Republic of the Philippines
Department of Education
REGION X- NOTHERN MINDANAO
SCHOOLS DIVISION OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL
DISTRICT OF OPOL
LIMUNDA INTEGRATED SCHOOL
COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING ON THE WRITING PERFORMANCE IN
ENGLISH OF THE GRADE 7 STUDENTS
BASIC RESEARCH
CYNTHIA C. ABUCAY
Researcher
APPROVAL SHEET
This Basic Research entitled “Communicative Language Teaching On The Writing Performance
In English Of The Grade 7 Students”, conducted and submitted by CYNTHIA C. ABUCAY of
Limunda Integrated School, District of Opol, this division, in fulfilment to the requirements
in the conduct of research has been examined and recommended for approval and
acceptance.
ALLAN C. DANGCAL, PhD
District Research Coordinator
Approved by the panel of the Schools District Research Committee in fulfilment of the
requirements in the conduct of research.
LINDO M. CAYADONG
Senior Education Program Supervisor
Member
ALLAN C. DANGCAL, PhD
Bagocboc NHS School Head
Memner
JULIUS N. UBAUB
Igpit ES School Principal
Member
ROIE M. UBAYUBAY, PhD
Public School District Supervisor
Chairman
JONATHAN S. DELA PEÑA, PhD, CESO V
Schools Division Superintendent
Consultant/Adviser
Abstract
This study analyzed whether there are significant differences of the effectiveness between Lecture Method and
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) on the writing performance of the grade 7 students in Manticao
National High School. The total population of the respondents is 40, 20 students under Lecture Method and
another 20 for Communicative Language Teaching. A rubric was used which was adapted from the Rubric for
Papers in English Composition in assessing the writing performance of the students in English. Paired t-test was
used to determine the significant difference in the test scores of the students in Communicative Language
Teaching and Lecture Method. The pre-test results of the Communicative Language Teaching have a mean of
8.55 and the pre-test results of lecture method have a mean of 7.90. This shows that students on both approaches
have scored similarly and both groups got a majority of satisfactory scores. In the post-test results, the
Communicative Language Teaching has a mean of 11.80, and the Lecture Method has a mean of 10.35. This
shows that students on both approaches showed improvements and at this time majority of students in Lecture
method scored between 10-11, which means satisfactory while the CLT group scored 12-13 which is very
satisfactory. There was also a significant difference in the performance of the students from pre-test to post-test
in both methods indicating progress after the conduct of the study. Although this is the case, students under CLT
showed high scores than that of Lecture method. Hence, interactive activities can be helpful to improve students’
performances in writing. It is then recommended that a similar study be made to observe the performance of the
students in creative writing.
Keywords: writing performance, Communicative Language Teaching, Lecture Method
1.0
Introduction
Writing is an important skill that can open up a world of possibilities for any student. Even in these days
of the Internet and other technologies, written communication in English is still an asset for the aspiring student.
But for a majority of the students, writing is a skill which they find hard to acquire. The major problems they
face in writing are finding an apt word suitable for the topics, using appropriate tenses based on the situation,
using correct spelling and punctuation, organizing ideas neatly and coherently in paragraphs. Such difficulties
place a heavy burden on students, often causing them to lose interest in writing. They find it difficult to write a
composition based on their own ideas and they are afraid of making mistakes in grammar, usage, vocabulary
etc. However, one way to resolve this problem is to use Communicative Language Teaching as it creates a free
instructional environment in which students and teacher work together and collaborate in a relaxed atmosphere.
One approach that is considered to be effective to apply in teaching writing is Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT). CLT is an approach in which lessons are constructed according to the language required to
perform specific tasks rather than according to the aspects of language such as structures and vocabulary. It also
offers students material which they have to be actively engaged in the teaching and learning process in order to
achieve a goal or complete a task. It encourages students to be active learners. Task considered as an instrument
is the primary focus of a classroom activity to get the students involved in the language practice naturally.
Teaching writing through CLT will be fun and friendly for the students.
For the eagerness to know the effectiveness of Communicative Language Teaching, the researcher
opted to use this approach in Manticao National High School in Pagawan, Manticao Misamis Oriental during
the School Year 2019-2020. This study hoped to help the teacher and students to discover whether CLT is
effective in making learning easy and interesting.
1.1
Objectives of the Study
The main purpose of this study is to find out if there is a significant difference on the writing
performance between Communicative Language Teaching and Lecture method of the grade 7 students in
Manticao National High School enrolled during the School Year 2019-2020. It also generally aims to investigate
the effectiveness of the said approach in writing.
2.0
Methods
Quanti-descriptive research design was used in this study. Quantitative-descriptive research design aims
to determine the relationship between one thing (an independent variable) and another (a dependent or outcome
variable) in a population. Quantitative research designs are either descriptive (subjects usually measured once)
or experimental (subjects measured before and after a treatment). A descriptive study establishes only
associations between variables. An experiment establishes causality. Through this research design, it determined
the effect Communicative Language Teaching in the writing performance of the grade 7 students in Manticao
National High School and at the same time it verified whether Communicative Language Teaching has a relation
on the writing performance of the students.
3.0
Results and Discussions
This study used rubrics in evaluating the writing performance of the students. It is adapted from Rubric
for Papers in English Composition, see appendix 6. The area tested were the following: Ideas, Development,
Organization and Style and Mechanics wherein 4 is the highest score and 1 is the lowest. 4 means “High
Proficiency”, 3 means “Good Proficiency”, 2 means “Minimal Proficiency”, and 1 means “Non-proficiency.”
This study also used percentage distribution in analyzing the scores of the students during the pre-test
and post-test wherein score ranging from 7 and below means students did not meet the expectation; score ranging
from 8-9 means fairly satisfactory; score ranging from 10-11 means satisfactory; score ranging from 12-13
means very satisfactory; and score ranging from 14-16 means outstanding.
This study also used lesson plan during the conduct of this study in order to have an organized and
systematic way of teaching.
Percentage
3.1. Pre-test scores in English of the students when grouped to Lecture Method and Communicative Language
Teaching
Figure 1 shows the scores that the students under lecture method get during the pre-test. It shows that 50% of them
get a score of 8-9 which is fairly satisfactory. Another 35% of the students did not meet the expectation having scored
7 and below. A mere 15% of them got a score of 10-11 which is satisfactory, and none of them got high scores from
12-16 which are very satisfactory and outstanding.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
50,0%
35,0%
15,0%
0,0%
7 and below
8-9
(Did not meet the (Fairly Satisfactory)
expectation)
10-11
(Satisfactory)
0,0%
12-13
14 and above
(Very Satisfactory) (Outstanding)
Pre-test Scores in Lecture Method
3.2.
Pre-test scores in English of the students when grouped to Communicative Language Teaching
Figure 5 shows the scores that the students under CLT get during the pre-test. It shows that 65% of
them get a score of 8-9 which is fairly satisfactory. Another 20% of the students did not meet the expectation
having scored 7 and below. A mere 15% of them got a score of 10-11 which is satisfactory, and none of them
got high scores from 12-16 which are very satisfactory and outstanding.
100%
90%
80%
65,0%
Percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20,0%
15,0%
20%
10%
0,0%
0,0%
0%
7 and below
(Did not meet the
expectation)
8-9
(Fairly
Satisfactory)
10-11
(Satisfactory)
12-13
14 and above
(Very Satisfactory) (Outstanding)
Pre-test Scores in CLT
3.3.
Post-test score in English of the students under Lecture Method
Figure 6 shows the scores that the students under Lecture Method get during the post-test. It shows that
65% of them get a score of 10-11 which is satisfactory. Another 20% of the students are fairly satisfactory
having scored 8-9. Also, 10% of them got a score of 12-13 which is very satisfactory, and 5% of them got scores
from 14-16 which is outstanding.
100%
90%
80%
65,0%
Percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20,0%
20%
10%
10,0%
0,0%
5,0%
0%
7 and below
8-9
(Did not meet the (Fairly Satisfactory)
expectation)
10-11
(Satisfactory)
12-13
(Very Satisfactory)
14 and above
(Outstanding)
Lecture method Post-test Score
3.4.
Post-test score in English of the students under Communicative Language Teaching
100%
90%
75,0%
80%
Percent
70%
60%
50%
40%
25,0%
30%
20%
10%
0,0%
0,0%
7 and below
(Did not meet
the expectation)
8-9
(Fairly
Satisfactory)
0,0%
0%
10-11
(Satisfactory)
12-13
(Very
Satisfactory)
14 and above
(Outstanding)
Communicative Language Teaching Post-test Scores
Figure 7 shows the scores that the students under CLT get during the post-test. It shows that 75% of
them get a score of 12-13 which is very satisfactory. Another 25% of the students get satisfactory having scored
10-11. None of them got scores from 0-9 (did not meet the expectation and fairly satisfactory) and 14-16 which
is outstanding.
5.3.
Difference between the pre-test scores in English among grade 7 students in Communicative
Language Teaching and lecture method
Table 1 shows the difference in the pre-test score between the Communicative Language Teaching and
Lecture method. The analysis reveals that there is no significant difference in pre-test score in Communicative
Language Teaching and lecture method since the t-value which is 1.65 that corresponds to the p-value which is
0.107 is greater than 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Table 1. Difference between the pre-test scores using t-test for two independent samples In English among grade 7
students’ in Communicative Language Teaching and lecture method
Pre-test
Communicative
Language Teaching
Mean
Mean
difference
t-value
p-value
Remarks
0.65
1.65
0.107
Not Significant
8.55
Lecture Method
7.90
With 0.05 level of significance
5.4.
Difference between the post-test performances in English among grade 7 students in
Communicative Language Teaching and Lecture Method
Table 2 shows the difference in the post-test score between the Communicative Language Teaching and
Lecture method. The analysis reveals that there is a significant difference in post-test score in between
Communicative Language Teaching and lecture method in favor of Communicative Language Teaching, since
the t-value which is 4.01 that correspond to the p-value which is 0.0003 is lesser than 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 2. Difference between the post-test scores using t-test for two independent samples in English among grade 7
students in Communicative Language Teaching and lecture method
Post-test
Communicative
Language Teaching
Mean
Mean
difference
t-value
p-value
Remarks
1.45
4.01
0.0003
Significant
11.80
Lecture Method
10.35
With 0.05 level of significance
5.5.
Difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in English among grade 7 students in Lecture Method
and Communicative Language Teaching
5.5.1. Difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in English among grade 7 students in Lecture Method
Table 3 shows the difference in the Lecture method between pre-test and post-test. The analysis reveals
that there is a significant difference in pre-test score and post-test score in favor of post-test, since the t-value
which is – 4.90 that correspond to the p-value which is 9.91X10-5 is lesser than 0.05 level of significance.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 3. T-test result showing the pre-test and post-test scores in English among grade 7 students in lecture method
Lecture Method
Mean
Pre-test
7.90
Mean difference
t-value
p-value
Remarks
-2.45
-4.90
0.0000991
Significant
Post-test
10.35
With 0.05 level of significance
5.5.2. Difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in English among grade 7 students in Communicative
Language Teaching
Table 4 shows the difference in the Communicative Language Teaching between pre-test and post-test.
The analysis reveals that there is a significant difference in pre-test score and post-test score in favor of posttest, since the t-value is -10.91 that corresponds to the p-value which is 1.25X10-9 is lesser than 0.05 level of
significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 4. Paired T-test showing the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in English among Grade 7
students in Communicative Language Teaching
Communicative
Language Teaching
Mean
Pre-test
8.55
Mean
difference
t-value
p-value
Remarks
-3.25
-10.91
0.0000000013
Significant
Post-test
11.80
With 0.05 level of significance
6.1.
Students’ pre-test scores in English when grouped to Lecture Method and Communicative
Language Teaching
6.1.1.
Students’ pre-test scores in English when grouped to Lecture Method
Most of the students obtained the level of fairly satisfactory in the overall pre-test scores. Based on the
observation of the researcher, the reason why the students did not get high scores is because paragraph writing
was not yet introduced during the grading period that this study was conducted. It is also possible that paragraph
writing was already taught to them. However, if they did not learn it wholeheartedly, they might have forgotten
it already. The researcher can testify this reason because some students wrote a numbering form instead of a
paragraph form. In terms of the ideas, they can construct ideas but it was not consistent and vague. On the
development of their paragraph, it was not really abundant with details, it was insufficient, and some include
inappropriate details which were not necessary. On the organization of their paragraph, some have written a
little bit organized paragraph but most of them wrote a very confusing paragraph that it cannot be understood.
In terms of the style and mechanics, there were inappropriate word choice and grammatical errors, pronoun and
pronoun antecedent inconsistency, and some of them has a problem with spelling. According to a journal entitled
“Good job for good writers”, absence of a focus is another problem in writing a paragraph procedure. If students do not
structure the essay and do not follow this plan, each paragraph can be a collection of some ideas, which are not related to each
other. However, if students create paragraphs of the required length, have a topic sentence and structure their paragraphs
appropriately, the paragraph will be focused on some particular idea automatically.
6.1.2.
Students’ pre-test scores in English when grouped to Communicative Language Teaching
The same result with the pre-test scores of the students grouped to LM, most of the students obtained
the level of fairly satisfactory in the overall pre-test scores. As what have been observed by the researcher, the
students were not that good in writing a paragraph. Some of them wrote in a numbering form instead of a
paragraph form. According to them, lesson on how to write a paragraph was not yet introduced on that specific
grading period. In terms of the ideas in their paragraph, some has really a lot of ideas but it did not support the
central idea of the paragraph. On the development of their paragraph, details and examples were given but they
were insufficient to support the topic. On the organization of their paragraph, they demonstrate a lack of structure
and coherence which affects the comprehensibility of their paragraph. In terms of their styles and mechanics,
the sentence was readable but they lack of sentence variety, a not so effective word choice, there were distracting
words used, there were grammatical errors and spelling.
Most of the students’ pre-test scores grouped to Communicative Language Teaching and Lecture
Method obtained the same fairly satisfactory level. However, there is no significant difference in pre-test scores
between Communicative Language Teaching and Lecture Method.
CLT focuses on the ability to perform a task or activity without explicit teaching of grammatical
structure (Erodogan, 2013). It is argued that such an approach creates more favorable and better conditions for
the development of second language ability than does an approach that focuses solely on the explicit teaching
and learning of the rules of the language (Townsend, 2011).
6.2.
Students’ post-test scores in English when taught using Lecture Method and Communicative
Language Teaching
6.2.1.
Post-test scores in English of the students when taught using Lecture Method
The writing performance of the students taught with the use of Lecture method obtained a satisfactory
level. There is a lesser average rating score than the students applied with Communicative Language Teaching,
in the sense that there is 1.45 mean difference between the two.
As what the researcher observed, there is a significant improvement on the writing performance of the
students taught with Lecture Method. This time, there is already a discussion on how to write a paragraph, there
were examples given and some rules were presented and discussed. Their writing performances have an
improvement in the sense that the ideas are clear and focused, they consistently support the topic. Some wrote
a thought-provoking ideas while some wrote a not so consistent insightful ideas. In terms of the development of
the paragraph, they can provide abundant details but lack in depth, they can already provide concrete and specific
evidence and they can support that evidence as well. On the organization of their paragraph, they are coherent,
unified and effective, but some demonstrates a lack of sentence structure that negatively affects the readability
of their paragraph. In terms of the styles and mechanics of their paragraph, they were readable, there was also
an effective word choice. There were some distracting words used but not serious. There were still grammatical
errors and spelling errors. Overall, improvement is observed on their writing performance.
Recent studies show that, lecture method can be an effective method for communicating theories, ideas,
and facts to students. Expert lecturers have identified as essential to assist student learning. This has to be noted
that the lecture method just like any other method is inappropriate as all-purpose method, but it can serve many
useful instructional functions (Shortall, 2011). It was also supported by Vasquez (2009) that lecture as a method
of teaching usually implies little or no class participation by such means as questioning or discussion during the
class period.
6.2.2.
Post-test scores in English of the students when taught using Communicative Language Teaching
The writing performance of the students taught with the use of Communicative Language Teaching has
improved that they obtained the very satisfactory level which is higher than the average rating score of students
under lecture method.
The following are the observable improvements that the researcher noticed on the writing performance
of the students. First on the ideas of their paragraph, they were already clear and insightful but some were not,
ideas were focused to support the topic. Most of the students were able to be consistent in supporting the topic.
Second on the development of their paragraph, most of them can provide abundant and interesting details and
examples that support the topic. Still, there were some who provided insufficient details and inappropriate
details. Third on the organization of their paragraph, most of them already know how to write an organized
paragraph. They demonstrate coherence and effective support of the paragraph’s purpose. Lastly on the style
and mechanics, students demonstrate readable and effective paragraph, effective words used but there were still
some who has grammatical errors and spelling errors. Overall, they all have improvements in their writing
performances.
Teaching through CLT has something to do with performance of the students in post-test. According to
Yang (2003), CLT influenced the student’s writing performance, the higher the mean, the better the approach
used. The writing performance of the students are dependent on the approach that the students are exposed to.
A research conducted by Sholilah (2011) showed that the use of CLT in the writing class could improve
students’ writing ability. The improvement of the student’s writing ability could be recognized from the
improvement of expressing ideas using appropriate words, using correct syntax or grammatical form and
mechanics, and making a paragraph with good development of ideas and organization.
6.3.
Difference between the students’ pre-test scores when grouped to Lecture Method and
Communicative Language Teaching
The researcher observed that the pre-test scores of both groups obtained a fairly satisfactory level. This
means that they are both fair in terms of their writing performances before lecture and task-based were applied
to them. It also means that they have something to say about the topic that was given to them. Most of them
have ideas about the topic; they can provide supporting details. They can provide explanations. Still, there are
some who cannot. There are still students who cannot be able to provide explanations and who cannot provide
further details about the topic. Maybe because they do not have a background or prior knowledge about the
paragraph writing. There are many factors as to why the students could not write more details about the topic.
Investigating the effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students’ compositions, Tait (2011)
found that although students wrote mainly longer essays in no discussion condition than teacher-led discussions,
the quality of their drafting was not necessarily better than the other conditions. In fact, teacher-led discussions
aided students to conceptualize and organize their ideas more effectively, and peer discussions made students
explore ideas more freely using different verbs of mental processes. In contrast to these conditions, no discussion
writing condition made them only produce longer essays with more verbs indicating status and possession. This
conforms to the results of the present study in which no planners produced lower quality writing samples in
comparison with the planners.
However, incongruent with the present study in which both tasks favored group planning, the learners
in Tait’s (2011) study did not benefit from the group discussions because they were left with a number of
disorganized ideas after the discussions and they had to sort out what and how to write independently afterwards.
It can also be due to the fact that they applied discussing ideas orally in a non-categorized fashion and not
outlining as their prewriting activity.
6.4.
Difference between the students’ post-test scores when taught using Lecture Method and
Communicative Language Teaching
As observed in the writing performances of the students taught using Lecture Method and
Communicative Language Teaching, the mean of the post-test score under LM is 10.35 while the mean of the
post-test score under CLT is 11.80. Therefore, the mean difference between the two is 1.45. This means that
there is a significant difference in post-test scores in favor of CLT.
According to the study of Silva (2009), the task-based approach brings great benefits to the English
writing process. The Communicative Language Teaching provides learners with interesting challenges and is
clearly related to their language needs (Yang, 2003). Pre-task phase provides a chance for students to predict
the performance of the task. These activities have also proved interesting. By using it students' writing accuracy
will improve in a number of ways specially by focusing their attention to the main task again. Skehan and Foster
(1997) made the prediction that accuracy, selectively, would be advantaged in the task condition. In their studies,
they predicted that a task effect upon writing accuracy was confirmed.
The findings of this study are against with those of Fu (2011) indicating that the traditional setting
promotes more improvement in writing than using other task-based strategies. Also, the results of this study do
not agree with Vasquez (2009). He observed the impact of traditional class instruction on the acquisition of parts
of speech by two groups of Taiwanese EFL learners. After a 16-hour instruction, both groups were asked to
produce a written narrative. Overall, there was no statistical difference between the control and the experimental
groups. In spite of some disagreement mentioned above, the results of this study are in line with Ozsevik (2010)
who found that the experimental group taught with CLT had a better performance than the control group taught
in the traditional method.
There was a study conducted by Willis (2007) entitled “Teaching young writers feedback and coaching
help students hone skills”. All the findings from his study proved that the application of Willis’s framework of
CLT is effective and feasible in writing classes. Students conducted with CLT in the experimental class were
more active than the students exposed to the traditional teaching in the control class. It provides an interesting
learning atmosphere for the use of target language and activates learners’ motivation to the utmost. CLT can
improve learners’ integrated skills through interactive activities since all linguistic skills are interrelated. It
improves learners’ writing and communicative competence along with their academic performance. As the
saying goes: “Three helping one another bear the burden of six.” It shows the important function of interaction
and cooperation, which are best embodied in CLT. It’s promising to employ CLT to more English teaching
fields.
6.5.
Difference between the students’ pre-test and post-test scores when taught using Lecture Method
and Communicative Language Teaching
6.5.1. Difference between the students’ pre-test and post-test scores when taught using Lecture Method
Results showed that there was a significant difference in pre-test and post-test scores of the students
under Lecture Method. This means that lecture method helps the writing performance of the students as there is
an increase of the score in the post-test after the lecture method was applied to them. It implies that there is a
significant improvement in the score of the students in Lecture Method after introducing the topic through
lecture.
To determine the difference between pre-test and post-test on the writing performance of the students
in Lecture Method, pre-test score serves as the basis as to how LM affects the writing performance of the
students. As observed in their writing performance, the ideas on their paragraph are already clear and insightful
as compared to their performance during pre-test before Lecture Method were applied to them. On the
development of their paragraph, their writing performance has an improvement in the sense that they can already
write clear ideas that focused on the topic sentence of the paragraph. In terms of the organization of their
paragraph, before, their writing performance was unorganized, unclear, inappropriate words were used but when
LM was applied to them, they can already write organized and coherent paragraph. On the style and mechanics,
before, there were some ineffective words used and there were wrong choice of words used, now, they already
know what appropriate words should use. Although there are some grammatical errors, still, improvements are
observable.
A similar study was conducted by Raimes (2014) in his article, he found out that teaching writing by
using CLT can enhance the student’s ability. According to the results, in order to enhance the writing ability,
CLT is useful for students. CLT offers the students’ material which they have to actively engage in the process
of teaching-learning in order to achieve a goal or complete a task. It can enhance the student’s ability in
representing ideas, encourage the students to write, and make the class situation more lively.
6.5.2. Difference between the students’ pre-test and post-test scores when taught using Communicative
Language Teaching
The results showed that there was a significant difference on the writing performance of the students
taught using Communicative Language Teaching. The mean score of the pre-test under CLT is 7.90 while the
mean score of the post-test taught using CLT is 10.35. Therefore, there is -2.45 mean difference between the
two. This means that there is a high improvement on the writing performance of the students taught with CLT.
Recent study about the task-based approach to writing has proved to be quite a success, having benefited
both teacher and students. On the one hand, it reduces the stress and load on the teacher for teaching big classes.
On the other hand, students find more opportunities to clarify meaning through interaction and the negotiation
of meaning. Since the introduction of the task-based approach into the classroom, students are more willing to
cooperate with their classmates and teacher in order to write better English paragraphs. The communicative
approach to writing has been popular with the majority of the students in the author’s English classes, but there
are some factors that need further attention.
The pre-test and post-test results showed a significant improvement in the students’ overall writing
performance through the Communicative Language Teaching used by the researcher. As shown in the table, the
first null hypothesis was rejected because you can see progress in their writing performance. Moreover, by
comparing the results of pre-test and post-test of each group, one can simply notice the usefulness of CLT. So
the tasks were helpful in improving the students’ scores. By considering these results, the researcher may
conclude that the Communicative Language Teaching has a positive effect on the level of ability on the writing
performance of the students.
According to the study of Sholilah (2011), before the research, the students often made a few sentences
in each topic and made a lot of mistakes in grammar, tenses, mechanics and other aspects of writing.
Accordingly, it was caused by their lack of vocabulary, lack of understanding in writing aspects, and their lack
of practice in writing.
Moreover, by comparing the results of pre-test and post-test of each group, one can simply notice the
usefulness of discussion task. Since learners who were dealing with tasks with appropriate feedback in a face to
face discussion could practice better during instruction and finally in the post-test examination. So the tasks
were helpful in improving their scores. By considering these results, one can conclude that the CLT has a
positive effect on the level of ability in writing accuracy and fluency among the students.
4.0
Conclusions
1. The study aimed to find out the significant difference between the students’ pre-test scores when taught
using Lecture Method and Communicative Language Teaching; find out the significant difference between
the students’ post-test scores when taught using Lecture Method and Communicative Language Teaching,
and find out the significant difference between the students’ pre-test and post-test scores when taught using
Lecture Method and Communicative Language Teaching of the grade 7 students enrolled in Manticao
National High School, School Year 2019-2020. The study used quanti-descriptive research design. The
study utilized percentage, t-test and paired t-test to analyze the result.
2. Results showed that the students under Lecture Method yielded the majority (50%) of their pre-test scores
(having scored from 8-9) which is fairly satisfactory. On the students under Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT), the students’ pre-test scores yielded (65%) or the majority of the students got scores from
8-9 which is fairly satisfactory. This means that most of the students know how to write a paragraph based
on the given topic.
3. After Lecture Method (LM) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) were applied, results showed
that most of the students taught using Lecture Method (LM) yielded 65% having scored from 10-11 which
is satisfactory. On the other hand, students taught using Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) yielded
75% having scored from 12-13 which is very satisfactory.
4. It was found out that there is no significant difference between the students’ pre-test scores with a p-value
of 0.107. Although both results are satisfying; thus, it is not significant.
5. Furthermore, it was found out that there is a significant difference between the students’ post-test scores
with a p-value of 0.0003.
6. Also, it was then found out that there is a significant difference between the students’ pre-test and posttest scores in Lecture Method (LM) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). This means that both
groups improved upon the methods were applied to them. This means that after Lecture Method (LM) and
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) were used to teach the students, both groups have improved but
the scores are higher for the students taught using Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).
7. Therefore, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Lecture Method (LM) was effective in the
teaching and learning process but it is in favor of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). This
means that the students like interactive activities or playing and at the same time learning.
5.0
Recommendations
1. Interactive activities are effective in teaching writing to the students as students like to be
involved in different activities.
2. There are some of the students who in some way, prefer to have a mere discussion rather than be involved
in interactive activities.
3. There are still a lot of students who do not know the Subject-Verb Agreement and who are not consistent
in their pronoun and pronoun antecedent.
4. The teacher should not pressure the students to write a perfect paragraph so that the students will not be
threatened.
5. The teacher should give more writing tasks and or activities so that the writing skills of the students will
be improved.
6. The teacher should encourage the students to write every day with the integration of interactive activities
without the students getting tired and getting bored.
7. The same research can be run with a focus on other individual variables like motivation,
introversion/extroversion, and learning styles.
6.0
References
Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Conner, U. & R, Kaplan. 2011. Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. iii-iv). Reading, MA:
Addition-Wesley Publishing Company.
Corbett, E. 1996. Teaching composition: Where we’ve been and where we’re going.
Ellis, R. 2003. Communicative Language Teaching. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Erodogan, T. & O, Erodogan. 2013. A method analysis of the fifth grade students’ perceptions about
writing. Asia-Pacific Edu Res.
Fu, D. & J.S, Townsend. 2011. Cross-cultural dilemmas in writing: Need for transformations in teaching
and learning.
Gerson, S. 2008. “Technical Writing: Process and Product” fifth edition, second impression.
Jago, C. (Ed.), Language Arts: A chapter of the curriculum handbook (pp.125-129). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leeds, B. Writing in a second language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research.
New York: Longman.
Nunan, D. 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the
Asian-Pacific region.