Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 15 no. 9 (2023)

Communicative Approach as Employed in English Class

Mohammadsharif Abdulhamid | Mojimal Tuttoh | Mona Allea Matolo | Roaida Quijano

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Communicative Approach is regarded as one of the most effective approaches to English language teaching. It involves teachers’ communicative ability and competence. This study aimed to determine the teachers’ Communicative Approach employed in English class as perceived by the Grade 10 students in both public and private secondary schools in Bongao, Tawi-Tawi, Philippines. It made use of the descriptive-quantitative research design. A researcher-made-scale carefully checked and validated by panel of experts was composed of variables namely communicative competence and communicative ability. Mean, average mean and t-test were the statistical tools utilized to analyze the data. Results revealed that public secondary school teachers’ communicative ability was moderately employed while their communicative competence was highly employed in English class. Meanwhile, private secondary school teachers’ communicative ability and communicative competence were both very highly employed in English class. Teachers from private schools manifested better communicative ability compared to teachers from public schools as they displayed creativity and resourcefulness in delivering their lessons through varied activities, conversations and discussions. On the other hand, teachers in both public and private schools have similar extent of communicative competence since they displayed proficiency in communication using English language. Consequently, teachers from both public and private secondary schools in Bongao, Tawi-Tawi employed the communicative approach in English class. However, teachers from private schools manifested higher communicative ability and communicative competence than teachers from public secondary schools. Further, they significantly employed communicative approach in English class to engage students to challenging, motivating and meaningful activities, hence, create an interactive class that inculcates the students with an effective and meaningful leaning experience. Thus, communicative ability and communicative competence of teachers are emphasized as important ingredients or approaches in teaching English.



References:

  1. Alam, F., Zaman, N., and Ahmed, T. (eds). (2001). Revisioning English in Bangladesh. Dhaka: TheUniversity Press Limited.
  2. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
  3. Bachman, L., Savigon, S. (1986). The Evaluation of Communicative Language Proficiency: A Critique of the ACTFL Oral Interview. The Modern Language Journal 70, 380-390.
  4. Berns, M. (1990). Context of Communicative Ability: Social and Cultural Considerations in Communicative Language Teaching. New York: Plerium Press.
  5. Brown, H.D. (1994b). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. NewJersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
  6. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
  7. Chang (2011). The Reason Why CLT was Not Widely Used in Taiwan. English Language Teaching,4 (2), 13-24.
  8. Chimombo, M. et al (1998). The Power of Discourse: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis.Mahwar NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  9. Ferdous (2011). Effectiveness of Communicative Language Teaching Approach at HSC Level.English Department East West University
  10. Gahin & Myhill (2001). EFL Teachers‟ Beliefs and Attitudes towards the Communicative LanguageApproach (CA).
  11. Gloria, J. (2007). The Extent of Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching Approach atSillimanUniversity High School Dumaguete City. Silliman University, Dumaguete City.
  12. Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),Sociolinguistics. (pp.269-93). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  13. Hudson, T. (2000). The Effects of Induced Schemata on the „Short-Circuit‟ in L2 Reading: Non-Decoding Factors in L2 Reading Performance”. Language Learning, 32(1),1-31.
  14. Irmawati (2012). Communicative Approach: An Alternative Method Used in Improving Students‟Academic Reading Achievements.
  15. Li, D. (1998). It‟s Always More Difficult Than You Plan And Imagine Teachers‟ PerceivedDifficulties in Introducing The Communicative Approach in South Korea, in TESOLQuarterly, 3, 4:667-702
  16. Littlewood, W. (1984). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
  17. Maestre J. (2016). Teachers‟ Beliefs, Practices and Challenges in Using Communicative Language.Ateneo de Davao University, The Philippines Maria Gindidis, Monash University Teaching(CLT) in an ESL Context in the Philippines.
  18. Nacar (2007). Approaches and Method in Language Teaching: Communicative Language Teaching.Cambridge University Press.
  19. Nobuyoshi, J. & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused Communication Tasks and Second Language Acquisition.SLA Research and Language Teaching.
  20. Nunans, D. (1991). The Impact of English as Global Language on Educational Policies and Practicesin the Asian-Pacific Region. TESOL quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.
  21. Orellana and Galloway (1993). Communicative Competence and Communicative LanguageTeaching. http://cicero.u-bunkyo.ac.jp/lib/kiyofsell2002/25-32.pdf.
  22. Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The Use of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)”: Turkish EFL Teachers‟PerceivedDifficulties in Implementing CLT in Turkey. University of Illinois.
  23. Patron P. (2005). An Evaluation of the Project in Basic Education (PROBE). A Basis forConstructivist Workshop Design and Guide for Supplementary Materials Production.Silliman University, Dumaguete City.
  24. Radzi, et al (2007). Adopting Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Approach to Enhance OralCompetencies among Students. Faculty of Communication and Modern LanguagesUniversity Ultara Malaysia .
  25. Rahman, H. (1987). Appropriate Methodology for Teaching English in Bangladesh. BELTA Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, 25-30.
  26. Riazi, A.M., & Razmjoo, S.A (2006). Do High Schools Or Private Institutes Practice CommunicativeNLanguage Teaching? A Case Study of Shiraz Teachers in High Schools and Institutes. The Reading Matrix, 6(3).
  27. Savigon, (1972). Communicative Ability: An Experiment in Foreign Language Teaching Philadelphia: Centre for Curriculum Development.
  28. Sultana (2006). Can a Formal Instruction of Grammar Help Students in Bangladesh to Develop Communicative Competence?‟
  29. Richards, J.C. (2003). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  30. Wilkins, D.A. (1972). The Linguistics and Situational Content of the Common Core in a Unit/Credit System. MS. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic