¹Aliazas, Kimberly Joy C.,²Velasco, Cecilia Q.

¹Sta. Lucia National High School

²Laguna State Polytechnic University- San Pablo City Campus

DOI : https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2023.v2i6n14

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of communicative language teaching, such as content-based and task-Based instruction, in enhancing the speaking competence of grade 11 students in terms of fluency, vocabulary, grammatical accuracy, and pronunciation. The researcher hopes that the problems encountered in speaking might be alleviated through the study's outcomes and further promotes the use of the approaches used in this study. The use of these approaches paved the way to enhance further speaking competence in fluency, vocabulary, grammatical accuracy, and pronunciation. This might open doors to those students who are hesitant to express their ideas in speaking not only in English subjects but also in other disciplines. Through the study's findings, the possible approaches in further promoting these approaches will be clear and hopefully effective. Meanwhile, the study's findings on enhancing the students' speaking competence using communicative language teaching resulted in significant differences in fluency and grammatical accuracy. Whereas in terms of vocabulary and pronunciation, no significant difference was found. The results revealed that in terms of speaking competence, students have improved. However, the results also show that vocabulary and pronunciation skills are the competence found to have found the least mastered by the students since they are still in the adjustment period from the pandemic. They needed to be given more exposure to the vocabulary and practiced their pronunciation skills.

KEYWORDS:

Content-based Instruction, Fluency, Grammatical Accuracy, Pronunciation, Task-based Instruction, Vocabulary

REFERENCES

1) Alwi, N. A. N. M., et. al. (2015). The role of task complexity and task motivation in language production. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 15(2), 33-49.

2) Brand, C., & Götz, S. (2011). Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16, 255-275. doi:10.1075/ijcl.16.2.05bra

3) Crandall, J. (1999). Content-Based Instruction (CBI). Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics (pp. 208-604). Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.

4) Davies, S. (2003). Content Based Instruction in EFL Contexts. Internet Tesl Journal,2

5) Derwing, Tracey & Munro, Murray & Thomson, Ron & Rossiter, Marian. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 31. 533 - 557. 10.1017/S0272263109990015.

6) Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7) Haghi, E. B. et. al. (2014). The impact of task-based approach on Iranian EFL learners’ motivation in writing research abstracts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 953-962. doi:10.4304/jltr.5.4.953-962

8) Jeyasala, V. R. (2014). A prelude to practice: Interactive activities for effective communication in English. Alternative pedagogies in the English language & communication classroom, 164-170.

9) Moss, D., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2003). Second language acquisition in adults: From research to practice. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/CAELA/esl_resources/digests/SLA.html

10) Richards, Jack C. 2009. Teaching Listening and Speaking: From theory to Practice(RELC Portfolio Series). Singapore: Regional Language Center available at: http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/teachinglistening-and-speaking-fromtheory-to-practice.pdf

11) Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190

12) Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13) Spratt, M., Pulverness,A. & Williams, M.(2005). The TKT (Teaching Knowledge Test) Course, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

14) Stoller, F. L. (2002). Promoting the Acquisition of Knowledge in a Content-based Course. In J. Crandall, & D. Kaufman (Eds.). Content-based Instruction in Higher Education Settings. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

15) Sunarwan, Aisyah. "The Effectiveness of Content-based Instruction to Teach Speaking Viewed From Students' Creativity." Pedagogy, vol. 2, no. 1, 2014, pp. 19-29.

16) Tahir, S. Z. B. (2012). Redefining Terms of Teaching and Learning Strategy, Method, Approach, Technique, and Model. Public lecture on Microteaching at English Education Department of University of Iqra Buru, November 01st 2012.

17) Vanichvasin, P. (2019). Effects of content-based instruction on English language performance of Thai undergraduate students in a Non-English program. English Language Teaching, 12(8), 20. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n8p20

18) Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. London: Longman. WU, Wen. (2008). Misunderstanding of Communicative Language Teaching. CCSE, 1(1): 50-53.

19) Yousif, A. S. A. (2017). The effect of communicative task-based instruction on developing students' oral communication skills at Sudanese universities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Sudan University of Science and Technology, Khrtoom, Sudan

VOlUME 02 ISSUE 06 JUNE 2023