Open AccessCognitive Perspectives on English Learning Methods: Efficiency and Achievements Under Task-Based Instruction
View Full Article|
Download PDFAbstract:
In the epoch where globalization and knowledge economy predominate, mastery of English, fortified by its potent global stance, emerges as pivotal for multinational communication. Pursuant to this paradigm, English educators are impelled to refine teaching methodologies and accentuate perpetual learning. A comprehensive investigation into bilingual learning outcomes and efficacy employing Grammar Translation Method (GTM), Cognitive Direct Method (CDM), and Eclectic Bilingual Approaches (EBA) is herein presented. Methodologically, a quantitative experimental design complemented by qualitative interviewing was employed over a six-month experimental project, involving ninety-three university students enrolled in an intensive English language programme. The cohort was stratified into three distinctive learning groups: those exposed to GTM, CDM, and EBA, respectively. A determination of the most potent approach for English instruction represented the focal intent of this inquiry. Interviews, conducted by the researcher and teaching assistants, aimed to unearth the motivational substrates underpinning students’ English language acquisition endeavors. A meticulous cross-analysis proffers efficient language learning models, underscoring the pertinence of innovative learning approaches for English.1. Introduction
In the 1980s, a proliferation of globalization and internationalization was experienced by Taiwan, inciting an acute interest within the nation to establish robust relations with countries globally, with a view to fortifying its economic standing. Subsequent to this international awakening, a swift metamorphosis of Taiwan’s economic and cultural terrains was observed, principally molded by the emergence of the knowledge economy. Such a socio-economic evolution amplified the salience of English communication skills, given the ascension in interactions amongst individuals across disparate nations, thereby highlighting the instrumental role of English as a lingua franca. In contemporary Taiwanese society, an evident and overwhelming eminence of the English learning environment has been witnessed. Resultantly, remarkable alterations, culminating in a multifaceted, diverse, and knowledge-oriented domain, have been undergone by the realm of English education. Traditional methodologies for English instruction, once potentially adequate, are increasingly identified as deficient in furnishing students with the competitive capabilities necessitated by the modern global canvas (Coatsworth, 2004). Thus, educators are met with the indispensability of efficaciously instructing students whilst assessing their motivational predispositions.
Amidst an ever-expanding assortment of educational tools, a formidable responsibility is faced by educators, tasked with enhancing students’ linguistic proficiency, notably in English. The prevailing urgency dictates a necessity for an inclusive educational framework that proficiently leverages varied instructional methodologies and readily embraces innovative approaches. The investigation into newfangled approaches to English language education is propelled by an acute need to cater to the transforming requisites of a contemporary society. English communication proficiency has ascended to become a vital asset in facilitating personal and professional achievements. Given the perpetually mutable nature of language learning and augmenting demands of learners, a comprehensive and adaptable pedagogical approach must be embraced by educators. The integration of varied English teaching methodologies and the exploration of innovative pedagogical techniques emerge as vital components in this transformative educational endeavor. An aim to unveil approaches that augment language acquisition and instill a profound respect for English as a conduit for global interaction is embodied by educators as they immerse themselves in pedagogical innovation. The progression of English education in Taiwan epitomizes a profound comprehension of the intricate interplay amongst globalization, the knowledge-based economy, and linguistic capabilities. In the wake of this paradigmatic shift, a critical participation in a ceaseless process of self-reflection and adaptation, as they endeavor to nurture a cadre of students proficient in English communication, becomes imperative for educators. Such competency is paramount in adeptly navigating the complexities of a globally interconnected society.
2. Literature Review
In contemporary times, the notion of learning has undergone transformation in response to the emergence of the information age. One of the key concerns in light of the prevailing trend of readily accessible information is the process of discerning and effectively using this knowledge. There have been notable changes in the methods by which pupils acquire knowledge, as compared to previous times. In the contemporary educational landscape, students are no longer content with the mere regurgitation of information imparted by instructors, as they can access many handy resources. The idea of English language acquisition has transformed, shifting its focus from a solitary learning process to one that emphasizes the skills of management and creation. In the context of globalization, the field of education has become more diverse. Consequently, English education may today be characterized as the pedagogical approach instructors use to facilitate students’ acquisition and proficiency in the English language. Given the vast array of learning devices at our disposal, it is imperative for educators to guide students in cultivating their competitive aptitudes rather than just mandating the replication of instructional materials or the rote memorization of textbook information inside the classroom setting (Diniatulhaq et al., 2020). Therefore, it is important for educators and learners alike to embrace novel viewpoints in English language instruction. The researcher examined the academic performance of university students in three bilingual teaching methods: GTM, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and Content-Based Instruction (CBI). This study aimed to fulfill the aforementioned objective.
The GTM, historically referred to as the Classical Method, is substantiated by a substantial theoretical foundation in linguistics and educational psychology. Originating as an instructional approach for teaching classical languages, GTM later found application in assisting students in reading and comprehending literature in various languages, especially during the early years of the current century (Quirk, 1985). A significant impact on the fields of English language instruction and acquisition is attributed to the GTM (Ellis, 2006).
Notable researchers such as B.F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov have explored the correlation between GTM principles and their resultant effects. Significant contributions were made by Pavlov to the Generalized Theory of Mind in the context of classical conditioning, proposing that the facilitation of new knowledge and skill acquisition can be achieved through eliciting learned behavioral responses via neutral stimuli. Moreover, E.L. Thorndike, a prominent scholar in the field, augmented renowned concepts within the General Theory of Learning, wherein principles such as exercise, practice, and effect accentuate the impact of outcomes derived from current learning behaviors in sculpting future achievements (Slavin, 2018).
Thorndike propounded three requirements to optimize the learning process: the laws of recency, exercise, and effect. The concept of operant conditioning, involving shaping learners’ learning behavior through reward and memory, emanates from the principles established in classical conditioning (Palfreyman, 2006; Van Aacken, 1999).
GTM, as a learning technique, is founded upon analyzing the impact of stimuli on reflexive behavior. The methodology entails the development of skills not inherently present, with learning often contingent upon instruction, stimulation, rote memorization, and practical exercises. A significant emphasis is placed on deconstructing complex activities into discrete sub-skills, which are subsequently taught in isolation. Such phenomena are currently prevalent in educational institutions in Taiwan (Dörnyei, 2011; McKernan, 1996).
A myriad of pedagogical practices is endorsed by GTM theories. Often, students may be categorized as recipients of “teacher-centered” instruction, dedicating a substantial portion of their instructional time to acquiring and honing phonics abilities, encompassing aspects such as consonant clusters, vowel digraphs, and diphthongs. Moreover, supplementary literacy skills, such as verbal articulation and the application of fundamental grammatical principles (including comma usage), may be disseminated through discrete instructional sessions, frequently constituting whole-class lectures followed by individualized practice exercises and tasks (Milawati, 2019).
Theoretical perspectives on GTM incorporate diverse instructional methods, including tutorials, drill and practice exercises, behavioral simulations, and programmed instruction (Smith, 2008). A cardinal tenet of the GTM approach posits that foreign language acquisition significantly enhances pupils’ intellectual development. Through systematic analysis of grammatical principles, students may augment their familiarity with vocabulary and grammar, and through continuous memorization and practice, facilitate the development of a sense of familiarity beneficial in effectively expressing themselves in both spoken and written forms of their target languages. Employing instructional practices, such as the exposition of grammatical principles, students are introduced to the target language, developing a level of familiarity beneficial in manipulating and utilizing it effectively (Dörnyei, 2011; Quirk, 1985).
Integrating elements from behavioral psychology, the application of shaping and reinforcement techniques in GTM facilitates rapid and accurate pupil response to stimuli through the utilization of English sentence patterns (Crystal, 1997) Through rigorous exercises, students are enabled to effectively overcome linguistic patterns inherent in their native language, developing requisite habits for proficiency in the language spoken by the target population (Ellis, 2006; Milawati, 2019).
A distinct departure from the GTM, which contends that learning outcomes stem largely from memorization and particular classroom activities, the CDM advances a theoretical framework that anchors learning firmly within cognitive thinking processes. A divergence in the perspectives and applications of these methods has been observed, with the latter promoting a conceptual understanding of language learning over rote memorization.
The essence of cognitive development, articulated by Piaget, asserts that the evolution of a student’s cognitive abilities does not transpire in a consistent, uninterrupted manner. Conversely, Vygotsky underscores the fundamental importance of social interaction in cognitive development, weaving into the discourse significant motifs that delineate its centrality in learning contexts. Both theorists, while diverging in approach and specific theorems, locate cognition at the forefront of learning paradigms.
Chomsky (2002) introduced a pivotal standpoint on bilingualism, postulating that language acquisition is underpinned by inherent cognitive processes (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). His theory suggests the existence of a set of internal parameters, universally shared among children, that specifically delineate the grammatical structures they will subsequently develop (Yule, 2022). Furthermore, it is posited that an intrinsic faculty, termed the “Language Acquisition Device,” resides within human cognitive structures, driving language acquisition processes in a manner akin to broader biological development. Notably, it is proposed that language acquisition is subject to a critical period during which optimal learning is achievable (Chomsky, 2002).
The Cognitive Developmental Model (CDM) empowers individuals to immerse themselves in language stimuli, facilitating not only the comprehension of linguistic meanings but also the efficacious application of grammatical rules. Such engagement fosters the development of innovative sentence structures through a foundation of generative grammar, comprising a principal axiom and a set of rigorously specified rules utilized to generate intended word sequences (Brown, 2000).
Krashen (1981), meanwhile, advocates that “acquisition” transpires solely when individuals decode messages, analogous to the developmental trajectory observed in toddlers during first language learning. The “Natural Approach” perspective on language encapsulates three primary components: lexical items, structures, and messages (Krashen, 1981; Krahnke, 1985), postulating that the “acquired system” is birthed through an unconscious cognitive process. Fundamental to the CDM approach is the meaningful engagement in the language acquisition process, with a learning trajectory that prioritizes the communicative act over structural preciseness in student utterances (E-Learning Definition & Explanation. Stockley, 2022; Kemmis et al., 2014).
Chomsky (2002) and Krashen (1981), despite their distinctive standpoints, converge on the assertion that individuals possess unique learning attributes. Thus, the universal application of the GTM may be deemed untenable across all learning contexts. Maximized learning efficiency is conjectured to be attainable when students employ behavioral memorization techniques alongside diverse strategies such as observation, cognition, and engagement, thereby facilitating language acquisition.
The CDM sternly opposes the incorporation of formal grammar memorization in teaching, asserting that multilingual language acquisition transcends mere linguistic norm acquisition and necessitates the development and utilization of translation skills. Fundamental principles woven into this teaching methodology include the exclusion of pupils’ native languages during instructional periods, asserting that the presence of a native language can obstruct the development of proficient oral skills. Distinguishing between the foundational patterns of first language acquisition and second language learning processes proves crucial. Language acquisition is delineated as the faculty to comprehend and orally express oneself.
In contexts where students’ native languages are eschewed, learning is often mediated through direct demonstration and visual teaching materials (Chern, 2002). It is advised that the GTM be sidestepped in the acquisition of grammar and translation abilities. Additionally, delaying the introduction of written materials in the target language for learners is recommended, to the extent feasible. Utilizing conditioning techniques and materials that mirror real-world contexts enables students to subvert linguistic habits embedded in their first language, crafting new patterns conducive to second language acquisition. An inductive approach, in which rules governing linguistic behavior are derived from the language itself, is proposed as the optimal pathway toward language learning.
In contrast to the GTM learning strategy, which posits that student learning outcomes are derived through memory and practice within classroom settings, the CDM learning theories propose that learning is contingent upon cognitive processes of the mind. The idea of cognitive development, as articulated by Jean Piaget, posits that the progression of a student’s thinking abilities does not occur continuously and seamlessly. Vygotsky’s theory posits significant themes on the essential significance of social interaction in cognitive development.
The thesis of Chomsky (2002) on bilingualism posited that language acquisition originates from inherent cognitive processes (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Chomsky (2002) posits a common set of internal restrictions among all children, specifically delineating the grammar they will develop (Yule, 2022). In biology, it is seen that human beings possess an inherent capacity known as the “Language Acquisition Device,” which is stored inside their cognitive structure. Consequently, it is unwarranted to assume that the realm of the mind deviates from this pattern. Much like the broader development of the human body, language acquisition is subject to a key period during which optimal learning occurs (Grundy, 1982). Through CDM, individuals can engage in language stimulation that facilitates their understanding of language meaning and enhances their ability to apply grammatical rules and create innovative sentences effectively. A generative grammar model begins by establishing an axiom and a collection of precisely specified rules to generate the intended sequences of words (Brown, 2000). According to Krashen, “acquisition” is contingent upon individuals comprehending messages, mirroring how toddlers acquire their first language. The view on language presented by the “Natural Approach” encompasses three key components: lexical items, structures, and messages (Krashen, 1981; Krahnke, 1985). The “acquired system” is a manifestation of an unconscious cognitive process. The CDM approach necessitates the presence of meaningful engagement within the language acquisition process. The learning approach of natural interaction prioritizes students’ focus on the communicative act rather than the specific structure of their utterances (Kemmis et al., 2014).
In summary, Chomsky (2002) and Krashen (1981) espoused the notion that individuals had distinct characteristics, rendering using the GTM unsuitable for all learning scenarios. Efficiency in learning may be maximized when pupils only use behavioral memorization techniques. Several methods, such as observation, comprehension, cognitive processes, and engaging activities, may enhance teaching and learning efficiency. These approaches are particularly beneficial in facilitating the development of language learning skills.
The CDM strongly advocates against the use of formal grammar memorization in teaching. The argument posits that the process of bilingual language acquisition extends beyond the mere acquisition of grammatical rules, emphasizing the need of developing and using translation skills. The teaching methodology used incorporates several fundamental guidelines, including the prohibition of using the pupils’ native language during instructional sessions. The development of proficient oral skills is often impeded by the presence of one’s first language. When it comes to first-language speakers, it is essential to distinguish between the fundamental patterns of language acquisition and the process of acquiring a second language. Language acquisition entails the ability to comprehend and communicate via listening and speaking.
Without access to the student’s mother tongue, the comprehension of the target language will be effectively communicated via direct demonstration and the use of visual instructional resources (Chern, 2002). Refraining from using the GTM to acquire grammar and translation abilities is advisable. Additionally, it is recommended to delay the introduction of written materials in the target language for learners. By using conditioning techniques and instructional materials that simulate real-life scenarios, pupils have the ability to overcome the linguistic habits ingrained in their original language and develop new patterns for acquiring a second language. The acquisition of language learning is best achieved via an inductive approach, whereby the rules governing the behavior of the language are derived from the language itself (Lai & Kritsonis, 2006).
The CDM approach, which emerged alongside certain pedagogical paradigms, advocates for the exclusive use of the target language in foreign language instruction. This is particularly relevant in language classes where educators aim to cultivate high levels of motivation and proficiency in the target language among their students (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Contrarily, language proficiency is the ability to communicate effectively in a given language. Language acquisition is an internal cognitive process that enables children to comprehend and navigate novel circumstances (Slaughter & Leslie, 2001). While it is well acknowledged that second language acquisition often involves imitating the learning process of first language acquisition, it is argued that students should periodically use their first language to facilitate studying a target language (Chern, 2002). The first language learner adeptly commits to memory and tactically employs written words to surmount challenges, ultimately facilitating pupils’ acquisition of the desired languages (Al-Khasawneh, 2022). The eclectic bilingual method (EBM) is a theoretical approach combining various activities and courses from diverse, bilingual approaches and philosophies. According to the EBA method, there exists variation in the language acquisition patterns across pupils. Individuals possess distinct learning styles and exhibit variations in their learning rates. There exists variation among pupils in terms of their ability to acquire reading skills, with some individuals demonstrating proficiency via one instructional approach, while others exhibit rapid progress with another strategy. The term “eclectic bilingual approach” refers to the practice of instructors using many strategies and activities from a diverse range of language teaching approaches within the context of moving away from strict adherence to a single methodology (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). The selection of instructional methods is determined by teachers. The teachings’ efficacy and the learners’ suitability in the groups are contingent upon their respective objectives. Most contemporary course materials and teaching instructions use a blend of instructional methodologies. Teachers are not constrained to a singular instructional approach since selecting a teaching technique is contingent upon the particular educational objective and context. The eclectic bilingual technique is a pedagogical approach that integrates elements of both the cognitive direct and GTM (Eldred, 2005; Koscielecki, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 2000).
Eldred (2005) critically analyzed the coexistence of grammar-translation and communicative training approaches inside the classroom, usually recognized as a compromise strategy. The notion of an eclectic point of view is a novel approach that empowers educators to adopt a fresh perspective or establish connections between diverse preexisting understandings of a given subject matter. Numerous linguists and pedagogy specialists concur on the viability of adopting a compromise technique, as it has the capacity to include a diverse array of advantageous elements from various instructing methodologies (Eldred, 2005).
The compromise strategy has distinct benefits. Educators have the ability to assume the roles of facilitators and regulators to mitigate the limitations associated with prevalent instructional approaches. Certain methodologies significantly depend on preexisting approaches, while others strive to enhance them by addressing their inherent limitations. The adoption of an eclectic bilingual approach (EBA) has the capacity to maintain the language instructor’s receptiveness to different methodologies. It is important to evaluate novel methodologies concerning their fundamental justification. A typical English as a multilingual Approach (EBA) instructional session may include diverse, multilingual components from various origins. The use of the EBA technique has the potential to alleviate students’ concerns about language acquisition and provide them with an opportunity to attain proficiency in the target language, hence enhancing its practical applicability for them. For students to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the target language, it is essential that they possess prior knowledge of its oral component. Hence, educators use a combination of communicative strategies to address communication gaps. This includes using the lexical approach, which emphasizes the usage of lexical chunks during reading activities. Additionally, the structural-situational approach provides a well-defined context for introducing new grammatical structures (E-Learning Definition & Explanation. Stockley, 2022; Koscielecki, 2002).
The study on multilingual EBA is now in its early stages, with literature on this diverse approach gradually emerging in a fragmented manner. Due to the current lack of sufficient empirical examination, a substantial amount of work has been undertaken so far, and more research is necessary to determine the impact of using the eclectic educational style. Hence, the issue lies in that this particular technique offers a general concept without offering educators precise recommendations and explicit guidelines.
Listening | Speaking | Reading | Writing | |
Grammar-Translation Method | average | average | excellent | excellent |
Direct Method | excellent | excellent | good | average |
Eclectic Method | good | good | good | good |
The convergence of the GTM and CDM exemplifies an EBA (Al-Khasawneh, 2022). This approach incorporates elements of behaviorism, drawing on its theoretical underpinnings and related strategies while also integrating aspects of two conventional approaches, namely the GTM and the CDM. The following graphic elucidates the manners in which the GTM, CDM, and eclectic bilingual method (EBA) were dependent on and enhanced, as per the viewpoints of Koscielecki (2002), however, according to bilingual scholars’ study and analysis, GTM provides the average levels for students of learning on listening and speaking aspects while it provides the excellent levels on the reading and writing aspects. DM provides the excellent levels on listening and speaking aspects, good levels on reading and average level on the writing aspect. In addition, EM provides the good levels on the 4 of listening, speaking, reading and writing aspects. Table 1 shows the comparison of the learning achievement of the three teaching approaches (Al-Khasawneh, 2022; E-Learning Definition & Explanation. Stockley, 2022; Koscielecki, 2002).
3. Methodology
An exhaustive assessment of the extant sociolinguistic literature pertaining to the GTM, CDM, and EBA methodologies initiated the study. This literature scrutiny functioned as a bedrock upon which subsequent analyses of research findings were constructed. The inaugural section of this scholarly work engaged in a critical examination of the prevailing corpus of literature, encompassing both empirical and theoretical facets, relative to the significance of English learning theories. A thorough examination of the efficacy of these methodologies was subsequently conducted, employing both quantitative and qualitative research modalities.
A case-study methodology was deployed in this research, fostering a holistic understanding of learners’ performances and the efficacy of technology-integrated teaching strategies. The following elucidates the details:
From August 2022 to January 2023, a rigorous investigative study was undertaken by the research team, entailing the implementation of a long-term Intensive Experimental Project (IEP) within a mid-sized university school. An assembly of 93 university students was invited to participate in the IEP, all of whom were meticulously selected and informed of the experimental nature of the study without divulging expected outcomes to avoid bias.
(1) Constitution of the Research Team: A research team, encompassing the primary researcher and an association of preeminent college students, was formulated and facilitated the project.
(2) Research Methodology and Participant Interaction: Subsequent to the detailed analysis of academic achievement contributors amidst English learning contexts, interactions with the study participants were fortified through observatory practices and interviews, intended to ascertain student motivations and interests in English language acquisition.
(3) Curricular Development: The pedagogical curriculum was collaboratively developed by three instructors and was implemented with the assistance of three teaching assistants, all aimed at facilitating the linguistic progression of the 93 students. Participants, categorized based on foundational English knowledge, were uniformly distributed into three instructional groups (GTM, CDM, and EBA), each consisting of 31 participants.
(4) Alignment with Pedagogical Techniques: To align with the educators’ backgrounds, instructional methodologies were discerningly chosen, ensuring pedagogical coherence amongst instructors and teaching assistants.
(5) Post-IEP Analysis: Following IEP completion, interviews were conducted with participants to provide a comparative analysis across the three groups, intending to distil insights into student motivations for English language learning. A dual-modality analytical framework, incorporating quantitative and qualitative methodologies, yielded findings and subsequent recommendations to navigate future research trajectories.
(6) Teaching Material Compilation: The primary researcher and teaching assistants orchestrated the creation of teaching material, encompassing vocabulary and grammar, auditory and verbal skills, and reading and writing components.
(7) Quantitative Study Design: adopting 3 teaching techniques of GTM, CDM, EBM to assess their achievements of vocabulary/grammar, listening/speaking, reading/writing and average knowledge performance for pretest, posttest and after test with the statistic assessment approaches.
(8) Assessment Strategies: Employing a sequence of evaluative tools, including pretests and posttests (with a subsequent posttest conducted after a one-month interval), student competency was gauged and measured, focusing on teaching styles as independent variables, whereas the dependent variables were represented by student successes in varied linguistic facets, each comprising three items.
(9) Quantitative Investigation Design: Statistical analyses were inclusive of descriptive statistics, detailing the means, standard deviations (S.D.), and correlations amongst English performance metrics across students in the three bilingual groups.
(10) Analytical Objectives: This study was devised with the objective to conduct a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to discern the presence or absence of significant discrepancies amongst the three bilingual instructional techniques. This was sought through the analysis of student performance metrics pre, post, and one month post-IEP implementation. Subsequent LSD multiple comparison tests were utilized to evaluate the efficacy between the differing bilingual approaches, revealing statistically significant disparities in methodological effectiveness at both immediate post-training and one-month post-training intervals. The results indicated a statistically significant difference (p-value) in the effectiveness of one technique compared to the other. The analysis was performed for two distinct time periods: immediately after receiving the training and one month following the training. This study aims to examine the correlation between learning progress and the three bilingual techniques and evaluate the associated benefits and drawbacks.
(11) The researcher implements a quantitative study design by adopting 3 teaching techniques of GTM, CDM, EBM to assess their achievements of vocabulary/grammar, listening/speaking, reading/writing and average knowledge performance for pretest, posttest and after test with the statistic assessment approaches for the connected relationship as shown on below Figure 1.
Teaching strategies, which entail specific methodologies to facilitate information processing and promote understanding, learning, and retention of material, are pivotal in language acquisition. The efficient methods perspective, which conceptualizes language learning as an unconscious, automatic, and spontaneous phenomenon, stands in stark contrast to the exposition on language acquisition presented herein. Two fundamental categories encompassed the utilized training resources for language skills: genuine and created. A deliberate approach was employed by instructors in designing and utilizing texts tailored to the students’ foundational level, progressively incorporating more genuine teaching materials via multimedia devices as the students advanced (Nunan, 2004).
The learning process within an IEP can be segmented into several phases of curriculum: (1) input, (2) observing, (3) recognizing, (4) applying, and (5) automating. The pedagogical approaches encapsulate vocabulary acquisition, auditory comprehension, oral communication, textual interpretation, and written expression, which will be elaborated further in subsequent sections.
One of the fundamental aspects of instructions is the presence of a well-defined and explicit aim. Formulating a concise and coherent argument. There are three supporting points that the speaker attempts to convey. The process of linking and organizing the content of expression. Utilizing vocabulary effectively. Paragraph writing is an essential skill in academic writing. It involves organizing and presenting ideas coherently and logically. A well-written paragraph should include a clear topic sentence The sentences should include clarity, conciseness, emphasis, and accuracy.
The cultivation of listening and speaking abilities necessitates active engagement from students, hence necessitating the role of instructors in motivating student success. Educators have the option to use instructional approaches and methodologies that are closely aligned with effective pedagogical practices, including (1) active listening and recitation, (2) interactive question and answer sessions, (3) student self-correction exercises, (4) engaging in listening and conversational exercises, and (5) incorporating dictation exercises. There are six games that may be used to facilitate interactive experiences. Engaging in vocal performances of musical compositions. (6) modifications made by instructors, (7) modifications made by anyone other than teachers.
To enhance reading and writing proficiency, it is essential to establish a clear and direct correlation between the underlying ideas and the target language being acquired. Students are required to develop a set of competencies including several aspects, namely: (1) effective communication skills, (2) collaborative writing abilities, (3) adeptness in comprehending diverse situations, (4) precision in written expression, (5) grammatical correctness, (6) proficiency in narrative, and (7) the capacity to include personal viewpoints.
The teaching curriculum is made of 4 parts, and the teaching period started from August 2022 till Jan. 2023. The 1st study period covered “natural science”; the 2nd study period covered “mathematics”; the 3rd study period covered “music/culture”, and the 4th study period covered “storytelling.”
The content of the teaching materials and the selection of teaching assistants were determined by the researcher utilising the Task-Based Method (TBM) instructional approach. Three primary components in the English language comprised the teaching curriculum: (1) vocabulary and grammar, (2) hearing and speaking, and (3) reading and writing, each supported by corresponding teaching resources. The initiative enlisted the involvement of three seasoned educators and several teaching assistants, with each asked to implement three disparate teaching styles. Responsibility for developing the teaching curriculum was borne by the instructors, while the teaching assistants provided support in delivering instruction to 93 students, segregated into three study groups: GTM, CDM, and EBA. Educational and teaching backgrounds of the instructors were duly aligned with their respective teaching pedagogies.
Table 2 provides an overview of the pretest means, S.D., and correlations pertinent to all variables incorporated into the English learning models:
Study Period Before Training | Bilingual Methodology | Vocabulary/Grammar | Listening/Speaking | Reading/Writing | |||
Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | ||
GTM | 65.729 | 4.127 | 59.216 | 4.000 | 62.459 | 4.285 | |
CDM | 67.300 | 5.890 | 61.233 | 4.288 | 63.566 | 3.559 | |
EBA | 66.033 | 4.567 | 64.800 | 4.003 | 59.133 | 4.216 | |
Prior to the experimental investigation, students engaged in participation were subjected to three pretests. These pretests facilitated the equitable and random assignment of the students into three distinct learning cohorts: GTM, CDM, and EBA. A competency examination, compartmentalized into three sections - vocabulary/grammar, listening/speaking, and reading/writing - was administered. The ensuing evaluation of student results manifested no statistically significant deviations in English competence across the three student groupings. Comparable initial proficiency levels across various English language tasks were exhibited by the research participants.
Preliminary ANOVA findings reveal that the p-values associated with vocabulary/grammar, listening/speaking, and reading/writing were 0.397, 0.895, and 0.910, respectively (Table 3). Given that all aforementioned values surpass the 0.05 significance threshold, it is inferred that discernible disparities in English proficiency levels among the three bilingual learning cohorts were absent preceding the instructional intervention.
Items | F-Test | Level of Significant (P-value) |
Vocabulary/Grammar | 0.933 | 0.397 |
Conversation/Listening | 0.111 | 0.895 |
Reading/Writing | 0.094 | 0.910 |
Upon conclusion of a nearly six-month educational training regimen, research findings pertaining to the three instructional cohorts were disclosed. Table 4 elucidates the posttest means, S.D., and correlations across all variables embedded within the English learning models.
Study Period After Training | Bilingual Methodology | Vocabulary/Grammar | Listening/Speaking | Reading/Writing | |||
Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | ||
GTN | 91.133 | 7.064 | 66.200 | 11.336 | 68.200 | 17.151 | |
CDM | 69.200 | 11.336 | 88.533 | 6.866 | 79.500 | 10.078 | |
EBA | 76.033 | 7.976 | 72.133 | 12.705 | 69.866 | 6.027 | |
The posttest ANOVA results show that the p-value of vocabulary/grammar, listening/ speaking, reading/writing were 0.000, 0.000, 0.002; all the numbers are less than 0.05 (Table 5). These results show differences in improvement among the three bilingual learning groups.
Additionally, rank-based multiple comparison tests were deployed to ascertain hierarchies amongst various learning approaches and evaluate their respective efficacies. Table 6 represents an examination of the conventional test format in tandem with insights into findings regarding students’ abilities in vocabulary/grammar, listening/speaking, and reading/writing, grounded in their posttest performances.
Items | F-Test | Level of Significant (P-value) |
Vocabulary/Grammar | 58.649 | 0.000 |
Listening/Speaking | 46.872 | 0.000 |
Reading/Writing | 6.455 | 0.002 |
Dependent Variable | Educational Approach (I) | Teaching Method (J) | Difference (I-J) | S.D. | Significance (P-value) |
(1) Vocabulary & Grammar | 1. GTM | CDM | 24.93333* | 2.31921 | 0.000 |
EBA | 15.10000* | 2.31921 | 0.000 | ||
2. CDM | GTM | -24.93333* | 2.31921 | 0.000 | |
EBA | -9.83333* | 2.31921 | 0.000 | ||
3. EBA | GTM | -15.10000* | 2.31921 | 0.000 | |
CDM | 9.83333* | 2.31921 | 0.000 | ||
(2) Listening & Speaking | 1. GTM | CDM | -25.33333* | 2.73697 | 0.000 |
EBA | -5.93333* | 2.73697 | 0.033 | ||
2. CDM | GTM | 25.33333* | 2.73697 | 0.000 | |
EBA | 19.40000* | 2.73697 | 0.000 | ||
3. EBA | GTM | 5.93333* | 2.73697 | 0.033 | |
CDM | -19.40000* | 2.73697 | 0.000 | ||
(3) Reading & Writing | 1. GTM | CDM | 8.70000* | 3.09861 | 0.006 |
EBA | -1.66667 | 3.09861 | 0.592 | ||
2.CDM | GTM | -8.70000* | 3.09861 | 0.006 | |
EBA | -10.36667* | 3.09861 | 0.001 | ||
3. EBA | GTM | 1.66667 | 3.09861 | 0.592 | |
CDM | 10.36667* | 3.09861 | 0.001 |
Regarding the vocabulary and grammar section, posttest outcomes indicated a pronounced elevation in proficiency within the GTM group in comparison to their CDM and EBA counterparts subsequent to training engagement. However, competencies within the EBA group were observed to supersede those within the CDM cohort. In the listening/speaking section, the CDM group demonstrated a markedly augmented capacity for listening and speaking comprehension relative to the EBA and GTM cohorts. Contrastingly, a palpable significance was identified for the EBA group over the GTM group. Furthermore, in terms of reading and writing proficiency, a substantial elevation was witnessed within the EBA and GTM groups compared to the CDM cohorts, with no statistically significant discrepancy discerned between the GTM and EBA groups in reading and writing capabilities.
A pretest/posttest methodology, encompassing three distinct groups, was employed, succeeded by a further posttest after a one-month interlude. Subsequent to the conclusion of the instructional exercises, an additional proficiency assessment was administered to the three cohorts, aiming to gauge English language proficiency after a one-month duration. Presented in Table 7 are the posttest means, S.D., and correlations of all variables encapsulated within the English learning models.
Study Period After Training | Bilingual Methodology | Vocabulary/Grammar | Listening/Speaking | Reading/Writing | |||
Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | ||
GTM | 74.13 | 9.66 | 60.06 | 10.37 | 62.66 | 19.98 | |
CDM | 62.93 | 10.41 | 85.26 | 13.16 | 79.66 | 10.00 | |
EBA | 73.60 | 8.59 | 65.93 | 17.99 | 66.50 | 12.42 | |
The posttest ANOVA results presented in Table 8 indicate that the p-values for vocabulary/grammar and listening/speaking were 0.000, 0.000, and 0.073, respectively. Notably, two of these p-values were less than the significance level of 0.05. These findings suggest significant improvement differences among the three bilingual learning groups, specifically in the vocabulary and grammar sections. In contrast, the p-value associated with the reading/writing portion was found to be 0.073, which is comparatively higher than the significance level of 0.005. This indicates no statistically significant difference in reading and writing performance among the three groups one months after completing the educational exercise.
Items | F-Test | Level of Significance |
Vocabulary/Grammar | 13.025 | 0.000 |
Listening/Speaking | 25.876 | 0.000 |
Reading/Writing | 2.701 | 0.073 |
Further, a rank-based multiple comparison test was utilized to discover the hierarchy of these learning methods and their strengths. The analysis of the scores of the standard test modes among the three groups is depicted in Table 9.
Dependent Variable | Educational Approach (I) | Teaching Method (J) | Difference (I-J) | S.D. | Significance (P-value) |
(1) Vocabulary & Grammar | 1. GTM | CDM | 11.20000* | 2.47571 | 0.000 |
EBA | 0.53333 | 2.47571 | 0.830 | ||
2. CDM | GTM | -11.20000* | 2.47571 | 0.000 | |
EBA | -10.66667* | 2.47571 | 0.000 | ||
3. EBA | GTM | -0.53333 | 2.47571 | 0.830 | |
CDM | 10.66667* | 2.47571 | 0.000 | ||
(2) Listening & Speaking | 1. GTM | CDM | -25.20000* | 3.66589 | 0.000 |
EBA | -5.86667 | 3.66589 | 0.113 | ||
2. CDM | GTM | 25.20000* | 3.66589 | 0.000 | |
EBA | 19.33333* | 3.66589 | 0.000 | ||
3. EBA | GTM | 5.86667 | 3.66589 | 0.113 | |
CDM | -19.33333* | 3.66589 | 0.000 | ||
(3) Reading & Writing | 1. GTM | CDM | 5.00000 | 3.81194 | 0.193 |
EBA | -3.83333 | 3.81194 | 0.317 | ||
2. CDM | GTM | -5.00000 | 3.81194 | 0.193 | |
EBA | -8.83333 | 3.81194 | 0.123 | ||
3. EBA | GTM | 3.83333 | 3.81194 | 0.317 | |
CDM | 8.83333 | 3.81194 | 0.123 |
About the vocabulary and grammar part, the findings from the posttest conducted one month after the instructional period indicated that there was no statistically significant disparity between the vocabulary and grammatical abilities of the students in the GTM group and those in the EBA group. The GTM and EBA groups had considerably higher levels of proficiency in vocabulary and grammar compared to the CDM group.
In the hearing/speaking part, the posttest findings indicated that the CDM groups’ listening and speaking comprehension capacity was considerably higher than the EBA and GTM groups. On the other hand, the EBA group did not exhibit any statistically significant variation compared to the GTM group. In the reading/writing part, the posttest findings one month later indicated no statistically significant difference in reading and writing abilities between the EBA and CDM groups. The findings obtained throughout the one-month period following the posttest indicate that no statistically significant disparity was seen in the reading and writing abilities of students in the GTM group compared to those in the CDM group. In summary, the GTM, CDM, and EBA groups exhibited no statistically significant variation in performance throughout the reading and writing parts.
In the vocabulary/grammar domain, posttest findings, obtained one month subsequent to the instructional duration, revealed no statistically significant distinctions between the vocabulary and grammatical competencies of students within the GTM group and those affiliated with the EBA group. Enhanced levels of vocabulary and grammar performance were exhibited by both the GTM and EBA groups compared to the CDM cohort.
Concerning the hearing/speaking segment, the CDM cohort was observed to possess a notably superior listening and speaking comprehension aptitude relative to the EBA and GTM groups. However, no statistically significant variation was detected between the EBA and GTM groups.
Concomitant to the quantitative methodologies employed to evaluate educational accomplishments, personal interviews were undertaken with the participating students. Utilizing specifically devised questionnaires, a deeper understanding of students’ motivations and perspectives towards the three instructional modalities was sought. Exploration into the fundamental drivers of students’ motivations was facilitated through interviews conducted at three separate junctures within the English educational period. Students were required to respond to a questionnaire, designed to glean insights into their attitudes and motivational orientations towards English language acquisition.
Upon retrieval of the findings, participants engaged in comprehensive interviews of substantial duration, focusing on their linguistic backgrounds and perspectives concerning the bilingual instructional approach to which they were subjected. Individual data collection sessions were orchestrated, each being recorded and filmed to facilitate subsequent coding and analytical activities. Ultimately, an exhaustive examination and evaluation of both quantitative and qualitative research approaches were executed to derive a conclusive determination.
Upon the invitation of 93 students to engage in learning via GTM, CDM, and EBA programmes, a qualitative analysis delineating students’ motivations at three temporal points - prior, subsequent, and one-month post-English learning - is presented in Table 10.
Method | Study Period | ||||||||
pretest: students’ learning motivation | posttest: students’ learning motivation | posttest: after one month: learning motivation | |||||||
strong | average | weak | strong | average | weak | strong | average | weak | |
GTM | 3 | 15 | 13 | 2 | 18 | 11 | 3 | 17 | 11 |
CDM | 2 | 13 | 16 | 12 | 18 | 1 | 11 | 18 | 2 |
EBA | 4 | 17 | 10 | 8 | 21 | 2 | 7 | 22 | 2 |
Based on the preliminary data, it was seen that among the GTM group, there were three students exhibiting a high level of motivation toward their studies. In comparison, fifteen students displayed an average level of motivation, and thirteen students showed a low level of motivation. Regarding starting circumstances before instruction, the CDM instruction group exhibited a distribution of student motivation levels, with two students displaying great motivation, thirteen students displaying moderate motivation, and 16 students displaying poor motivation, as compared to the GTM group. The instructional group of the EBA program consisted of four students displaying high levels of motivation, seventeen students displaying moderate levels of motivation, and ten students displaying low levels of motivation, as seen during the first assessment before the commencement of teaching activities. There is no discernible disparity among the three groups’ first English learning motives.
According to the data obtained after the research, it was seen that within the GTM group, there were two students exhibiting a high level of motivation towards their studies, eighteen students displaying an average level of motivation, and eleven students demonstrating a low level of motivation. In the present study, a comparison was conducted between two instructional groups, namely the CDM instruction group and the EBA instruction group. The CDM instruction group consisted of twelve students with strong motivation, eighteen with average motivation, and one with weak motivation. On the other hand, the EBA instruction group comprised 8 students with strong motivation, twenty-one with average motivation, and two with weak motivation.
In the post-study analysis, conducted one month following the commencement of the learning intervention, it was observed that the GTM group consisted of three students with high motivation, seventeen with moderate motivation, and eleven with low motivation. In contrast to the behavioral group, the cognitive instruction group consisted of eleven students displaying great motivation, eighteen with moderate drive, and two with poor motivation. In contrast, the instructional group of the EBA program consisted of seven students displaying high levels of motivation, twenty-two students exhibiting moderate levels of drive, and two students demonstrating low levels of motivation.
When comparing the data from the “three periods,” it was seen that the GTM teaching group had a higher level of student motivation. Specifically, the students in this group demonstrated a shift from poor motivation to moderate and strong motivation. The CDM and EBA groups had a more pronounced impact, as a significant number of students saw a moderate to high increase in motivation compared to their starting state. The data obtained from the posttest delivered one month after the completion of the instruction indicates that there were only slight alterations compared to the posttest conducted immediately after the instructional period.
The idea of English language acquisition has transformed in response to the emergence of the information economy and the prevailing trend of globalization. English is often regarded as a means of global communication. English has a prominent position globally and is widely recognized as a language associated with influence and achievement. Globalization has brought about significant changes in English instruction, mostly due to the increasing need for worldwide communication and interpersonal interaction. In response to the growing need for proficient English-speaking personnel in multinational corporations and educational institutions engaged in international affairs, English teachers are modifying their curriculum to prioritize language proficiency, cultural understanding, and effective communication. The ongoing process of globalization drives this adaptation.
In the current period of globalization, marked by educational variety and a rapid expansion of information, English education may be defined as the pedagogical process by which instructors facilitate students’ acquisition of knowledge and their ability to internalize teachings autonomously. Therefore, it is imperative for bilingual educators to contemplate strategies for optimizing the efficacy of their instructional approaches, recognizing that a comprehensive comprehension of students’ cognitive processes is essential for attaining this objective.
The subsequent data presented in this research illustrates the performance of the students who participated in the study on three aspects: vocabulary/grammar, conversation/listening, and reading/writing. The data includes their pretest scores, posttest scores, and scores obtained one month after the posttest. These scores are compared across three distinct English learning groups.
The results of this research indicate that, in the vocabulary/grammar domain, the students belonging to the GTM group had superior performance compared to those in the CDM and EBA groups. In contrast, the performance of the CDM group was worse than that of the EBA group. The scores of the three student groups exhibited no significant changes one month later.
Figure 2 illustrates the performance trends of the three instructional groups - GTM, CDM, and EBA - across three assessment points in the domain of vocabulary and grammar. The x-axis represents the three temporal evaluation stages: pre-test, post-test, and one month post-test, while the y-axis delineates the score achieved. Distinct lines for each instructional methodology showcase the trajectory of mean group performance across the three assessment milestones. Close scrutiny of the graph elucidates any pronounced shifts or consistency in scores among the groups over the period and can be vital for identifying which methodology yields sustained improvement in vocabulary and grammar.
In the listening/speaking segment, it was seen that the CDM group had superior performance compared to both the GTM and EBA groups. Additionally, the EBA group demonstrated higher performance in comparison to the GTM group. The scores of the students in the three groups exhibited little changes during a one-month period subsequent to the administration of the pretest.
Figure 3 presents a visual representation of the students' progression in listening and speaking skills across the three pivotal assessment points. Each line, distinguished by varying styles or colors, signifies one of the instructional methodologies (GTM, CDM, EBA) and plots its associated mean group scores through the three temporal stages. By observing the trajectories, we can discern the effectiveness of each methodology in enhancing listening/speaking skills and verify whether initial improvements, if any, are sustained or altered one month post-intervention.
In the reading/writing portion, it was seen that both the GTM and EBA groups exhibited superior performance compared to the CDM group. However, no statistically significant difference was found in the accomplishments of the EBA and GTM groups.
Figure 4 navigates through the students' performance landscape in reading and writing across the specified assessment intervals. Each methodology – GTM, CDM, and EBA – is represented by a unique line tracing through the chronological assessment stages along the x-axis, juxtaposed against the mean performance scores on the y-axis. This visual exploration allows for an intuitive understanding of each group’s journey through reading and writing proficiency over time, shedding light on not just the immediate, but the sustained impact of each instructional approach. Moreover, comparing the paths uncovers insights into whether any methodology particularly excels or lags consistently in nurturing reading and writing skills.
The last few decades have seen significant contributions to English teaching approaches from theories of educational psychology, as well as the ideas of GTM and CDM. GTM learning theories place relatively less emphasis on the examination of learning processes, such as idea creation, learning via testing, problem-sovocabulary memorization and grammar recitation systematical curricula, to the inherent challenges associated with directly seeing these processes and the comparatively little attention they have received from GTM learning theorists in their research endeavors. These processes are mostly associated with CDM and EBA learning. The primary attribute of the GTM learning approach is rote memory. Educators assertively provide instruction from a position of authority, using structured curricula that emphasize the acquisition of vocabulary and the practice of grammar. This phenomenon results in improved performance on tasks involving memory, but performance on tasks involving oral communication and expression may not be similarly enhanced.
In contrast, proponents of the CDM method believe that educators believe kids possess an inherent inclination towards curiosity, and it is the role of instructors to facilitate the acquisition of information by guiding pupils. Indeed, during the last several months, a considerable number of research have been conducted to examine the efficacy of the bilingual cognitive approach. Students have the capacity to acquire multilingual information spontaneously. It is posited that students possess an inherent understanding of the formal rules that govern the grammatical structure of all languages, hence accounting for the efficiency and rapidity of language learning. Applying broad cognitive concepts to language utterances in specific contexts is widely recognized as a means to develop grammatical competence. Hence, it is not necessary for instructors to use identical instructional approaches in order to enlighten and educate pupils. Educators facilitate the organic process of knowledge acquisition. They serve as a structural support system that offers a foundation for student learning. The EBA method synthesizes two distinct theories to integrate their most advantageous aspects. The EBA methodology is known for achieving a harmonious equilibrium between the two aforementioned methodologies. The concept of this equilibrium point is very subjective and may be interpreted in several ways, offering numerous potential combinations.
4. Conclusion
This study is crucial for understanding how English teachers use bilingual instruction strategies, which can motivate students. The quantitative and qualitative results could form the basis for a study pedagogy. The statistical data suggests that different bilingual approaches positively affect language learning. The GTM method is best for knowledge recitation and memorization, while the CDM method excels in understanding and applying English listening and speaking skills. The EBA method combines elements from GTM and CDM and yields higher average scores. The qualitative data reveals interesting points about student opinions and motivations in the study. The study reveals that students in the CDM group exhibited high motivation levels after their education. In contrast, students in the EBA group displayed lower motivation than the CDM group. On the other hand, the GTM group’s students remained at a lower or average level of motivation for learning English. The questionnaire responses indicate that students in the CDM group felt a significant positive effect on their learning motivation due to this teaching exercise.
In conclusion, teachers need a broad understanding of academic bilingual language to maximize the benefits of cooperative learning. Educational diversity is the future trend, and teachers must adjust their bilingual teaching methods accordingly. Bilingual knowledge learning should focus more on management and creation than just learning. English teachers should embrace bilingual theories, adapt teaching techniques, and promote ongoing learning for more efficient student learning.
The data used to support the research findings are available from the corresponding author upon request.
The author declares that they have no conflicts of interest.
Views: 375