The effect of the communicative approach in the teaching of speaking skill for teacher trainees: a case study
List of Authors
  • Mohd. Jalani Hasan , Noraien Mansor

Keyword
  • Communication, community, communicative, speaking skills

Abstract
  • English language communication is crucial to develop a community’s interest in learning English as a second language. Thus various methods and approaches have been implemented to teach the language effectively. The Communicative Approach to teaching languages is based on the idea that learning a new language successfully comes through having to communicate real meaning. When learners are involved in real communication, their natural strategies for language acquisition will be used, and this will allow them to learn to use the language. The aim of a communicative approach is communicative competence. This study was carried out to study problems faced by teacher trainees who are still lacking communicative competence although they have learnt English for at least ll years in schools (Maarof,2003) and scored good marks in their SPM examination. Thus it intends to identify the effect of practicing the communicative approach in the teaching of spea.king skills for teacher trainees, the effect of motivation factors and the effect of language leaming strategies on speaking performance. This case study involved a quasi-experimental method to analyse the students’ speaking performance using the speaking module (DRA) based on CA principles. 34 students of the TESL Foundation Course were selected and various instruments were used namely the oral diagnostic test, pre-test and post-test based on MUET components, questionnaires, interviews and also observations. Motivation Scale (MS) is used to measure motivation and Strategy Inventory for Language Leaming (SILL) to measure language learning strategies. The findings revealed that all the subjects achieved better performance, thus enhanced their speaking skills. This approach is hoped to result in an improvement in English Language communication in the community.

Reference
  • 1. Pandian, A & Shanthi,B. (2001). Learning to Communicate. International Journal of Learning. Vol. 7.
    2. Badriah Nasser Al-Twairish (2009). The Effect of the Communicative Approach on the
    Listening and Speaking Skills of Saudi Secondary School Students: An Experimental Study. Unpublished master’s thesis, King Saud University.
    3. Beaumont, M. & K.-S.Chang (2011). ‘Challenging the Traditional or Communicative Dichotomy’. ELT Journal, 65(3): 291-299.
    4. Canale, M. & M, Swain (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second
    Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1-47.
    5. Carol Griffiths (2011). The Traditional or Communicative Dichotomy. ELT Journal Volume. 65/3: 300-308.
    6. Dumas, J.S. & Redish, J.(1993). A Practical Guide to Usability Testing, Ablex, Norwood: New
    Jersey.
    7. Ellis, G. (1996). How Culturally Appropriate is the Communicative Approach? ELT Journal."
    English Language Teachers Journal. 50(3): 213-218.
    8. Ellis, G. (2003).Task-Based Language-Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    9. Fauziah, H. & Nita F.S.(2002). Why aren't Students Proficient in ESL: The Teachers’ perspective: The English Teacher Volume XXVIII, June 2002.
    10. Foo, T. S. & Richards, M. (2004). Learning English in Multicultural Malaysia. Are Learners Motivated? Journal of Language and Learning. 2: 142-153.
    11. Gottlieh, M. & Hamayan, E. (2006). Assessing English Language Learners; Bridges from Language Proficiency to Academic Achievement. California: Corwin Press.
    12. Hanner, J. (2003). ‘Popular Culture, Methods, and Context‘. ELT Journal. 57(3): 287-94.
    13. Hymes, D. (1972). ‘On Communicative Competence’ in J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    14. Hunter, James (2012). ‘Small Talk‘: Developing Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity in Speaking. ELTJournal. 66(1): 30-41.
    15. Johnson, P & Christensen, S. (2004). Mixed Methodology-Combining Qualitative and Quantative Approaches. Sage Publications Inc.: California.
    16. Ahmad, Khairiah (1970). ‘Factors Influencing the Learning of English Language in Selected Malay Medium Schools in Malaysia’- a Research Proposal. Jurnal Pendidikan, Universiti Malaya: 1(1): August 1970.
    17. Wong, Mary Siew-Lian (2010). Beliefs about Language Learning. A study of Malaysian Pre-service Teachers. RELC Journal. 123-136.
    18. Embi, M. A., & Mohd. Amin, M. Z. (2010). Strategies for Successful English Language Learning (SELL). Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd.
    19. Maarof, Nooreiny (2003). Keupayaan Penguasaan Kemahiran Bahasa lnggeris di kalangan Pelajar Melayu dalam Arus Globalisasi, Projek Arus Perdana Ap. 1/2000,Bangi, UKM.
    20. Jalaluddin, N. H. (2009). Linguistics and Environment in English Language Learning : Towards the Development of Quality Human Capital. European Journal of Social Sciences. 9(4).
    21. Pandian, A. (2002).English Language Teaching in Malaysia Today. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education. 22(2): 35-52.
    22. Phillipson, D. W.( 1993). African Archaeology. Cambridge Univeristy Press: Cambridge.
    23. Pillay, H. & North, S.(1997) ‘Tied to the Topic: ‘Integrating Grammar and Skills in KBSM’. The English Teacher XXVI: 1-23.
    24. Savignon, S. J .(2002). Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns
    in Teacher Education. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    25. Shaaban & Ghaith (2000). Motivation Scale Background and Scoring Guide. Centre for
    Assessment and research Studies. James Madison University.
    26. SOLOM (1981). Student Oral Language Observation Matrix. California State Department of Education in Classroom Assessment of English Learners’ Oral Language Development. Oxford University Press.
    27. Willis, J.(l992). ‘Inner and Outer: Spoken Discourse in the Language Classroom’ in M. Coulthard (ed.). Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Roultledge.