Global Languages conference 2008 (GLCo8)

Venue: Atlanta

Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Event Date/Time: Apr 17, 2008 End Date/Time: Apr 20, 2008
Registration Date: Jan 15, 2008
Early Registration Date: Jan 15, 2008
Abstract Submission Date: Jan 15, 2008
Paper Submission Date: Jan 15, 2008
Report as Spam

Description

ROLE OF DIRECT TEACHING METHOD IN THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS IN ENGLISH
Dr Ishtiaq Hussain , Kohat University (KUST)
Dr Hafiz Inamullah , Kohat University (KUST
Dr Muhammad Naseer-ud-Din , Kohat University (KUST)
ABSTRACT
Quality education depends upon the quality of teaching and quality of teaching depends upon the quality of teachers, curriculum and effective teaching method. Method plays a vital role in the quality teaching of language. It is a planned and systematic effort of the teacher for establishing sequence in the various parts of the teaching. The direct method, as its name suggests, is teaching the foreign language without the interference of mother tongue. It is also called “natural method” because the students learn the foreign language in the same way as they learn their mother tongue. In this method, not the word but the sentence is the unit of the grammar, while the traditional method aims at teaching English by word-to-word translation in mother tongue.

The major objective of the study was to determine the role of direct teaching method in the academic achievement of students in English at secondary level.
To achieve the said objective the Solomon Four-Design pre-test post-test equivalent group design” was considered to be the most useful design for this study. Following is the symbolic representation of the design:
RRRRRRR R E O T O2
R C O3 - O4
R E - T O5
R C - - O6

Where R = Randomly Selected
E = Experimental Groups
C = Control Groups
O = Observation or Measurement
T = Treatment
The experimental treatment to which a group is exposed i.e. independent variable. This is the strong and true experimental design. The pretest was used to measure the achievement. Pretest was used only to equate the control and experimental groups.
Thus the Solomon four-group design was applied for the treatment of the data. The students of Federal Government boy’s secondary schools of Islamabad comprised the population of the study. Two sections A and B of 9th class of F G School (Urdu medium) and two sections A and B of 9th class of F.G. school (English medium) were selected as sample of the study.
In this design:
i. Subjects were randomly assigned to four groups.
ii. Two groups received the experimental treatment (T)
iii. One experimental group received a pretest (O1).
iv. Two groups (control) received treatment (C).
v. One control group received a pretest (O3).
vi. All four groups received posttests (O2 O4O5O6)
Pre- test was administered to determine the level of each student before treatment and to equalize the students of two groups. Experimental group was taught by direct method while the Control group was taught by traditional method for a period of six weeks. At the end of the treatment, a posttest was administered and scores of pre-test, posttest were served as data of the study. Applying t-test and analysis of variance tested to know the significance of difference between the scores of groups at 0.05 levels.

After analyzing the secured date it was concluded that direct teaching method was more effective as a teaching-learning technique for English as compared to traditional teaching method. Students in the direct teaching method outscored than students working in traditional learning situation. Low achievers in direct teaching showed significant superiority over low achievers learning English by the traditional method. Thus direct teaching was found to be more effective method for quality teaching of English to the low achievers as compared to traditional method of teaching. High achievers, whether they were taught English by direct method or traditional method, retained learnt material at the same rate. Low achievers taught English by direct method retained more material as compared to low achievers taught by traditional method of teaching.
INTRODUCTION
Progress and advancement of the countries of the world are always related with the kind of education they offer to their people. Education is essential for human development. A man without knowledge is really a blind even he has eyes. Educated man is as much superior to uneducated person. It nourishes us like mother, guides us like father and delights us to like wife” (Ahmad, 1969).

Language comes next to food. We are so intimately familiar with it that we take it for granted as we do breathing or walking. According to Agramal (1995) language is vehicle of thoughts and lack of command over it is bound to make the thoughts inexpressible.

Jesperson (1983) defines language as a “set of human habits” the purpose, which is to give expression to thoughts and feelings, and especially to impart them others.

Sweet (1992) says, “Language is expression of ideas by means of which speech sounds are combined into words, words are combined into sentences and combination of sentences gives answers to ideas and thoughts”.

English has always been rated high in Pakistan. In past, it was treated as compulsory subject from class 6th to onwards in public school system. It is being offered as a compulsory subject in English medium schools and is increasingly used as a medium of instruction. The private schools offer English as a subject from nursery classes. It means that students of public schools start studying English at the age of 11 years whereas the students of English medium schools start studying English at the age of 4 years. Teaching of English is important for the following reasons:-
a. English is a mean for understanding the foreign education;
b. English is the language of higher education;
c. English is the source of scientific and technological advancement;
d. It is the medium for international commerce, trade and communication (Richards, 1991).
Keeping in view the status of English, the Government of Pakistan has made a decision for introducing English as a compulsory subject from first level. The main objective of the study was to determine the role of direct teaching in the academic achievement of students English at Secondary level.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Every country has a national language, which is the means of expression of its thoughts, culture and covers the whole range of its social, cultural and official activities. In the present age of fast development in science and technology, there also arises the need of a foreign language to have an access to modern scientific knowledge and for international communication. English is a means of international communication since it has assumed the role of world language. The only language other than Urdu that understood to some extent in all part of Pakistan is English. It is reality that English has thrust its way in our life and thoughts. It is the language of legislative, law courts, commercial, markets, social circles, technology and economics because most of the information’s are largely available in English. (Tanveer, 1998).

Learning a foreign language/second language is a complex process, as language is not just an act of putting meaningful words together. It needs a physical, intellectual and emotional response if we have to send or receive messages in it. Learning of a foreign language involves a new culture, a new way of thinking, feeling and acting. The learner has to be fluent, accurate and meaningful (Graff, 1985).

Abid (1979) selected two groups of the students of 10th class. Their teacher’s supplementary reading approach taught the experimental group. For the five teaching periods per week containing thirty lessons. After teaching of six weeks, the experimental group showed better results significant at 0.05 levels in reading comprehension than the control group. The increase in reading speed of experimental group was significantly better at0.05 level in average students and development of interest in English language was also significantly better than that control group. It was concluded that overall performance of experimental group in all the reading aspects was significantly better than that of the control group; hence the supplementary reading method was suggested. It was better method for teaching of English reading comprehension; speed and interest .So the researcher recommended supplementary reading beside textbooks for effective reading of English.

Krashen and Terrel (1983) reported that language proficiency tests can be classified as tests of linguistic competence or communicative competence that is ability to control pronunciation, morphology and syntax; communication and the ability to use language for specific purposes or some particular purpose.

Lionel (1985) reported that most textbooks used in reading were judged as inadequate. The main cause identified was that textbooks take a long time to produce; therefore, the selections they contain are often out of date by the time they reach the students. As a partial solution to the problem, the researcher suggested that the students should choose short readings for the class as their assignments.
PROCEDURE
In order to test the relative effectiveness of independent variable, i.e. an instructional paradigm (direct teaching), the choice of most suitable design for this experiment was the basic step. A number of factors, which affect the internal and external validity of experimental designs. Relevant to internal validity, there are eight different factors (these include history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, statistical regression, differential selection, experimental mortality, and selection maturation interaction). If these factors are not controlled in the design, they may produce adverse effects, which confound the effects of the independent variables as shown by the final test scores.

Whereas factors affecting internal validity operate on the scores derived from the dependent variables and, therefore, make the experiment poor as an experiment, factors affecting external validity operate upon the experimental treatments. Campbell and Stanley (1963) postulated four factors, which jeopardize external validity.
“The Solomon Four-Design pre-test post-test equivalent group design” was considered to be the most useful design for this study. Following is the symbolic representation of the design:
RRRRRRR R E O T O2
R C O3 - O4
R E - T O5
R C - - O6

Where R = Randomly Selected
E = Experimental Groups
C = Control Groups
O = Observation or Measurement
T = Treatment
The experimental treatment to which a group is exposed i.e. independent variable. This is the strong and true experimental design, but there may be the possibility of the influence of the effect of testing and the interaction with the experimental variable (Farooq, 2001). However, in order to eliminate the influence of the effect of testing and the interaction with the experimental variable, a posttest parallel to the pretest was used to measure the achievement. Pretest was used only to equate the control and experimental groups.
POPULATION
The aim of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of direct teaching method in teaching English at secondary level. Therefore, students studying at secondary level were constituted the population of the study.
DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY
The study was delimited to:
English medium students of 9th class.
SAMPLE
Two sections A and B of 9th class of Federal Government boys secondary school Tarnol, Islamabad (Urdu medium) and two sections A and B of 9th class of F.G. Model school for Boys I-9/4 Islamabad (English medium) were taken as sample of the study. Sample students of Federal Government boy’s secondary school Naugazi Islamabad were further divided into two groups, i.e. the experimental and the control groups. Both the groups were equated on the basis of pre-test scores. Each group comprised 30 students.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
In order to equate the control and the experimental groups, a teacher made pretest was administered before the allocation of students to the experimental and the control groups. Immediately after the treatment was over, a teacher made posttest was administered to subjects of both the experimental and the control groups. The purpose of this test was to measure the achievement of the students constituting the sample. The researcher constructed these both tests after a through review of the techniques of test construction and related units of English
Both the pretest and posttest were almost parallel with same difficulty level. The two chapters were taught before the start of experiment; also give a weight age of 25 percent in the both tests. Each test was composed of multiple choice test items, matching items pertaining to a combination of learning domains. These test items were based on the selected units of 9th class English five units. These five units were taught during the experiment to both the experimental and the control groups, and were intended to measure the learning out comes..
Reliability of Test
The Solomon Four Design pretest posttest equivalent group design was used for the treatment to test the reliability of the posttest scores obtained by the students who formed the sample of the study. The coefficient of reliability was determined using Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula, estimating reliability form the comparable halves of the posttest and found the coefficient of correlation, which found to be 0.75.
SELECTION AND TRAINING OF TEACHERS FOR EXPERIMENT

One teacher from each Federal Government Boys secondary School Tarnol ,Islamabad (Urdu medium) and one teacher from F G Model school for Boys I-9/4, Islamabad (English medium) having equal qualification, equal teaching experience and considerably equal teaching potential were selected for teaching English to the control and the experimental groups. The teacher volunteered for teaching the experimental groups was provided two weeks training in Direct teaching i.e. one week for reading and one week for speech
DATA COLLECTION
During the experiment two different treatment patterns were applied. The control groups were provided with traditional routine situation in the classroom while experimental groups provided with direct teaching method as treatment. The experiment continued for six weeks. Soon after the treatment was over, posttest was administrated to measure the achievement of the sample subjects.



ANALYSIS OF DATA
Raw scores obtained from pretest and posttests were presented in tabular form for the purpose of interpretation. For the manipulation of data, the means, standard deviations, and differences of means were computed for each group. Significance of difference between the mean scores of both the experimental and control groups on the variable of pretest and post test scores was tested at 0.05 levels by applying t-test. To examine the treatment affects for high and low levels of achievement of the two groups, The Solomon four group design (2x2 analysis of variance) was applied. For this purpose, the students of two groups were divided into two halves, i.e. high achievers (above the mean score) and low achievers (below the mean score). This division was made on the basis of pretest scores. The Solomon four group designs is symbolized as below:
English medium groups
Experimental Control
High achievers CELL 1 CELL 2
Low achievers CELL 3 CELL 4


Urdu medium groups

Experimental Control
High achievers CELL 1 CELL 2
Low achievers CELL 3 CELL 4

For statistical analysis the formulae followed by Garrett (1997) and Gay (2000) were applied.

The following formulae were used in doing statistical analysis:
I. Standard error of the difference between two means



II. Computation of t-value



III. Analysis of variance

Step 1 = Correction term (C) =

Step 2 = SS Term =

Step 3 = SS Between means =

Step 4 = SS Within groups = SS Total – SS Means

Step 5 = ANOVA table


Source of variation Degree of freedom Sum of squares Mean square F t-value
Between group means
Within groups

M.S Within groups = SS within groups
Degree of freedom within groups

F-value = M.S Between group means
M.S Within groups
t-value =

IV. Factorial design (2x2 analysis of variance)

Step 1 = Correction term (C) = (X….)2

Step 2 = SS Total = X2….. –C

Step 3 = SS Cell = N (D112 + d122 + d212 + S222)

Step 4 = SS Within Cell – SS Total – SS Cells

Step 5 = SS Treatment = N1 (d1.2 + d2.2)

Step 6 = SS Achievement level = N1. (d1.2 + d2.2)

Step 7 = SS Interactions + SSCells–SSTreatment – SSAchievement level

Step 8 = ANOVA (2x2) table

Source of variation Degree of freedom Sum of squares Mean square F P
Treatment
Achievement level
Interaction
Within cells

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter is confined to the analysis and interpretation of data obtained from the pre-test and posttest. Significance of difference between the mean scores of experimental and control groups of English medium and Urdu medium on pretest and posttest were found out by applying t-test, analysis of variance and the Solomon four group design (analysis of variance).
Obtained results along with analysis and interpretation are presented in the following pages.
Table 1: Significance of difference between the mean scores of experimental and control groups on pre-test.(English Medium)
Group N df M SD SED t-value
Experimental 30 29 55.67 12.67 3.38 0.64*
Control 30 29 53.50 11.08
*Not Significant df=58 t-value at 0.05 level =2.04
Table 1 indicates that the mean scores of the pretest in English of the experimental group (English medium) was 55.67 and that of the control group was 53.5. The difference between two means was not statistically significant at 0.05 levels.
These findings support the views of Arnold (1942) who found that learning occurs in conducive environment and suitable surroundings.



Table 2: Significance of difference between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control groups on pretest. (English Medium)
Group N df Mean SD SED t-value
High achievers of the experimental group 15 14 65.67 8.43 3.44 0.58*
High achievers of the control group 15 14 63.67 8.65
*Not Significant df = 28 t value at 0.05 = 2.04
Table 2 reflects that there was no significance of difference between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control groups on pretest. To obtained t value through calculation is 0.58 at 0.05 level, which is less than the, table value..
Table 3: Significance of difference between the mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control groups on pretest. (English Medium)
Group N Df Mean SD SED t- value
Low achievers of the experimental group 15 14 42.33 7.84 2.98 0.11*
Low achievers of the control group 15 14 42.67 4.21
*Not Significant df=2 t value at 0.05 = 2.14
Table 3 reflects that there was no significance of difference between the mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control group on pretest. The calculated t- value is 0.11, which is less than the table value and is insignificant at 0.05 level. Hence, the both groups could be treated as equal.






Table 4: Significance of difference between the mean scores of experimental and control groups on post-test. (English Medium)
Group N Df Mean SD SED t-value
Experimental 30 29 79 3.29 3.25 7.48*
Control 30 29 54.67 3.32

*Significant df=58 t value at 0.05 =2.04
It appears from Table 4 that difference between the mean scores on the post-test of the experimental group was 79 and the same of the control group was 54.67.The difference between the two means was found significant at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group.
These findings support the results reported by Petty (1996) that students learn effectively by direct method if they are taught immediate requirements of it.
Group N Df Mean SD SED t-value
High achievers of the experimental group 30 29 82.33 5.32 3.40 4.11*
High achievers of the control group 30 29 68.33 9.92
Table 5: Significance of difference between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control groups on posttest. (English Medium)
*Significant df =58 t value at 0.05 = 2.14
Table 5 shows that the difference between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control groups on post-test was statistically significant at 0.05 levels in favor of the experimental group. The calculated value is 4.11 which is less than table value at 0.05 levels.
It supports the concept of Curran (1982) that word-to-word language learning hinders in fluency. So, the learners should avail a chance where they gallop hundreds of words accordingly.
Table 6: Significance of difference between the mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control groups on post-test. (English Medium)
Group N Df Mean SD SED t-value
Low achievers of the experimental group 30 29 65 4.47 0.74 7.02*
Low achievers of the control group 30 29 45 3.05
* Significant df =58 t value at 0.05 =2.04
Table 6 indicates that the difference between 7.02 the mean scores of low achievers of experimental group and control group on post-test was not statistically significant at 0.05 level. The calculated t- value at 0.05 level is 7.02, which is higher than table value at same level.
These results support the concept of Collitzs (1926) that found students with low scores had low interest in learning a foreign language.

Table 7: Significance of difference between the mean scores of experimental and control groups on pre-test. (Urdu Medium)

Group N df Mean SD SED t-value
Experimental 30 29 53.47 14.42 3.79 0.12*
Control 30 29 53 13.92








*Not Significant df = 58 t value at 0.05= 2.04
Table 7 reflects that the mean score of the previous achievement test in English of the experimental group (Urdu medium) was 53.47 and that of the control group was 53 The obtained t-value is 0.12, which is less than the table value
It supports the concepts Rivers (1981) that every child has specific potential by birth. It is the responsibility of the parents, society and teachers, how they channalize that potential in proper way.
Table 8: Significance of difference between mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control groups on pre-test. (Urdu Medium)
Group N df Mean SD SED t-value
Low achievers of the experimental group 15 14 81.93 7.45 1.76 0.90*
Low achievers of the control group 15 14 64.67 9.95








* Not Significant df =28 t value at 0.05 = 2.14
Table 8 reflects that there was no significant difference between the mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control groups on pre-test. The calculated t-value is 0.90, which is less than the table value and is insignificant at 0.05 level. So, both groups could be treated as equal.
These findings support the concepts of Morris (1988) that students with low scores had also low interest in English.

Group N df Mean SD SED t-value
Experimental group 30 29 56.83 13.93 3.73 4.57*
Control group 30 29 54.67 12.48
Table 9 Significance of difference between the mean scores of experimental group and control groups on post-test.
* Significant df=58 t value at 0.05 = 2.14
Table 9 indicates that the mean scores of the experimental group (Urdu medium) was 56.83 and that of the control group was 54.67 on post-test. At posttest performance of experimental group was better than control group.
These results support the concept of Rivers (1981) that students show good results if they are taught with direct method accordingly.
Table 10 Significance of difference between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control groups on posttest. (Urdu Medium)
Group N df Mean SD SED t-value
High achievers of the experimental group 30 29 88.33 2.95 3.05 0.42*
High achievers of the control group 30 29 66 5.56
* Significant df = 58 t- value at 0.05 =2.14
Table 10 shows that the difference between the mean scores of high achievers of experimental and control groups on post-test was statistically at 0.05 levels in favor of experimental group. The calculated value is 0.42, which is less than table value at 0.05 level
It supports the concept of Petty (1996), that directs teaching has equal benefits for high, average and low achievers.
Table 11: Significance of difference between the mean scores of low achievers of experimental group and control group on post-test. (Urdu Medium)
Group N Df Mean SD SED t-value
Low achievers of the experimental group 15 14 65 4.76 0.88 6.31*
Low achievers of the control group 15 14 45 3.05
*Significant df = 28 t -value at 0.05 = 2.14
It appears from Table 11 that the difference between the mean scores of low achievers of experimental and control groups on post-test was not significant at 0.05 level. The calculated t-value at 0.05 level is 6.31 which is higher than table value at same level.
The finding contradicts the views of Huchan (1985) that direct teaching is most suitable and effective for low achievers.
CONCLUSIONS
In the light of statistical analysis and the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn.
1 On the whole, direct teaching method is more effective as a teaching-learning technique for English as compared to traditional teaching method. Students in the direct teaching method outscored than students working in traditional learning situation.
2 Low achievers in direct teaching showed significant superiority over low achievers learning English by the traditional method. Thus direct teaching was found to be more effective method for teaching English to the low achievers as compared to traditional method of teaching
3 High achievers, whether they were taught English by direct method or traditional method, retained learnt material at the same rate.
4 Low achievers taught English by direct method retained more material as compared to low achievers taught by traditional method of teaching. Therefore direct teaching seemed to be more effective teaching learning technique for low achievers.
5 English textbooks mostly written for direct teaching were taught through traditional method. These showed not good results; because teachers were not conversant with the direct method.
LITERATURE CITED
Abid, A. K. (1979). A Study of the Effectiveness of Supplementary Reading Approach of Teaching English on Comprehension, Reading Periods and Interests of 10th grade Level (unpublished) Ph. D. thesis, Institute of Education and Research, University of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. (pp. 190-205).
Agrammal, L. (1995). General Language Practices. Merrill Publishing, Company New York, USA. (pp. 32-34).
Ahmed, N. S. (1969). Teaching of English as a Foreign Language, 1st edition, Carawan Book Deptu Urdu Bazar Lahore. (pp.34, 56).
Arnold. L. (1942). Culture and Anarchy, Preface. London: Macmillan Co; Ltd, UK. (p. 98).
Jesperson, O. (1983). Language, Its Natures Development and Origion.4th edition New York, USA. (p. 143).
Campbell, D. & K. Stanley. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching, in Handbook of Research on Teaching. Rand Mc Nelly and Company, Chicago, USA. (p. 175).
Collitzs, G. (1926). Approaches to English as Second Language and its Implementations Mc Graw-Hill New York, USA. (pp. 113-120).
Curran, C. (1982). Counseling-Learning: a Whole Person Model for Education. Mc Graw-Hill New York, USA. (pp. 213-224).
Farooq, R. A. (2001). Understanding Research in Education. University Institute of Education and Research University of Arid and Agriculture Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Garret, H. E. (1997). Statistic in Psychology and Education. National Book Foundations, Islamabad, Pakistan. (pp. 191-192, 279-291).
.Gay, L.R (2000). Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application. National Book Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan. (pp.477-478,480-496).
Graff, W. (1985). Language and Learning Principles. . Longmans Green and Co LTD. London, UK. (pp. 60-67).
Huchan, D. (1985). A Practical Guide to the Teaching of English. The University of Chicago, Press, Ltd, USA. (pp. 13-14).
Krashen, L. & Terrell, J. (1983). Second Language Acquisition Learning Skills Paragons. New York, USA. (p. 23).
Lionel, M. (1985). Students Choice: Short Reading for the ESL, Classroom English Teaching Forum DC. Vol No-1 Washington, USA. (pp. 87-90).
Morris, K. (1988). Developing Second Language Skills, Second edition, Chapter-5 Chicago; and Mc Nelly College Publishing Company, USA. (pp. 44-50).
Petty, W. (1996). Second Report about the State of Knowledge about the Teaching of Vocabulary. National Council of Teachers Education, New York, USA. (pp. 54-56).
Richards, J. (1991). The Context of Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, London, UK. (pp. 49, 520).
Rivers, W. (1981). Teaching Foreign Language Teaching. The University of Chicago, Press. Ltd, USA. (pp. 46-56).
Sweet, S. (1992). Language and the Study of Language, 4th edition. Merrill Publishing Company New York, USA. (p. 45).
Tanveer, M. (1998). Education and the Development of Muslim Nationalism in Pre-Partition India. University of California. (pp. 45-49).

Venue

Atlanta
2890, North Fulton Drive, Altanta, georgia,USA,30305
Atlanta
Georgia
United States
MORE INFO ON THIS VENUE

Additional Information

according your requirement the full paper is being submitted

Restrictions