SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR TEACHING ANDCOMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING ENGLISHGRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY

Mehmet ÖZCAN
Harun ÇİFTÇİ
Journal
IOJET
Pages
709–729
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, the quantitative and qualitative findings of the study suggested that TGTM was more practicable and productive than CLT in teaching and learning English grammar and vocabulary.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to compare whether Traditional Grammar Translation Method (henceforward TGTM) or Communicative Language Teaching (henceforward CLT) was more effective in teaching English language grammar and vocabulary.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants of this study were sixty-eight 9th grade students attending to a high school.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, the quantitative and qualitative findings of the study suggested that TGTM was more practicable and productive than CLT in teaching and learning English grammar and vocabulary.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aimed to compare whether Traditional Grammar Translation Method (henceforward TGTM) or Communicative Language Teaching (henceforward CLT) was more effective in teaching English language grammar and vocabulary. The participants of this study were sixty-eight 9th grade students attending to a high school. Mixed methods research design was grounded comprising a pre-test and post-test quasi-experimental design. The results of the pre and post-tests, quizzes and the oral productions of the participants were analyzed based on error analysis. It was observed that the students, who were taught English grammar via TGTM made fewer errors than those who were taught via CLT in both their written and oral productions. Additionally, vocabulary production was higher for the students who were taught based on TGTM than those in CLT. As a result, the quantitative and qualitative findings of the study suggested that TGTM was more practicable and productive than CLT in teaching and learning English grammar and vocabulary.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZCAN, M., ÇİFTÇİ, H. (2022). A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR TEACHING ANDCOMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING ENGLISHGRAMMAR AND VOCABULARY. IOJET, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 709–729. https://ajindex.com/articles/540773

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Abbas, S., & Ali, W. (2014). Comparison between Grammar & Translation Method & Communicative Language Teaching. International Journal of Advanced Research, 2(6), 124–128. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323346253_COMPARISON_BETWEEN_G RAMMAR_TRANSLATION_METHOD_COMMUNICATIVE_LANGUAGE_TEAC HING Akhtar, R., N. (2014). An experimental study using Communicative Language Teaching Method (CLTM) at higher secondary level to enhance students’ reading comprehension skills. NICE Research Journal, 7, 1–24. Retrieved form https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275042781_AN_EXPERIMENTAL_STUDY _USING_COMMUNICATIVE_LANGUAGE_TEACHING_METHOD_CLTM_AT_ HIGHER_SECONDARY_LEVEL_TO_ENHANCE_STUDENTS'_READING_COM PREHENSION_SKILLS. Al-wossabi, S. (2016). Speaking in the target language: Issues and considerations. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(5), 886–893. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0705.08.
  2. Baugh, A., C., & Cable, T. (2002). A history of the English language (4th ed.). London, England: Routledge. Belchamber, R. (2015). The advantages of Communicative Language Teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 13(2), 1–7. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/BelchamberCLT.
  3. Brown, D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York, USA: Pearson Education. Chang, S., C. (2011). A contrastive study of Grammar Translation Method and Communicative Approach in teaching English grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 13–24. https://doi:10.5539/elt.v4n2p13.
  4. Conti, G. (2016). Grammar Translation and Communicative Language Teaching compared. Retrieved from https://gianfrancoconti.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/grammar-translationand-communicative-language-teaching-compared/.
  5. Corder, S., P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist., 5(1), 161– 169. https://doi: 10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161. Dagilienė, I. (2012). Translation as a learning method in English language teaching. Studies about Languages, 21, 124–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.21.1469.
  6. Duff, A. (1994). Translation: Resource books for teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, (40)1, 83–107. https://doi: 10.2307/40264512. Gorsuch, G., J. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruction in two Japanese high school classrooms: An exploratory study. JALT Journal, 20(1), 6–31. Retrieved from http://jaltpublications.org/jj/articles/2777-yakudoku-efl-instruction-t