The Effect Of Communicative Language Teaching And Audio-Lingual Method On English Speaking Skill Across Different Learning Styles
Abstract
This study aims to determine whether there is an interactive effect between learning methods (Communicative Language Teaching/CLT and Audio-Lingual Method/ALM) and learning styles (Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic) on English speaking skill. The researchers used a quasi-experimental research design with a population of 383 students and samples of 70, assigned into two groups: experimental and control. The data were collected using three instruments (i.e., a pretest, a posttest, and a questionnaire) and then descriptively analyzed. A 2x3 factorial of Two-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with parametric statistical method was utilized because the data were normally distributed as well as homogeneous. The results of the analysis of the pretest scores show that the English speaking skills of the two groups of students applying the two different methods are the same at the significance level of 0.080. The analysis of the posttest scores show that there was no interactive effect between the learning methods and the learning styles on the English speaking skill at the significance level of 0.138. This implies that no matter what learning styles they have, students in CLT class performed better in speaking English than those in ALM.
Keywords: CLT, ALM, learning styles, English speaking skill
References
[1] D. Afrizal, “Improving students speaking through communicative language teaching method at MTs Ja-Alhaq, Sentot Ali Basa Islamic Boarding School of Bengkulu, Indonesia,” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 2, no. 20, pp. 127–134, 2012.
[2] O. N. Ahmed, “The effect of different learning styles on developing writing skills of EFL Saudi learners,” British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 220–233, 2012.
[3] B. DePorter, R. Mark, S. Sarah, and Nourie, “Quantum teaching,” Editor, Hernacki, M. Translated by Ary Nilandari., Bandung, Kaifa PT Mizan Pustaka, 2000.
[4] A. Pourhosein Gilakjani, “Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic Learning Styles and Their Impacts on English Language Teaching,” Journal of Studies in Education, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 104–113, 2011.
[5] N. Haq, “An analysis of the effects of audio - lingual method of teaching on the listening and speaking skills of students,” International Journal for Teachers of English, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 105–176, 2014.
[6] Juliatuti, “Efektifitas penerapan model pembelajaran audiolingual method (ALM) untuk meningkatkan speaking skill mahasiswa ekonomi Islam STAIN Datokarama Palu.ISTIQRA,” Jurnal Penelitian Ilmiah, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 203–217, 2013.
[7] N. U. Kumar, P. Philip, A. Kalaiselvi, “The application of CLT to teaching English as a second language - an assessment of practice in India,” in International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, vol. 2, pp. 24–29, 2013.
[8] M. Latha and P. Ramesh, “Teaching English as a second language: Factors affecting learning speaking skills,” in International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), vol. 1, pp. 1–6, 2012.
[9] C. T. Mart, “The Audio-Lingual Method: An Easy way of Achieving Speech,” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 63–65, 2013.
[10] U. Widiati, E. Irawati, Y. Basthomi, Suharmanto, and Z. Rohmah, Metode pembelajaran bahasa Inggris, Bintang Sejahtera Press, Malang, 2014.
[11] W. Xu, “Learning styles and their implications in learning and teaching,” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 413–416, 2011.
[12] Y. I. J. Yang, “The Implementation of Speaking Fluency in Communicative Language Teaching: An Observation of Adopting the 4/3/2 Activity in High Schools in China,” International Journal of English Language Education, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 193–214, 2013.
[13] A. Yuliana, Syakur, and A. Soegito, “The application of audiolingual method to improve students speaking ability,” Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris STKIP PGRI Sidoarjo, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 88–93, 2013.