). Grammar Translation Method is not effective for the following reasons:

16
 xvii

 It does not promote much meaningful learning of structures as it appeals to hearing only.
 The differences in student’s ability are not considered because it cannot satisfy the
differences in individuals such as slow learner and fast learner.

The students easily become restless and disruptive since their attention span is very limited. It
promotes rote learning and regurgitation of information, Abdullahi (2005).
●Grammar Translation method is an unnatural method of teaching a language. It ignores
speaking and listening skills which come first in the natural order of learning a language. A
child learns his mother tongue through listening and speaking and these are then followed by
reading and writing. Oral-practice is almost ignored in this method or little attention is paid to
oral-speech.
●Certain literature especially poetry if translated into the mother tongue , will lose its real and
original spirit and beauty of expression. In this method the originality of the foreign language is
marred.
Moreover, this method does not encompass every word of the target language
through translation. There are words, phrases, and idioms in English whose equivalents in the
mother tongue are not available.
●GTM (grammar translation method) discourages creativity and thinking. It prompts
memorizing, cramming and parrot like learning. It prevents students to think directly in
English.
●The major focus of this method is reading and writing while no systematic attention is paid to
listening and speaking.
●Grammar Translation method does not motivate students to actively interact and communicate
in the target language. They unlike the English language teacher remain passive learners.
b) Direct Method and its Impacts
GTM has had several short-comings and drawbacks. It failed to develop speaking
proficiency and fluency of the students in the target language.
Direct method of English language teaching was introduced as a reaction against GTM.
This method was introduced in Germany and France in 1901. It also became widely known in
America or in the United States of America. The introduction of direct method was an attempt
to make 2nd language learning like 1st language learning.
The direct method, sometimes also called as the ‘reform’ method, ‘natural’ method,
‘psychological’ method, ‘phonetic’ method,25 and ‘anti- grammatical’ method, was
established in France and Germany around 1900, and introduced in India in the early 20th

17
 xviii

century as a reform which was needed in the methods of teaching English. This was
developed, as Rao has pointed out, “as a reaction against the grammar-translation method”.

The major assumptions of this method were in opposition to the grammar-translation method.
Hence, it is considered as a reaction against the grammar-translation method with a distinct
grammatical bias. Again this method is a logical extension of the Natural method. It is also an
offshoot of the Behaviorist school of psychology. It insists that the key to all language learning
lies in association. It stresses the need for direct association between experience and
expression in the foreign language. The aim is to enable the learner to think in foreign
language and to cultivate an unerring language sense. It recognizes that language sense has its
roots in the spoken language and lays stress on the oral approach. In the opinion of Diller this
method has one basic rule: “no translation is allowed”29. In fact, this method receives its name
from the fact that meaning is to be conveyed directly in the target language through the use of
demonstration and visual aids, with no recourse to the students’ native language. For example,
in a reading lesson to class V, a new word ‘watch’ occurs. If we associate it with its
intermediate in the vernacular, i.e. ‘Gharee’, we are teaching the meaning indirectly; but if on
the other hand, we associate the word with an actual ‘watch’ or with the picture of a watch, we
are teaching the meaning directly. If such a direct association is not possible, the teacher can
explain the meaning of new words by giving synonyms, definitions, explanations, or by
inference from the context. The same technique with a few modifications here and there, can
be followed in teaching compositions-oral or written. Many new words can be added to the
vocabulary of the learner without the intervention of the mother-tongue.

According to Bhatia and Bhatia, the main aim of teaching English by this method is to enable
the learner: “to think in English and to discourage the practice of inwardly thinking in one’s
vernacular and then overtly translating the thought into the foreign language. He should be
able to grasp what he hears or reads in English and should be able to express his thoughts and
wishes directly and fluently so that in due course of time he obtains a real command over the
language”. The other significant assumption of this method according to Thirumalai is:

“Adult L2 learners can learn a second language in essentially the same manner as a child.

Therefore, if possible, the teacher should try to create a natural learning environment within
the classroom. Instead of explicit grammar instruction, the major emphasis is on
communicating. Classes are carried out totally in the second language with absolutely no
reliance on the first language or on any form of translation. The expectation is that through
question-and-answer dialogues, the second language will gradually be acquired. Problems

18
 xix

have arisen with such an approach because adults do not, in fact, learn exactly like children,
and they express the need for explicit instruction in grammar and other aspects of the second
language.” Teaching of receptive skills (listening and reading) rather than teaching of
productive skills (speaking and writing) was encouraged as the first step. Contrastive analysis
of the native language of the learner with the target language was done. Teachers are required
to have a good knowledge of phonetics of the language they teach, but they would use it to
teach pronunciation and not phonetics. As this method uses conversation as the main tool in
the teaching of a foreign language, the other tools are discussion and reading in the target
language itself. Grammar is taught inductively.

W.F. Mackey points out the main characteristics of this method as:

“there is an ample scope for the use of everyday vocabulary and structures; grammar is taught
by creating situations through visual presentations. There is ample scope for extensive
listening and imitation until form becomes automatic.”

Thus, it becomes evident that there is almost no scope for the learners’ mother- tongue. The
method presupposes that a second language could be acquired as one acquires one’s mother-
tongue through its ample natural exposure.

Wilga Rivers comments on this method as:

“A direct method class provided a clear contrast with the prevailing grammar-translation
classes. The course began with the learning of the foreign words and phrases for objects and
actions in the classroom. When these could be used readily and appropriately the learning
moved to the common situations and settings of everyday life, the lesson often developing
around specially constructed pictures of life in the country where the language was spoken.
Where the meaning of words could not be made clear by concrete representations, the teacher
resorted to miming, sketches or explanations in the foreign language but never supplied
native-language translations. From the beginning, the students were accustomed to hear
complete and meaningful sentences which formed part of a simple discourse, often in the form
of a question-answer interchange. Grammar was not taught explicitly and deductively as in the
grammar-translation class but was learnt largely through practice. Students were encouraged
to draw their own structural generalizations from what they had been learning by an inductive
process. In this way, the study of grammar was kept at a functional level, being confined to
those which were continually being used in speech. When grammar was taught more
systematically, at a later stage, it was taught in a foreign language with the use of foreign
language terminology.”

19
 xx

From the aforesaid statement it becomes clear that this method discards the use of L1, even in
teaching grammatical rules, favours the situational use of English, considers meaningful
sentences at the core, teaches grammatical rules inductively, provides with ample
opportunities to the students of using target language, takes care of the spoken aspects of the
target language, and above all seeks gradual development of all, the basic linguistic skills viz-
LSRW.

According to William E. Bull “any given method is only as effective as its implementation”.34
He further adds that “the superior teacher has regularly gotten superior results regardless of the
method.”

From the comments cited above it becomes evident that no method could be a complete one
in itself. What makes it important is the man (the teacher) who does not allow the explanations
in the students’ native language creating English environment in the classroom. The main
reason of the failure of this method in Indian context is perhaps the dearth of the expert
teachers. Therefore, the direct method considered better than the previous grammar-
translation method, was not completely free from certain weaknesses either. For one thing the
method is not all that direct, for only a limited number of words can be directly associated
with their meanings or the objects they represent. Moreover, its main claim that it teaches a
foreign language directly, and not through the mother-tongue, is only partly true.
Commenting on the limitations of this method Scott remarks: “The clever youngster thrives on
the direct method by defeating it.”

Thus, the mother-tongue equivalents of words may not be used by the teacher but may be in
the students’ mind, and the student does not exclude them from his own mind. Another
limitation of this method in Verghese’s opinion: “arises from its neglect of the language skills
like writing and reading because of overemphasis on oral work. This method practically
ignores the study of grammar, this is not desirable because the knowledge of grammar is
useful to the students to correct errors and strengthen language habits.”

Wyatt also appears to be a critic of this method particularly in the Indian context. He observes
that extreme followers of the direct method overlook a simple fact of human nature, of pupils’
nature in particular. An Indian pupil cannot but utter in thought the vernacular equivalent of
the new English word taught to him, because in associating the new English word with a
familiar word in the vernacular, he is simply reinforcing the memory of the old friends.

He Says: “The Direct method in all its rigor mistakes the end for the means, the goal for the
path that leads to it - the direct association of words and phrases with their meanings is the

20
 xxi

eventual objective of language study and not a means. We cannot expect the pupil to make the
association at the outset.”

Thus in summing up it may be admitted that the direct method, in spite of its merits, did not
make much progress because it neglected the facts mentioned above, and therefore, failed in
the some contexts.

●Impacts of Direct Method

● Direct method focuses on speech and oral work. An artificial atmosphere of English
speaking community is created where interaction and communication is done in the target
language. The whole teaching-learning process in the class room is conducted in the foreign
language. It enables the students to attain speaking proficiency and fluency in the target
language.
● Direct method encourages and promotes creativity and thinking abilities of the students. The
habit of thinking directly in the target language is developed by the students.
● Direct method follows the natural order of learning the language----listening, speaking,
reading and writing.
● In the direct method of learning language, the originality of the target language is not
spoiled especially in the teaching of idioms and poetry.
● Students or learners acquire correct pronunciation as they are exposed to continuous
speaking in second language.
●Negative Impacts of Direct method
● The entire vocabulary cannot be explained by performing an action or showing an action.
Direct method, therefore, does not encompass all subject-matter. There are many
abstract ideas which cannot be interpreted or explained directly in the target language.
● Direct method is a costly and expensive method. It requires many audio-visual aids. And it
is also difficult to equip all classrooms with so many teaching-learning materials.
● There is not enough reading and writing which are two important language skills. Sufficient
attention is paid to reading and writing. It ignores systematic written work and reading
activities.
● Direct method requires highly competent and well-trained teachers with excellent
communication skills in L2. A teacher must have a complete command and mastery over the
subject. There is a dearth (lack .want, deficiency) of trained teachers which can be a factor in
the failure of this method.

21
 xxii

c) Audio-lingual method and its impacts

During the World War II, American soldiers had an urgent need to learn languages like-
German, French, Chinese or Japanese to communicate effectively when posted in various
countries. The Army Specialised Training Programme (ASTP) was established in 1942 by
American linguists to meet this urgent need. 55 American Universities were involved in the
programme by the beginning of 1943. This technique of teaching was initially called the
‘Army Method’ and was the first to be based on linguistic theory and behavioural psychology.
The objective of this program, as stated by Richards Jack, C. and T.S. Rodgers, was for
students “to attain conversational proficiency in variety of foreign languages.”

Since this was not the goal of conventional foreign language courses in the US, new
approaches were necessary. Leonard Bloomfield, a linguist at Yale, had already developed
training programs as a part of their linguistic research that were designed to give linguists and
Anthropologists mastery of American-Indian languages and other languages they were
studying. Textbooks did not exist for such languages. The technique which Bloomfield and his
colleagues used was sometimes called as the ‘informant method”. Excellent results were
achieved by this method. The ‘ASTP’ lasted only two years but attracted considerable
attention in the popular press and in the academic community. For the next ten years the army
method and its suitability for use in regular language programmes were discussed.

Charles Fries of the University of Michigan led the way in applying principles from structural
linguistics in developing the method and for this reason, it has sometimes been referred as the
‘MichiganMethod’.41

Later in its development, principles from behavioural psychology were incorporated. It was
thought that the way to acquire the sentence patterns of the target language was through
conditioning- helping learners to respond correctly to stimuli through shaping and
reinforcement. Learners could overcome the habits of their native language and form the new
habits required to be target language speakers.

The term ‘Audiolingualism’ was coined by Nelson Brooks in 1964, highlighting the basic
belief of structuralism that: ‘speech is primary’.Language is viewed as a set of structures. The
behaviourist theory of learning was adopted. Language learning was assumed to involve a
chain of stimulus-response-reinforcement; and it was believed that one learnt a language by
acquiring a series of stimulus-response chain. V. Saraswathi quotes the assumptions of this
method stated by stern as follows:

“(i) Foreign language learning is basically a mechanical process of habit formation.

22
 xxiii

(ii) Language skills are learned effectively; if items of the foreign language are presented in
the spoken form before the written form.

(iii) Analogy provides a better foundation for foreign language learning than analysis.

(iv) The meaning which the words of a language have for the native speaker can be learned
only in a matrix of allusions to the culture of the people who speak that language.”

The Audio-lingual method, according to Thirumalai, in some sense:

“represents a return to the Direct Method, as its main goal is to develop native-like speaking
ability in its learners. It is an extension as well as refinement of the direct method. Translation
and reference to ‘L1’ are not permitted.”

Underlying this method, he further adds that:

“L2 learning should be regarded as a mechanistic process of habit formation...Audio-lingual

learning comprises dialogue memorization and pattern drills, thus, ensuring careful control of
responses. None of the drills or patterns are to be explained, since knowledge of grammatical
rules would only obstruct the mechanical formation of habits.”
From the statements cited above it is evident that Audio-lingualism had its theoretical roots in
the direct method; which was an extension of the Natural method. Again the audio-lingual
method used exhaustively the linguistic structures identified in the descriptive analysis of the
target language. It was skill oriented, with a practical emphasis on ‘Oracy’.

This method provided ‘contextualized’ language practice in true-to-life situations including

dialogue. Again, it provided a wide variety of activities to help maintain interest, and it made
extensive use of visuals. It arranged for abundant practice although “the grammar based
audiolingual approach moved cautiously from supposedly simple to more and more
linguistically complex features, often without adequate consideration for what might be
needed in everyday situations.”

William Moulton has stated five important characteristics of this method as follows:

“(i) Language is speech, not writing.

(ii) A Language is a set of habits.

(iii) Teach the language, not about the language.

(iv) A language is what its native speakers say, not what someone thinks they ought to say;
and

(v) Languages are different.”

Examining each one of the five characteristics of this method, Wilga Rivers made the
23
 xxiv

following recommendations with regard to Audio- lingualism:

“(i) Learners’ perceptions, motivation, and feelings should be taken into account.

(ii) The emphasis should be shifted from linguistic form to communication in a socio-cultural
context.”

Thus, it becomes clear that this method emphasis teaching through oral presentation prior to
written presentation. It believes in the fact that the children learn to speak before they learn to
read or write. Thus, the teaching materials, that we prepare, should be based on the ‘primacy
of speech.’ B.F. Skinner strongly believes that ‘a language is a set of habits.’ He further adds
that “language is verbal behaviour.”

Followers and supporters of this method were extremely influenced by its ‘operant
conditioning’ theories. For them, the linguistic behaviour of the child can change as does its
social behavior through the process of habit forming. The kind of thinking introduced
mimicry, memorization, and pattern drill into foreign language teaching.

Audio-lingual teachers consider that ‘teaching through grammar-translation method is

teaching about the language and not the language.’ They give little attention to grammar. In
this connection Moulton says:

“The real goal of instruction was an ability to talk the language and not to talk about it.”

The statement cited above thus, makes it clear that the Audio-lingual method laid the practical
emphasis on ‘oral’ practice of the language. Again, the assumption that ‘a language is what its
native speakers say’ prompted the advocates of this method to prepare learning materials with
expressions which student would hear around them in the country where the language is
spoken. The teaching materials avoided prescriptive school grammars, passages from literary
texts, and classics. Materials embodied with day-to- day experience were of prime importance
for teaching.

The increasing use of Audio-visual aids in second language teaching, according to Allen H.B.
is based on the modern Audio-lingual theory which stresses on a ‘listening-speaking-reading-
writing sequence’ in second language learning situations. The theory insists that ‘learning to
speak a language becomes easier, if the learner has enough training in comprehension.’
Linguists and language teaching experts lay emphasis on planned listening experiences. Their
main arguments are:

“(i) Ear-training facilitates speaking. Articulation is dependent upon hearing sounds

accurately...

24
 xxv

(ii) Concentration on one skill at a time facilitates learning by reducing the load on the student
and by permitting the use of materials and techniques geared to the specific objectives and
requirements of each skill.

(iii) When students are required to speak from the outset, the likelihood of errors is
increased... where listening comprehension precedes speaking, the students’ initial experience
includes more correct responses and more frequent positive reinforcement less comprehension,
and more rapid development of confidence in his language learning ability.

(iv) Prematurely listening to his own unauthenticated pronunciation, and to that of other
students, may interfere with the students’ discrimination and retention of correct sounds”.

Dr. Sharada Bhat has recorded the main strengths of this method as follows: “the teaching
materials are more scientifically and systematically prepared than the one-author texts; it
teaches a language in a graded manner; the motivation of the students is of a higher degree; the
students

enjoy learning the target language because the teaching materials are specially designed to
interest the students avoiding boring passages from the classes”.

Apart from these strengths, the Audio-lingual method was not completely free from its
weaknesses and flaws. Behaviourist assumptions underlying this method have come under
severe criticism. The importance given to achieve ‘oral accuracy’ only has prompted many
linguists to question the very necessity of a teacher. Albert Valdman has criticized “the
exaggerated emphasis on oral drilling” in this method. Decanny has the following to say
about mechanical drilling. He says:

“Drills are inherently unnatural, contrived examples of the use of language. Humanising these
devices is left to the teacher. Unless the students are stimulated by variety, novelty, and a
quick change of cues, they may be mouthing meaningless sentences and in this unwilling
frame of mind no learning takes place.”
In spite of the strong objection to the mechanical drilling, many pedagogues see some values
in this method. In this regard K.Chastain writes:

“to harvest these values the method must be made more responsive to the students’ intellectual
needs. The methods of drilland pattern have proved pedagogically very sound. Therefore, the
language teacher should devise methods to make the drills more meaningful and interesting
bringing in real communicative situations outside the classroom”.

Thus, no Audio-lingual method can, however, be successful in the absence of a qualified,

trained, inventive and resourceful teacher. Machines cannot replace teachers. The approach is
25
 xxvi

and ought to be teacher-centered; that is to say, the aids require planned utilization by
specially trained teachers. The high incidence of poorly qualified teachers only increases the
waste of student time and public resources. Good teachers and good materials are an
indispensable condition for the successful implementation of any scheme of teaching English
as a second language.
Advantages of Audio-lingual
First, the students hear the model or key-structure or a model dialogue (either read by the
teacher or on tape-recorder). The students repeat the key structure or model dialogue
individually and in chorus. The teacher pays attention to pronunciation and dialogue. Errors
and mistakes of the students are corrected on the spot directly and immediately. So in this
method students learn correct grammatical structure and correct pronunciation.
● This method develops the listening and speaking skills of the students quite efficiently and
effectively.
● Audio-lingual method is based on a solid theory of language learning. It is based on the
behaviorist theory of language of learning. And
● The use of audio-visual aids is very effective in vocabulary teaching.
Disadvantages of Audio-lingual method
● In audio-lingual method learning is mechanical. It promotes cramming and memorization
and discourages creativity.
● This method does not give equal importance to all the four skills of learning language.
● It is a teacher centered or teacher dominant method. Students have little control over their
learning.

d) The Bilingual Method

This method was developed by Dr. C.J. Dodson. As the name suggests, the method makes use
of two languages- the mother tongue and the target language. Hence, this can be considered as
a combination of the direct method and the grammar-translation method. ‘Selection,
‘Gradation’, ‘Presentation’, and ‘Repetition’ are the four cardinal principles of all language
teaching methodology.

This method has all the four principles in it. In the opinion of Dodson a good method should
promote

thinking in the language. According to him a new method should have the following features
as: “

26
 xxvii

i) It must be simple.

ii) It must strike a balance between the spoken and the written word, accuracy and fluency.

iii) Constant revision of what is taught and learnt.

iv) A new method must offer a new approach to the application of translation work.

v) The method must give the teacher an opportunity to promote inter-communication between
himself and the individual pupil.

vi) The method must be sufficiently flexible to cope with various classroom conditions and the
pupils’ specific and general abilities.”

The aims of this method as stated by Yardi are-to make the pupil fluent and accurate in the
spoken and written words and to prepare the pupil in such a manner that he can achieve true
bilingualism. The main principles of the bilingual method as stated by Dr. Sharada Bhat are:
Controlled use of the students’ mother-tongue, the introduction of reading and writing early in
the course of language learning and integration of writing and reading skills. The advocates of
this method believe that it is the wastage of time for recreating a situation while teaching a
foreign language. They think that teaching-learning method is useful when mother-tongue
equivalents are given to the pupil without duplicating the situation. It differs from translation
method in two respects. In the first case it is the teacher only who uses the mother-tongue to
explain meaning. Furthermore, pupils are given a lot of practice in the drill of sentence
patterns. Such practice is not provided in the translation method.
The Bilingual method was the reaction against the direct method. Dodson vehemently attacks
the direct method in the following words: “It is one of the tragedies at present being enacted in
some emergent countries, where a major world language is being taught as a second language
to young children by the direct method, that if this type of teaching were successful, which by
all account it is not, the vernacular would disappear within a few generations. It is only
possible to teach a second language by direct method techniques at the expense of the first
language, and it is sheer hypocrisy to claim that the final aim of such teaching philosophies is
bilingualism. Every aspect of the direct method teaching is directed towards keeping the two
languages as far apart as possible, thus destroying the bridge which the learner must
continuously cross to and fro if he wishes to be truly bilingual.”

Dodson, thus, makes it clear that the excessive use of the direct method would result in
disappearance of the vernacular in future. He was of the view that the direct method, operated
at the expense of the first language, could not make the learner truly bilingual. This method is
not an independent new method with new concepts and models. It is, in fact, a happy synthesis
27
 xxviii

of the best principles and features present in the other methods. It has modified the principles
of other methods to overcome the objections and criticisms and to suit the objectives of the
second language learning today. This idea was expressed by Carrol in the following words:

“But, then, in these highly advanced times it could hardly be expected that a new method
would represent anything more than a new combination of procedures.”

The important contribution of this method is that it had made possible for the students to get
both quantitative and qualitative acquisition of language skills. The equipments necessary for
the Bilingual method in Yardi’s opinion are: a printed text of the situation to be learnt. This
text ought not to be exceeding thirty sentences in length at the secondary level. The text has to
be linguistically graded and made interesting to the learner. Each situation in the text should
have a picture strip, not just one composite picture as in the usual textbook, representing the
development of the content in the text- lesson. The intention in using the picture strip is not to
help the learner acquire the sentence meaning but to retain it. Paucity of good teachers with
excellent command of spoken and written English is the main difficulty in Yardi’s opinion to
introduce this method in the present Indian contexts. To conclude in the words of Dr. H.N.L.
Sastry61 this method is simple teachers in Indian schools follow this method. The method
increases the rate and amount of learning in the classroom and it creates better attitudes in the
minds of students towards learning English. It also establishes rapport between the teacher and
the taught.
Advantages Bilingual method
● Bilingual-method ensures quicker and faster comprehension in learning owing to the
intervention of the mother-tongue when it is needed. Complex words and abstract ideas are
easily explained in the mother-tongue.
● The use of the mother-tongue expedites the teaching learning process and saves a lot of time
of the teacher.
● Bilingual-method promotes accuracy and fluency as meaning of new words are given of the
learners. in the mother-tongue.
● This is also not a costly method, and does not require so many teaching methods.
Disadvantages Bilingual method
● The use of the mother-tongue may divert the attention of learners and they become habitual
and accustomed to certain learning in the mother-tongue. As a result they become weak in the
L2.
● This method needs competent and well-trained teachers to handle with it properly. At the
hands of an incompetent teacher, this method may degenerate into GTM.
28
 xxix

● Bilingual method discourages creativity and encourages dependency on mother-tongue. The

use of the mother-tongue may spoil the English environment in the class.

e)The Structural Approach

This approach as Kripa K. Gautam states “is based on the belief that language consists of
‘structures’ and that the mastery of these structures is more important than the acquisition of
vocabulary. Since structure is what is important and unique about a language, early practice
should focus on mastery of phonological and grammatical structures rather than on mastery of
vocabulary”. This approach, according to Kulkarni ‘emphasizes the teaching and learning of
the basic items or materials that constitute the framework of a language’. The cause of the
emergence of this approach was the extensive research conducted on English language
teaching as a foreign language at the University of London institute of Education. This
approach as, Dr. Bhat asserts ‘is definitely an improvement upon the Direct Method, though
the techniques and principles are not widely different’. The exponents of this approach
consider that language consists of ‘structures’ and structures are more important than the
vocabulary. These structures are carefully graded in terms of both meaning and form. The term
‘structural’ according to Kripa K. Gautam “is referred to the following characteristics:

“a) Elements in a language are linearly produced in a rule governed way.

b) Language samples can be exhaustively described at any structural level of description

(phonemic, morphological and syntactic).

c) Linguistic levels are thought of as a system within systems. These sub-systems are
pyramidally structured-phonemic systems leading to morphemic systems, and those in turn
lead to be higher level systems of phrases, clauses and sentences”.

The two essential features of this approach are careful grading of structures, and vocabulary
control. J.B. Bruton in a working paper presented at the Nagpur Seminar in 1958 summarises
the basic assumptions regarding the nature of language and the methods best suited for the
presentation of linguistic items. He says:

“a) language is primarily a spoken thing and... therefore, our approach to a foreign language
should in a first instance be through its spoken forms,
b) ...mastery over the signalling system of a language is more important than detailed
knowledge of the forms of the language;
c) ...this mastery is best acquired by repetition of the various components of the system in

29
 xxx

varied forms;
d) ... since language arises from situation, the teacher’s task is to create meaningful situations
from which language will arise easily and naturally;
e)... mastery over a given range of structures and confidence in their use are best imparted by
concentrating on the teaching of one item at a time;
f)...each item must be firmly established orally before pupils encounter it in their textbooks”.
Yardi defines the term ‘structures’ as an “internal ordering of linguistic items”, and further
adds that structures may be defined as “devices that we use to make signals, to convey
meanings, and indicate relationship.”
Yardi further points out that although the terms ‘structure’ and ‘pattern’ are generally used
interchangeably by some teachers, they are not identical, as the former has a linguistic
orientation, while the latter has a pedagogic orientation.

Thus the structural approach is based on structures which have been carefully selected and
graded. According to Dr. (Mrs) Sharada V. Bhat : “selection of structure is made on four
principles: usefulness, productivity, simplicity, and teachability”. She further adds that: “the
structural approach distinguishes two types of structures, productive structures and other
structures”.

Productive structures, as Dr. Bhat opines, are those with which other structures can be built.
Naturally the productive structures are given more importance, since after the mastery of those
structures the student can build other structures by themselves. Some structures can be taught
easily with demonstration.

According to C. Paul Verghese “a language is best learnt through practice in real situations,
this is because of the close relation that exists between experience and expression”. Verghese
further adds that “there are two kinds of situations: real and artificial... Every structure must be
encountered and practised in a context of situation”. The intensive practice and drill in this
approach provide multiple opportunities to the learner. In India this approach has been found
effective at lower levels, but inadequate at higher levels.

Another limitation of this approach is that the intensive drilling of structures might turn
mechanical very soon. Yardi finds out one main inadequacy with this approach that “they
don’t help to develop‘communicative competence”, and he further states that “the structural
approach may help in making correct sentences, it fails in helping the learner to make correct
utterances”.86 Without making any exaggerated claims for this approach, we may say that, it
is quite effective in the hands of trained, and dedicated teachers. Inadequate teacher-training

30
 xxxi

has been the cause of the setback the structural approach has suffered.
f)The Communicative Approach
The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching (Mark 1) was first identified in Roberts
(1982:97ff, 1983:99ff) as 'the British tradition', an analysis later echoed in Richards and
Rodgers (1986:64ff). 'British' in this context is not used jingoistically, but genealogically, to
summarise the provenance of the Approach, since, with few outstanding exceptions (eg Van
Eck. Richterich). it was pioneered by British linguists and applied linguists and among these,
the name most prominent in the early stages was that of Wilkins, who was one of the first, if
not the first, to use the term 'communicative approach' (1 974b). His work for the Council of
Europe on the 'common core in a unitlcredit system'*, from which the concepts NOTION and
FUNCTION emerged, was crucial to further developments.
Dr. Sharada Bhat opines that the communicative approach to teaching of English is organized
on the basis of certain communicative functions, such as apologizing, describing, inviting,
promising etc. that the ESL learners need to know. She further, adds that this approach, as
applied to English explains the language in terms of the functions it performs. This approach,
according to Dr. Bhat, does not ignore the role of grammar in the process of language learning,
but it insists that the grammatical rules are useless unless they are applied to real-life
situations.

Communicative approach focuses on the significance of language functions because the

learner needs knowledge of both meaning and functions. It lays emphasis on functional,
communicative and social interactive activities. It also lays emphasis on the semantic aspect of
the language. In order to improve the ability of reading comprehension it is essential that the
learner knows the semantic aspect of the language. Dr. N.S. Prabhu draws a distinction
between linguistic competence and communicative competence and says that there is a logical
relationship between the two. Prabhu says that a language structure is best acquired when the
learners’ attention is on meaning, when the learner is preoccupied with understanding,
working out, relating or conveying messages and copes with the language.95 This ‘coping’ or
‘deployment’ is central to the process of language learning. Prabhu further states that there is
no syllabus in terms of structure, no pre-selection of language items for any given lesson. The
basis of each lesson is a problem or a task and the conduct of the lessons consists of setting the
task, demonstrating ways of tackling it and, in the process, giving some pupils a chance to
attempt it, then getting all the pupils to attempt and, finally giving each pupil a rough
indication of the measure of his success. The function of the task, as Prabhu opines, is to bring
about a self-reliant effort by the learners. Tasks, according to him, consist of interpreting a
31
 xxxii

schedule, giving a set of directions, deciding which action is right and why. Attention to
grammar is entirely incidental. Incorrect sentences are rectified by the teacher.

William Little Wood has distributed communicative competence into pre-communicative and
communicative learning activities. In the methodology of the pre-communicative activities the
teacher isolates specific elements of knowledge or skill which compose communicative
activity and provides the learner with opportunities to practise them separately. The learners
are thus trained in the part-skills of communication rather than practizing the total skills to be
acquired. This aimed at providing command of the linguistic structures, without actualizing it
for communicative purposes. Therefore, the learners’ main purpose is to produce language
which is acceptable and appropriate. Pre-communicative activities are categorized into
structural activities and quasi-communicative activities, the latter take account of
communicative as well as structural facts about language.

A major aspect of the ethnography of this approach, according to Patrik T. Kameen, is the
analysis of the events in terms of their constructive components. These are: participants
(speaker, hearer, sender, and receiver), setting (i.e. a psychological or cultural setting), the
actual form of a message (i.e. a linguistic description of the message), topic (i.e. what is the
message about), Purpose (i.e. goal, intention), key (i.e. serious, mock), channel (e.g. oral,
written), code (i.e. language or variety within a language), norms of interpretation (i.e. how
different norms of interaction or violation of them interpreted), genre (i.e. casual speed, poem,
prayer, form, letter).

Allen Widdowson points out: ‘utterances can take on an enormously wide range of meanings
in different contexts”. He further adds that the learner must be aware of the social meanings of
the language forms in different types of social contexts which he may have to face in his life.
The classroom teaching should preserve the communicative character of the language and it
should enable the learner to face the real-life situations. Keith Morrow is also of the same
opinion. He writes:

“any use of language will take place in a context, and the language forms which are
appropriate will vary in accordance with context”.

Experts in the field of CLT observe that creating and interpreting everyday situations in the
language class should be the important strategies of teaching English as a second language.
This is evident from what Littlewood has to say:

“Foreign language learners need opportunities to develop the skills, by being exposed to
situations... the learners need to acquire not only reportoire of linguistic items, but reportoire

32
 xxxiii

of strategies for using them in concrete situations”.

Littlewood further writes elaborately on the significance of meaning or semantic options, as

language is essentially a system of meaning potential i.e. it consists of sets of semantic options
available to the language users that relate what the user can do in terms of social behaviour,
what the user can say in terms of grammar. Littlewood writes: “Students must also learn to
relate language to the social meaning that it carries and to use it as a vehicle for social
interaction. To this end, it is necessary to increase their sense of performing in a meaningful
social context, rather than simply responding to promote... with the necessary linguistic form
and the necessary links between form and meaning”.

Howatt distinguishes between a ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ version of this approach as:

“There is in a sense, a ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ version of the communicative approach. The weak
version which has become more or less standard practice in the last ten years, stresses the
importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English for communicative
purposes and characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a wider program of
language teaching...The ‘strong’ version of communicative teaching, on the other hand,
advances the claim that language is acquired through communication, so that it is not merely a
question of activating an existing but inert knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the
development of the language system itself. If the former could be described as ‘learning to
use’ English, the latter entails ‘using English to learn it”.

Summarizing the main characteristics of the communicative approach Richards and Rodgers
asserts:

“i) Language is a system for the expression of meaning.

ii) The primary function of language is for interaction and communication.

iii) The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses.
iv) The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features, but
categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse”.
An important aspect of communicative approach which has attracted attention of the applied
linguists is the syllabus model. Wilkins’s notional- syllabus was one of the very first syllabus
models, which specified the semantic-grammatical categories and the categories of
communicative function that learners need to express. But it was soon criticized by linguists as
merely replacing functions. According to Richards and Rodgers “it specified products rather
than communicative processes”.
Widdowson argued that notional-functional categories provide: “only a very partial and
33
 xxxiv

imprecise description of certain semantic and pragmatic rules which are used for reference
when people interact. They tell us nothing about the procedures people employ in the
application of these rules when they are actually engaged in communicative activity. If we are
to adopt a communicative approach to teaching which takes as its primary purpose the
development of the ability to do things with language, then it is discourse which must be at the
centre of our attention”.

Prabhu regards task-specification and task-organization as the appropriate criteria for

communicative syllabus as:

“The only form of syllabus which is compatible with and can support communicational
teaching seems to be a purely procedural one-which lists in more or less detail, the types of
tasks to be attempted in the classroom and suggests an order of complexity for tasks of the
same kind”.

The roles of the learner and the teacher as visualised in CLT are different from those found in
the traditional second language classrooms. Breen and Candlin describe the learner’s role
within

CLT in the following terms:

“The role of the learner as negotiator-between the self, the learning process, and the object of
learning, emerges from and interacts with the role of joint negotiator within the group and
within the classroom procedures and activities, which the group undertakes. The implication
for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn in an
interdependent way”.

Thus, it is the co-operative approach to learning which Breen and Candlin stress in CLT.
Students interact primarily with each other rather than with the teacher. Breen and Candlin
further describe the role of the teacher in

CLT which is essentially as two-fold:

“The teacher has two main roles: the first is to facilitate the communication process between
all participants in the classroom, and between these participants and various activities and
texts. The second is to act as an independent participant within the learning-teaching group.
The latter role is closely related to the objectives of the first role and arises from it. These roles
imply a set of secondary roles for the teacher; first, as an organizer of resources and as a
resource himself, second as a guide within the classroom procedures and activities... A third
role for the teacher is that of a researcher and learner with much to contribute in terms of
appropriate knowledge and abilities, actual and observed experience of the nature of learning
34
 xxxv

and organizational capacities”.

Thus, the CLT teacher’s primary role is to organize the classroom as a setting for
communication and communicative activities. The teaching materials are also designed to
promote communicative language use. Richards and Rodgers consider three kinds of
instructional materials currently used in CLT and label these as: ‘text-based, task-based, and
realia’. Michael Swan argues against the belief that the traditional structure-based courses
neglect the teaching of functions, notions and skills. He writes: “It is quite false to represent
older courses as concentrating throughout on form at the expense of meaning, or as failing to
teach people to do things with language”. However, Swan concedes that we have, by and
large, gained more than we have lost from the communicative approach in that it has helped us
to analyse and teach the language of interaction. We can benefit from the innovative language
teaching methodologies only if “we can keep our heads, recognize dogma for what it is, and
try out the new techniques without giving up useful older methods simply because they have
been proved wrong”.Richards and Rodgers catalogue some of the important questions which
are raised by the applied linguists and pedagogues alike regarding the communicative
approach as:

“i) can the communicative approach be applied at all levels in a language programe?

ii) is communicative approach equally suited to ESL and EFL situations?

iii) does communicative approach require grammar-based syllabuses to be abandoned or

merely revised?”.

To conclude, the communicative approach takes into account all the four basic linguistic skills
viz. listening, speaking, reading, writing and also the conversational skill where the social
context of utterances play the significant role.
Merits of communicative approach
1. The merits of communicative approach is to develop the speech ability among the students.
2. It teaches of different ways of expression.
3. This approach is based on the practical utility.
4. It lays more stress on the functional value of language.
5. It enables the students to communicative their ideas both inside and outside the class-room.

Demerits of communicative approach:

35
 xxxvi

1. This approach ignores grammar and structures.

2. It is not properly and scientifically developed as yet.
3. It is a new approach and it is to be used and tested in our schools for language teaching.
4. Practical utility of this approach is yet to be confirmed.
5. Trained teachers are not available in this approach to teach English language.
6. Students don't get proper environment for communication.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
36
 xxxvii

3.1 Introduction
In the last chapter an attempt was made to review the literature relevant to the study. This
chapter examines the methodology to be used in conducting the study. The chapter is
presented under the following sub-headings:

 The Population of the Study

 Samples and Sampling Procedure
 Instrumentation
 Data Collection Procedure
 Data Analysis

3.2 Population of the Study

The population for this study consists of all secondary students registered in
government junior secondary schools located in Chd Education Zone. They are government
owned schools: operating same academic calendar and same curriculum. The schools are,
GHS mirzadher, GHSS Tarnab, GGHS (Tarnab), GGHS (Chd Khas ), GHSS (Sherpao) and
GGHSS (Sherpao). The total student’s population consists of 80 consisting of 37 males and 43
females. All schools offer courses for learning English language with particular reference to
measurement which is relevant to this study. The students in the study population have an
average age of 14 to 17 years. Details of the population are given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Population of the Study

S/N Name of school No. of SS Male Female

Students
1 Govt. High Sch ( mirzadher.) 12 12 -

2 Govt. Higher Sec. Sch. (Tarnab) 15 15 -

3 Govt. Girls High. Sch.( Tarnab ) 18 - 18

4 Govt. Girls High Sch.( Chd Khas ) 10 - 10

5 Govt. Higher Sec. Sch. (Sherpao) 10 10 -

6 Govt. Girls Higher Sec. Sch. (Sherpao) 20 - 20

Total 80 37 43
This table shows the enrolment of secondary students in Education Zone of Charsadda, the target
for this study. The sample to be used for study was drawn from the population described above.

37
 xxxviii

3.3 Sample and Sampling Procedure

Sampling refers to selecting units or subsets (e.g. people, organization or schools) from a
population of one’s interest so that by studying the sample we may fairly generalize relatively
to the population from which they are chosen. A random sampling technique was used in this
study to select the samples. According to Sami (1993) random sampling is a sampling
procedure that assures that each element in a population has an equal chance of being selected.
The researcher put the 60 names of the male students in experimental group that is
Government Higher Secondary School tarnab and 60 names of female students in the control
group that is Government Girls High School tarnab and then pulled out 37 male and 43
female students` names by-lot. In this way, not only does each person has an equal chance of
being selected, but also the researcher can easily calculate the probability of a person being
chosen in the study. In this study, 2 schools have been randomly selected for the study. Details
of the samples selected are given in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: The Study Sample

S/N Name of School Groups No. of SS M F Selecte
students d
1 Govt. Higher Sec. Experimenta 60 37 - 37
Sch. Tarnab l Group
2 Govt. Girls High Sch. Control 58 - 43 43
Tarnab Group
Total 118 37 43 80

Total numbers of 65 students were pre-tested in order to ascertain their group equivalence.
The sample groups known as the experimental group and control group. The experimental
group was exposed to Activity-Based direct method while control group were taught the
same concepts using Lecture method. These students were of average age of 14 to 17 years
drawn from the secondary schools under study.

3.4 Instrumentation

The Instrument Used

The instrument used for this study is a questionnaire developed by the researcher.

This questionnaire is derived from the National Curriculum for secondary schools regarding
impacts of method and approaches on English language teaching-learning. The topic was
selected because it features in SS 2 curriculum and can be taught using the Activity-Based
38
 xxxix

Direct method as well as GTM method of English language teaching. Forty five (45) items
were constructed, forty (40) were taken and five (5) remained after validity. Forty (40) test
items were administered by the researcher in person in form of objective questions. The
results were subjected to t-test analysis.

3.5 Instrument Administration

In the course of this research work, Experimental Group (EG) and the Control Group (CG)
were pre-tested using method and approaches on English language teaching-learning to
ascertain their group equivalence on the level of understanding of the research topic at the start
of the study. To the experimental group basic English concepts were taught for the period of
two weeks using Activity-Based Direct Method. To the control group, same concepts were
taught using traditional GTM method for a period of two weeks. After the treatment both
groups were post-tested using same instrument, which was reshuffled to make it look different.
The mean scores of the two groups collated were subjected to t-test statistics to determine their
achievement level.

3.6 Experimental Group

In this group, the research instrument was administered by the researcher with the assistance
of the class teachers. The students were given numbers to use instead of names. The necessary
instructions were presented in writing to the subject and explicitly explained before they were
given questionnaires. The questionnaire was administered during normal class period of 65
minutes which is double period after which the control group were treated the same, all their
different schools and enough time was allotted to the students were also requested to provide
personal data (information) such as school, class and sex which were used in analyzing the
data.

3.7 Control Group

The research instrument was administered to the control group in the classroom during the
normal class period with the assistance of the class teachers. The students were assigned
numbers to use to replace their names. The needed information were presented to them
accordingly in writing and was explained to them before the commencement of the
questionnaire. Also, enough time was given to them to complete the questionnaire. The
students were also requested to provide information to be used for the data analysis. Two
weeks later a post-post test was administered to the two groups the experimental group and
control groups to ascertain their retention ability.

3.8 Data Collection Procedure

39
 xl

The data were collected using questionnaire for almost all aforementioned schools.
Questionnaire was used to generate three types of data viz:

a. Pre-Test Data (to ascertain their group equivalence)

b. Post- Test Data (to ascertain their achievement level)
c. Post post-test to (to ascertain their retention level)

The 3 types of data generated were then analyzed in relation to the research questions
investigated.

3.9 Data Analysis Techniques

Different statistics were used to analyze the data collected. Descriptive statistics mainly mean,
mode, standard deviation and frequency were calculated and deferential statistics mainly t-test
was used to analyze the Null Hypotheses at P ≤ 0.05 level of significance. The t-test is a
sensitive test of significance of the difference between two means and it reduces the
experimental error and thus increases the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is
false Usman (2002) .Furthermore, the t-test was chosen because it is the most appropriate
statistical test for determining the significance of the difference between means when the
number of subjects in the two groups being compared is about equal (Carol et al 2002).

In this study, the data collected were analyzed thus:

H01 : There is no significant difference in academic performance of students

taught English language using GTM and their counterparts taught same concepts
using Activity- Based Direct Method. A t-test statistics was used to analyze data to
test this null hypothesis.

H02 : There is no significant difference in the retention of learned concept between

students taught English language using GTM and their counterparts taught same
concepts using Activity-Based Direct Method. A t-test statistics was used to analyze
data to test this null hypothesis.

H03: There is no significant difference in academic performance between male

and female students taught English language using Activity-Based Direct Method
At-test statistics was used to analyze the data in relation to this null hypothesis.

40
 xli

CHATPER 4
ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Overview
The focus of this study was to investigate impacts of Activity-Based methods and approaches
on English language teaching among Secondary School Students. In the last chapter, 3 types
of data were collected using questionnaire. In this chapter, the data generated are analyzed and
the results are discussed accordingly. The chapter is presented in the following subheadings:

 Data Analysis and hypothesis Testing

 Summary of Findings
 Discussion of Results
 Hypotheses Testing

Testing Null Hypothesis 1

Research Question 1. What is the impact of Activity-Based Direct method and GTM on
students’ achievement of English language among students of Secondary Schools?

For the purpose of data analysis, the null hypothesis is restated for testing at P ≤ 0.05

Ho1 There is no significant difference in academic performance of students taught English

concepts using Activity-Based Direct method and their counterparts taught same concepts
using the GTM.

The data generated via the questionnaire were subjected to t-test statistics to determine if there
was any significant difference between the achievement of the experimental group and the
control group.

Table 4.1: t- test Analysis of Mean Scores of Posttest of the Experimental Groups (EG) taught
using Activity-Based GTM Method and the Control Group (CG) Taught Using Direct Method,

41
 xlii

It is clear from Table 4.1 that the experimental group has a mean score of 32.57 which is
greater than that of the control group which is 19.75. This finding answers research question 1.
It is thus empirically established that students exposed to Activity-Based Direct of teaching
English language have higher mean scores than their counterparts in the control group.

In order to test the corresponding H01, the following argument is made:

From Table 4.1, the calculated t-value is 33.56. This value is greater than the t value critical,
of 1.96 at =0.05 with df = 78. This means there is a significant difference between the mean
scores of the experimental (group) and the control groups in favour of the experiential group.
Thus the hypothesis is rejected. This implies that the experimental group taught English
language using Activity-Based Direct method achieved significantly higher than the control
group taught the same concepts using the GTM of teaching. The null hypothesis which says
there is no significant difference is therefore rejected.

Testing Null Hypothesis 2

Research Question 2. What is the impact of activity – based direct method and
Grammar Translation teaching method on retention ability of English language
learners.?

For the purpose of data analysis, the null hypothesis is re-stated for testing at P< 0.05.

Ho2 There is no significant difference in the retention of learned English Concepts between
students taught English language using Activity-Based Direct teaching method and their
counterparts taught same language using the traditional method.

To test this hypothesis, the postpost test data were subjected to t- test statistics. Summary of
the analysis are given in Table 4.2

Table 4.2: t-test Analysis of the Mean Scores of Post post-test Data of the
Experimental Group Exposed to Activity-Based Method and the Control
Group Exposed to Traditional Method.

42
 xliii

Group N
Mean S.D S.E t-cal t.crit df P-value
Score t-value
0.40
Experimental 40 33.75 2.58 30.30 1.96 78 0.000
Control 40 19.17 1.58 0.25

It is also clear from Table 4.2 that the experimental group has a mean score of 33.75 which is
greater than that of the control group of 19.17. This finding answers research questions No 2.
It is empirically established that student exposed to activity – based Direct teaching strategy
have higher mean scores than their counter parts in the control group.

From Table 4.2, the calculated t-value is 30.30. This value is greater than the t-value critical
which is 1.96 at =0.05 with df 78 also the P-value observed was 0.00 which is less than
p≤0.05. This means that there is a significant difference between the post post-test mean score
of the experimental and control groups in favors of the experimental group.

Thus the hypothesis is rejected. This implies that the experimental group taught measurement
concepts using Activity-Based Direct teaching method retained the learned language better
than the control group taught the same language using Traditional Method. Null hypothesis,
which says there is no significant difference is therefore rejected.

Testing Null Hypothesis 3 / Research Question 3:

What is the difference in academic achievement between male and female students
taught English language using the activity – based Direct and traditional teaching
methods?

Ho3 There is no significant difference in academic performance of male and female students
taught English language using the Activity-Based Direct teaching method.

To test this hypothesis the post test data generated through questionnaire were grouped
according to gender and were subjected to t-test statistics to determine if there is any
significant difference between the achievement of the male students and their female
counterparts taught English language using the Activity-Based Direct teaching method.
Summary of the t-test are given in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: t- test Analysis of Post Test Mean Scores of Male and Female Students
Exposed to Activity-Based Direct Teaching method.
Gender N Mean S.D S.E t-cal t-crit. df P-value
Score

43
 xliv

32.22 2.78 0.47

Male 30 1.01 1.96 78 0.31
Female 35 32.84 2.62 0.39
Not significant at p ≤0.05

From Table 4.3 above, the mean scores of 32.22 and 32.84 between male and female
respectively are virtually the same. This finding answers research questions No 3. It is
empirically established that there is no difference in academic achievement between male and
female exposed to activity-based Direct teaching method.

From Table 4.3, the calculated t-value is 1.01. This value is less than the t – value critical
which is 1.96 at =0.05 with df 78. Also P- value of 0.31 is higher than P ≤ 0.05. This means
that there is no difference between the mean scores of male and their female counterparts.
This implies that the level of achievement of the male students exposed to Activity-Based
teaching strategy is the same with their female counterparts. Therefore the null hypothesis
number 3 is retained. This implies Activity-Based Direct teaching method is gender- friendly.

4.2 Summary of Results

In this study, the following findings are made:

1. There is significant difference between the mean scores of the experimental group taught
English language using Activity- Based Direct teaching method and the control group
taught same language using traditional teaching method in favors of the experimental
group.
2. There is a significant difference in the Post-post test mean scores of the experimental and
control groups in favors of the experimental group. This implies that the experimental group
retained the learned concepts better than the control groups.
3. There is no significant difference in the post test mean scores of the male and their female
students exposed to Activity-Based Direct teaching method. This also implies that the
Activity-Based Direct teaching method is gender friendly.

4.3 Discussion of Results

The aim of this study is to investigate impacts of Activity-Based methods and approaches on
English language teaching among Secondary School students. To achieve this aim, students in
the Experimental Group (EG) were taught English language using Activity-Based Direct
teaching method. Students in Control Group (CG) were taught the same language using
traditional (lecture) teaching method restricted to the “talk and chalk” approach.

44
 xlv

The students in the experimental group (EG) and Control Group (CG) were then post tested,
post post-tested and their achievements and retention abilities were compared according to the
variable being investigated. It was found that the students in experimental group achieved
significantly higher than the students in the control group.

4.4 Hypothesis 1
The result of testing hypothesis one shows that the students in the Experimental Group (EG)
who were taught English language using the Activity- Based Direct method of teaching
performed significantly better and achieved higher than their counterparts in the Control
Group (CG), the significant difference in achievement of mean scores of 32.57 and 19.75 in
favors of the experimental group (EG) at a significance of 0.05 level is revealing a greater
effectiveness of the Activity-Based Direct method of teaching over the grammar translation
(talk and chalk) as a teaching method. According to Abdullahi (2005), Activity-based teaching
strategy makes the learner to construct his own knowledge to be used in later age; so teachers
should pick from the science curriculum topic that involves activities for the learners to
discover solution themselves and teachers are expected to guide them.

In Activity- Based Direct method of teaching, students have the opportunity to work with
concrete materials and engaged in activities, which enhanced meaningful learning and reduces
abstract nature from concepts and provide a motivating environment for learning (Mari, 2002).

4.5 Hypothesis 2
The post post-test result showed that the experimental group exposed to Activity-Based Direct
method of teaching retained the taught English language significantly better than their
counterparts in the control group who were exposed to Grammar Translation method. The
result showed that the experimental group (EG) had a postpost test means score of 33.75
while their counterparts in the control group (CG) had the mean score of 19.17.

The statistically significant difference between the two mean scores suggests that the Activity-
Based Direct method of teaching experience led to more effective learning and higher retention
level than the traditional (lecture) method. According to Mari (1994) adequate and appropriate use
of Activity-based method through a rich variety of stimulating experiences progress from concrete
to abstract and then a powerful conceptualization maybe achieved. Thus learner would now reason
or make hypothesis with symbolic or ideas rather than needing objects in the physical word as the
basis for his thinking. The learner according to him, can therefore use a hypothetical deductive
procedure that no longer ties his thought to existing reality but consider all possible explanations to
problem and can evaluate alternative explanation or solution to the problem.
45
 xlvi

This finding agrees with that of Abdullahi (2005) and Usman (2000) who reported that the
conventional lecture method used by most teachers is inferior in promoting effective learning.
Teachers use it only for easy coverage of the school syllabus, teacher being active while
students are always passive learners. It is further characterized by one – way flow of
information and encourages rote learning and yields little retention. Meaningful and concretely
learned concepts by students are always retained and even coded in the memory for easy recall
when the need arises.

4.6 Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 centered on gender – related differences in academic achievement in relation to
the variables of the study. The results of testing hypothesis three showed that there is no
statistically significant difference between the post-test mean scores of the male (32.229) and
the female (32.844) in the experimental group. This implies that the level of achievement of
the male students exposed to Activity-Based Direct method of teaching experiences is the
same with their female counterparts. The result indicated that the Activity- Based Direct
method of teaching is gender friendly.

This finding agrees with the findings of Bichi (2002) and Stanley (2007) who said
understanding and retention are products of meaningful learning, when teaching is effective
and meaningful to the students whether male or female. Thus, meaningful learning is the
product of students involvement in act of learning like in Activity- Based Direct method of
teaching.

46
 xlvii

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
This study investigated impacts of Activity-Based teaching methods on English
language among Junior Secondary two students. It also investigated the impacts of gender-
related differences on students’ academic achievement in the concept of measurement when
taught using Activity-Based Direct method of teaching and grammar translation methods. The
sample comprised a sum total of 118 SS students drawn from two Secondary Schools in Chd
Education Zone. They were selected by simple random sampling technique. The results
obtained were presented and discussed in chapter four. This study has the following major
findings.

5.3 Major Findings

At the end of the study, the following findings were made:

A. there is a significant difference in the academic achievement of students taught English

language using Activity-Based Direct method of teaching (Experimental group) and their
counterparts who were taught same language using the Grammar translation method
(control group). The experimental group achieved significantly higher than the control
group.
B. There is a significant difference between the retention level of students taught English
language using Activity-Based Direct method of teaching and those taught same language
using Grammar translation method method. The students exposed to Activity-Based Direct
method of teaching retained the taught language significantly better than their
counterparts exposed to Lecture method.
C. There is no significant difference in academic achievement between the male and female
students taught English language using the Activity-Based Direct method of teaching, thus
Activity-Based Direct method of teaching is gender friendly.

5.4 Conclusion
Thus it could be concluded that it is impossible to arrive at the perfect approach or technique
for language learning in Indian context. Language learning is such a complex process that it is
impossible to offer a single solution to all our problems. Perhaps the best method is the one

47
 xlviii

which works, and this varies from context to context. Any method which creates conditions
for learning to take place is good. It should enable the learner to acquire the strategies of
learning rather than merely equipping him with knowledge. What is important for the teacher,
therefore, is to find out what approach and what method will enable him to realize a particular
objective under a set of particular circumstances.

5.5 Recommendations
On the basis of the findings and conclusions reached in this study, the following
recommendations are made:

A. The teaching of English language should be conducted in such a way that students
effectively learn and retain the concepts presented to them. The use of the Activity-Based
Direct method of teaching seems to be relevant in achieving this goal. It should therefore be
incorporated into the teaching of English at the secondary and metric school level.
B. In service training programs for teachers of English in form of seminars, workshops and
conferences should be conducted on how to use Activity-Based teaching method and
approaches on English learning.
C. During this study, it was discovered that gender does not play a significant role in the
learning of English language using both the Activity- Based Direct method of teaching and
Traditional method of instruction. Curriculum planners should take this into consideration in
curriculum planning.

5.7 Suggestions for Further Studies

This study may be expanded or extended in the following ways:

A. A similar study should be carried out focusing on the problem faced by female English
teachers in teaching English at secondary level.
B.

48
 xlix

Reference:
>Austin, J.D. The Grammar Translation Method of language Teaching london: longman,
2003.
1. http://www.languageinIndia.com/april2002/tesolbook.html, P.11

2. Rao, D. Kanta and J.M. Kanthi Thilakha, “Language Teaching: The Present Day
Challenges”, cited in www.languageinIndia.com 10 Jan 2010, P.221

3. Saraswathi, V; (2004) “English Language Teaching : Principles and Practice”, India,

Chennai: Orient Longman, Pp63.
●Illeris, K. (2000) Adult Education in the Perspective of the Learners. Copenhagen: Roskilde
University Press.
●Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, N.J: Ablex
Publishing.
● Suydam, M. N., & Higgins, J. L. (1977). Activity – based learning in elementary school
mathematics: recommendations from research. Mathematics Education Reports, ERIC Center
for science, math and environmental education, Ohio State University. ED144840.
●Weimer, M. E. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
●Bonwell, C. C., and Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the
Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.1. Washington, DC: George
Washington University.
4. Diane-Larsen-Freeman; (1986) “Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching”,
London, Oxford:, OUP, P.86

5. Inbaraj J. (2008) “English Language Teaching First Year : A Source Book for the Diploma
in Teacher Education”, India, Chennai: Tamilnadu Textbook Corporation, P. 139.

6. Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rodgers (2001) (IInd ed.), ‘Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching’, UK: CUP, P.33

7. Yardi, V.V. (1987) (IInd ed.), ‘Teaching English in India Today’, Aurangabad: Parimal
Prakashan, P.176

8. Yardi V.V; (1977) reprint 2009, “Teaching English in India Today”, Aurangabad: Saket
Prakashan, P.160

9. Yardi V.V; (1977) reprint 2009, “Teaching English in India Today”, Aurangabad: Saket
Prakashan, P.160

49
 l

10. Yardi V.V; (1977) reprint 2009, “Teaching English in India

Today”, Aurangabad: Saket Prakashan,P.160

11. Anthony, E.M (1963) ‘Approach, Method, and Technique”, in, Richards J.C. and T.S.
Rodgers ‘Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching’, second edition, 2001, UK, CUP,
P.19

12. Kulkarni A.D; (1972) ‘A Brief Survey of the Principal Methods of Teaching English’ as
cited in proceedings of the seminar on The Teaching of English, the Dept. of English,
Marathwada University, Aurangabad, P.29

13. Bose Kshanika (1999) ‘Teaching of English : A Modern Approach’, Delih: Doaba House,
Publishers, P.397

14. Tickoo M.L; (2003) ‘Teaching and Learning English: A Sourcebook for Teachers and
Teacher-trainers’, Delhi: Orient Longman, P.349

15. Bhatia Kamala and B.D. Bhatia, (1972) ‘The Principles and Methods of Teaching”, Delhi:
Doaba House Publishers’, P.

16. Bhatia Kamala and B.D. Bhatia, (1972) ‘The Principles and Methods of Teaching”, Delhi:
Doaba House Publishers’, P.
17. Pahuja, N.P. (1995) ‘Teaching of English’ Delhi: Amol Publication, P.64

18. Rouse, W.H.D; “25 Centuries in Language Teaching”, Cited in Richards, J.C. and T.S.
Rodgers (IInd ed.) ‘Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching”, UK: CUP, 2001, P.5

19. Saraswathi. V; (2004) ‘English Language Teaching : Principles and Practice”, India,
Chennai: Orient Longman, P.

20. Yardi V.V.; (1977) reprint 2009, ‘Teaching English in India Today’, Aurangabad: Saket
Prakashan, P. 161

21. Yardi V.V.; (1977) reprint (2009), ‘Teaching English in India Today’, Aurangabad: Saket
Prakashan, P.161

22. Bhatia Kamala and B.D. Bhatia, (1972) ‘The Principles and Methods of Teaching”,
Delhi: Doaba House Publishers, P.

23. Tickoo M.L; (2003) ‘Teaching and Learning English : A Sourcebook for Teachers and
Teacher-trainers’, Delhi: Orient Longman, Pp.349,50

24. Palmer H.E and Dorothee Palmer (1959), “English Through Actions”, quoted in J.O.
Gauntlett (ed.) “Teaching English as a Foreign language” by London, Macmillan, 1966, Pp.
17,18
50
 li

 Abdullahi, A. (1982). Teaching in Pakistan. Ilorin, Atoto Press Limited,

 Abdullahi, M. (2005). An Introduction to media and metho Kano,

 Talaat, M. (2002) The Form and Functions of English in Pakistan. Available from:
<http://www.hec.gov.pk> [Accessed 20 February 2010].

 Shamim, F., and Qureshi, R. (2009) Schools and Schooling Practices in Pakistan: Lessons
for Policy and Practice. Karachi, Oxford University Press.

 Shah, S.S.A. (1978) Exploring the World of English: A Practical Course in Composi- tion
for College Students and Competitive Candidates. 2nd Ed. Lahore, Ilmi Ki-tabkhana.

 Mari, J.S. (1994). The understanding of science process and its relation to achievement
Basic Science. Unpublished M.ED Thesis of Faculty of English, Panjab University,
>●Khan, S. A. (2008). An experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of co-operative
learning vs. traditional learning method (Unpublished Ph.D thesis). International Islamic
University, Islamabad.
 Macdonald, J., & Twining, P. (2002). Assessing activity-based learning for a networked
course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 102-107.
 McGrath, J. R., & MacEwan, G. (2011). Linking pedagogical practices of activity-based
teaching. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(3), 261-274.
 Mahmood, M. K. (2004). A comparison of traditional method and computer assisted
instruction on students’ achievement in general-science (Unpublished Ph.D thesis). Institute
of Education and Research, University of Punjab, Lahore

 Mari, J.S. (2001). The Effect of process skills instruction on reasoning ability among senior
secondary school students in Kaduna state. Unpublished Ph..D Thesis, Department of
English, Punjab University,

 Sarwar, Z. (1991) Adapting Individualization Techniques for Large Classes. English

Teaching Forum XXIX (2), pp.16-21

 Abdullahi, M. (2005). An introduction to media and methods. Kano, Sana Publishers.

51
 lii

 Rahman, T. (2006) Language Policy, Multilingualism, and Language Vitality in Pakistan.

Trends in Linguistics, pp.73-106.

 Usman, I.A. (2000). The relationship between students’ performance in practical activities
and their academic achievement using NISTEP Mode of Teaching. Unpublished Ph.D
Thesis, PanjabUniversity,

 Rafi, T. (1987) Common Errors in Written English of Pakistani Students. Pakistan

Education Journal, 2(1), pp. 72-81.

 25…Bhatia Kamala and B.D. Bhatia, (1972) ‘The Principles and Methods of Teaching”,
Delhi: Doaba House Publishers, P. 314

28. Verghese C. Paul (1989) first reprint 1990 ‘Teaching English as a Second Language”,
Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt.Ltd. Pp.57-58
29. Diller, Karl. C. ‘The Language Teaching Controversy’, quoted in Diane-Larsen-Freeman
“Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching”, London, Oxford, OUP, 2004 (first Indian
edition), P.23
30. Bhatia Kamala and B.D. Bhatia, (1972) ‘The Principles and Methods of Teaching”,
Delhi:Doaba House Publishers, P.315
31. http://www.languageinindia.com/april2002.tesolbook.html, P. 14
32. Mackey W.F. ‘Language Teaching Analysis’ quoted in Yardi V.V.; ‘Teaching English in
India Today’, Aurangabad Saket Prakashan, 1977 reprint 2009, P. 182
33. Rivers W.M. (1969) ‘Teaching Foreign Language Skills’, quoted in Yardi V.V.; ‘Teaching
English in India Today’, Aurangabad: Saket Prakashan, 1977 reprint 2009, Pp. 182-83
34. “Methodologies in Foreign Language Teaching:A brief Historical Overview”, in
http://www.linguistics.com/ methods.htm, Pp. 1-3
35.“Methodologies in Foreign Language Teaching:A brief Historical Overview”, in
http://www.linguistics.com/ methods.htm, P.1-3
36. Scott D.H. (1946) ‘Language Teaching in the New Education’ London: University of
London Press, P.25
37. Verghese C. Paul (1989) reprint 1990 ‘Teaching English as a Second Language”, Dehil:
Sterling Publishers Pvt.Ltd. P.58
38. Bhatia Kamala and B.D. Bhatia, (1972) ‘The Principles and Methods of Teaching”, Delhi:
Doaba House Publishers P.317
39. Richards, Jack C. and T.S. Rodgers (2001) reprint (2009) ‘Approaches and Methods in
Language Teaching’, Cambridge : CUP, P.50 -51
41. Diane-Larsen-Freeman (2004) reprint (2009) ‘Techniques and Principles in Language
Teaching, New Delhi: CUP, P.35
42. Saraswathi. V; (2004) ‘English Language Teaching : Principles and Practice”, India,
Chennai: Orient Longman, P. 67
43. Saraswathi. V; (2004) ‘English Language Teaching : Principles and Practice”, India,
Chennai: Orient Longman, P. 67
44. Thirumalai M.S. “Language in India: Strength for Today and Bright Hope for
52
 liii

Tomorrow”, in http://www/ languageindia. com/april2002/tesol/book.html, P. 14

45. Thirumalai M.S. “Language in India: Strength for Today and Bright Hope for
Tomorrow”, in http://www/ languageindia.com/april2002/tesol/book.html, P.15
46. Moulton, William, G., ‘Linguistics and Language Teaching in
the United States, 1940-1960”, in C. Mohrnann et. al (ed.)
‘Trends in European and American Linguistics 1930-1960',
Utrecht: Spectrum Publishers, 1961, Pp. 86-89
47.
Rivers, Wilga., (1964), “The Psychologist and the Foreign
Language”, cited in, Saraswathi. V; (ed.) ‘English Language Teaching : Principles and
Practice”, India, Chennai: Orient Longman, P. 67
48. Skinner B.F. ‘Verbal Behavior’, cited in, Bhat Sharada V.‘ELT Methods and Materials: A
Critical Study’, Udaipur: Himanshu Publications, P. 33
49. Moulton, William, G., ‘Linguistics and Language Teaching in the United States 1940-
1960”, in C. Mohrnann et. al (eds.) ‘Trends in European and American Linguistics 1930-
1960', Utrecht: Spectrum Publishers, 1961,P.88
50. Allen, H.B. ‘Teaching English as a Second Language’, cited in C.Paul Verghese (ed.),
‘Teaching English as a Second Language’, Delhi: Sterling Publication, 1989, P.111
51. Bhat, Sharada V. (1998) “ELT Methods and Materials: A Critical Study”, Udaipur:
Himanshu Publications, P.34
52. Valdman, Albert, “Forward Self-instruction in Foreign Language Learning”, IRAL, 2:1
(1904), P. 36
53. Dacanny, Fe. R. (1963), ‘Techniques and Procedures in Second Language Teaching’,
Quezon city: Phoenix Publishing House, Pp.192-193
54. Chastain, K. ‘The Development of Modern Language Skills: Theory to Practice’ cited in
Bhat Sharada V.(ed.) “ELT Methods and Materials: A Critical Study”, Udaipur: Himanshu
Publications, P. 35
55. Dodson C.J. “The Bilingual Method” cited in, Bhat Sharada V. ‘ELT Methods and
Materials : A Critical Study”, Udaipur: Himanshu Publications, 1998 Pp. 38-39
56.Yardi V.V. (1977) reprint (2009) ‘Teaching English in India Today”, Aurangbad: Saket
Prakashan, P.172
57. Bhat Sharada V. (1998) “ELT Methods and Materials: A Critical Study”, Udaipur:
Himanshu Publications, P.39
58. Yardi V.V. (1977) reprint (2009) ‘Teaching English in India Today”, Aurangabad: Saket
Prakashan, P. 172
59. Carrol J.B. (1961) ‘The Study of Language’, Cambridge, Mass: Harward University
Press, P.177
60. Yardi V.V. (1977) reprint (2009) ‘Teaching English in India Today”, Aurangabad: Saket
Prakashan, P. 173-174.
61. Yardi V.V. (1977) reprint (2009) ‘Teaching English in India Today”, Aurangabad: Saket
Prakashan, P.166
66. Pahuja N.P. (1995) reprints (2004), ‘Teaching of English’, Delhi: Amol Publication, P.74
67. Kripa K. Gautam (1988) ‘English Language Teaching : A Critical Study of Methods and
Approaches’, Delhi: Harman Publishing House, P.39

53
 liv

68. Stern H.H., (1983) ‘Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching’, Oxford: OUP, P.462
69.Yardi V.V. (1977) reprint (2009) ‘Teaching English in India Today”, Auranabad: Saket
Prakashan, P. 167
73. Richards Jack C. and T.S. Rodgers, (1986), reprint (2009), ‘Approaches and Methods in
Language Teaching’, UK, Cambridge : CUP, P. 100
78. Kripa, K. Gautam, (1988) “English Language Teaching: A Critical Study of Methods and
Approaches’, New Delhi: Harman Publishing House, P. 50
79.Kulkarni A.D. (1972) ‘A Brief Survey of the Principal
Methods of Teaching English’, cited in Proceedings of the
seminar on ‘The Teaching of English’, the Department of
English, M.U. Aurangabad, P.34
80. Bhat Sharada, V., (1998) ‘ELT Methods and Materials:A Critical Study’, Udaipur:
Himanshu Publications, P.36
81. Kripa, K. Gautam, (1988) “English Language Teaching: A Critical Study of Methods and
Approaches’, New Delhi: Harman Publishing House, Pp. 50-51.
82. Report of the Nagpur Seminar, New Delhi, All India Council of Secondary Education,
1958, P.46
83. Yardi V.V. (1977) reprint 2009, ‘Teaching English in India Today’, Aurangabad: Saket
Prakashan P.168
84. Bhat Sharada, V., (1998) ‘ELT Methods and Materials :A Critical Study’, Udaipur:
Himanshu Publications, P.37
85. Verghese C. Paul (1990) 2nd ed. ‘Teaching English as a Second Language’, New Delhi:
Sterling Publishers, P.61
86. Yardi V.V. (1977) reprint 2009, ‘Teaching English in India Today’, Aurangabad: Saket
Prakashan Pp. 170-171
93. Prabhu, N.S., (1987) ‘Second Language Pedagogy’, Oxford: OUP, P.11
94. Bhat Sharada, V., (1998) ‘ELT Methods and Materials :A Critical Study’, Udaipur:
Himanshu Publications, P.49
95 Pabhu, N.S., (1983) ‘Procedural Syllabuses” SEAMEO (Singapore Regional Language
Centre), P.72
96. Littlewood William, (1981), ‘Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction’,
Cambridge: CUP, P.86
97. Kameen Patrik, T., (1978) ‘A Mechanical, Meaningful and Commutative Framework for
ESL Sentences Combining Exercises’, TESOL quarterly, 12 No.4, Pp.395-99
98. Widdowson Allen, (1975), ‘ESL in Theory and Practice”, cited in Sharada V. Bhat (ed.)
‘ELT Methods and Materials: A Critical Study’ Udaipur: Himanshu, Publications, 1998,
Pp.53-54
99. Morrow, Keith, “Communicative Language Testing: Resolution of Evolution”, in ‘The
Communicative Approach to Language Teaching’, ed. by C.J. Brumfit and K. Johnson Oxford:
OUP, 1986, Pp.143-150
100. Littlewood William, (1981), ‘Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction’,
Cambridge: CUP, P.4
101. Littlewood William, (1981), ‘Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction’,
Cambridge: CUP, P.12
102. Howatt, A.P.R. (1983) ‘A History of English Language Teaching’ Oxford: OUP, P.279
54
 lv

103. Richards J.C. & T.S. Rodgers (1986), ‘Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching’,
Cambridge: CUP, P.69
104. Richards J.C. & T.S. Rodgers (1986), ‘Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching’,
Cambridge: CUP, P.72
105. Widdowson H.G. (1979), ‘Exploration in Applied Linguistics, Oxford: OUP, P.254
106. Prabhu N.S (1983) ‘Procedural Syllabuses’ a paper presented
at the RELC seminar, Singapore, P.417
107. Breen M.P. and C. Candlin (1980), ‘The Essentials of a Communicative Curriculum in
Language Teaching’ Applied Linguistics, 1(2) : 89-112, P.110
108. Breen M.P. and C. Candlin (1980), ‘The Essentials of a Communicative Curriculum in
Language Teaching’ Applied Linguistics, 1(2) : 89-112, P.99
109. Richards J.C. & T.S. Rodgers (1986), ‘Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching’,
Cambridge: CUP, P.77
110. Swan, Michael (1985), “A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach” ELT Journal,
39 (1 and 2): 2-12, P.77
111. Swan Michael (1985), “A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach” ELT Journal,
39 (1 and 2): 2-12, P.87
112.Richards J.C. & T.S. Rodgers (1986), ‘Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching’,
Cambridge: CUP, P.81

55