Research Article | Open Access

Technologies Supported Communicative Grammar Translation Model: A Motivational Agent for English Learning

    Shawana Fazal

    Department of Education, Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan

    Muhammad Iqbal Majoka

    Department of Education, Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan

    Muhammad Ilyas Khan

    Department of Education, Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan

    Sobia Masood

    National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan


Received
28 Apr, 2015
Accepted
04 Jun, 2017
Published
30 Jun, 2017

This paper reports on the qualitative part of a larger experimental study in which three groups that is, Control Group (taught through traditional method), Experimental Group I (taught through communicative grammar translation model), and, Experimental Group II (taught through information and communication technologies supported communicative grammar translation model) were compared to examine the effect of technologies supported communicative grammar translation model on students’ motivation for learning English language. A total of 15 students from a public sector university were interviewed. The data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The findings revealed awareness among students from all groups about the importance of English as an international language and the use of translation method with focus on grammar before the intervention. However, after the intervention, the three groups showed commonalities and differences in themes contributing towards motivation of language learning. The Experimental Group II showed increased motivation for language learning due to use of technology oriented methodology that enhanced learning all language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). The findings also indicated that Experimental Group I was greatly motivated through the use of communicative skills that enhanced speaking and writing skills compared to other two groups. The results have important implications for increasing motivation in English language learning through technology in Pakistan and other countries with similar contexts.

Motivation has been a major research topic within second language acquisition that influences students’ outcomes in language learning (Dörnyei, 2009; Gardner, 2001). Motivation is the inner desire of people to do a task and it depends on their willingness to continue the task for specific duration of time (Dörnyei, 2002). Dörnyei (2009) argued that motivation provides a primary impetus to initiate foreign language learning and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process. Effective teaching methodology has been perceived to have a great influence on students’ motivation level. Many researchers have explored students’ motivation through quantitative measures (Roohani & Mohammadi, 2014; Tabatabaei & Molavi, 2012), however, qualitative studies have also been conducted to explore second language (L2) motivation (e.g. Ushioda, 2001). Dörnyei and Ushioda (2013) emphasized that motivation is a dynamic process within an individual’s learning experience that can best be measured through qualitative approaches.

Second language learners who are better motivated are likely to perform better than others. Motivation strategies often rely on the teacher’s personality and method of delivery (Ushioda, 2001). Additionally, it also relies on the organisation of content and techniques used in the class that develop students’ interest (Eggleton, 2007). Motivation level varies with intrinsic and extrinsic incentives in learning target language. Utilisation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) within classroom encourages students’ independence and learning, and consequently, it also enhances motivation (Kawaguchi & Di-Biase, 2009).

The use of technology has been instrumental in the development of motivation and the process of language learning (Nowrozi, 2011). The use of multimedia in classrooms enhances the students’ motivation for learning (Boehm, 2009; Torff & Tirotta, 2010). The web pages on multimedia provide content-rich learning activities, develop the curiosity and creativity of learners for vocabulary acquisition, grammar instruction, and provide knowledge for writing (Arslan & Sahin-Kizil, 2010). Tuan (2010) reports that interview recordings before and after conducting the experiment improved the speaking skills of learners by creating their interest and boasting their motivation. In this way, real communication takes place and the ICT tools such as tape recorder, audio recorder, cassettes, and video animations develop speaking, listening and writing skills, because these tools serve as motivational factors for learning language. The learners’ motivation is influenced by their interest in technology and the desire to learn language for any specific reason; both types of motivation ultimately lead to language acquisition (Stockwell, 2013).

English has been included as one of the main subjects in curriculum around the globe and in Pakistan as well. It is vital to develop strategies for learning and assessing language for a diverse range of students around. Kramarski and Feldman (2000) argued that the Internet provides qualitative environment and it has greatly increased the motivation of students towards L2 acquisition. Bektas-Cetinkaya and Oruc (2011) found that good socioeconomic background, provision of well-equipped classrooms, and better facilities affect motivation and language positively. The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (2016) in its Vision 2025 has emphasized use of ICTs for teaching English language to bring reform in teaching. New models need to be developed to include technology in traditional methods for effective delivery of the knowledge in foreign language teaching (UNESCO, 2004). According to Cook (2001), the successful teachers efficiently practice both languages in second language context. Grammar Translations Method is being used in many other countries worldwide with new methodologies to enhance language learning process (Alam, 2015; Chang, 2011; Walia, 2012; Wang, 2016). In Pakistan too, there is need to develop technological attitude in teaching language besides taking scaffold in traditional methods. In a similar context, Communicative Grammar translation Model (CGT) was developed by integrating Grammar Translation (GT) method with Communicative approach (CA) to teach English at intermediate level in Pakistan (Fazal, 2011). It was found effective in learning language skills except listening skills, which might be due to the cultural context. Fazal (2011) suggested incorporating different ICTs tools in CGT model and finding the motivation in language learning through ICTs integrated CGT model. The CGT model was further modified by integrating ICTs, keeping in focus the motivational aspect of ICTs in language learning.

This improved CGTI model was experimented at BS (Hons-Semester 1) in a public sector university of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan (Fazal & Majoka, 2014). The present study reports the impact of new methodologies on motivation for language learning. For this purpose, three groups (Control Group, Experimental Group I, and Experimental Group II) were formed. Intervention was provided in the form of new methodologies to experimental groups. Control group was taught through Traditional methods (TM), Experimental Group I through CGT model, and Experimental Group II through CGTI model for whole semester. The students of the university were selected because it is the fundamental place where they think about their career and English language has its paramount importance in every field they choose at this stage. The qualitative strand was embedded within the main experimental study to explore possible change in learners’ motivation keeping in view the dynamic nature of motivation for English language learning before and after the intervention.

Qualitative analysis typically requires a smaller sample size than quantitative analysis. Creswell (2009) recommends 5 to 25 respondents as a sample for qualitative analysis in exploring some phenomenon of interest. The qualitative research is concerned with contextual meaning of phenomenon and not generalisations (Crouch & Mckenzie, 2006). Qualitative sample size may best be determined by the time allotted, resources available, and study objectives (Mason, 2010).

METHOD

This study adopted qualitative research design to explore the motivation for language learning. The experimental group was taught through traditional grammar translation method (TM); Experimental Group I was taught using communicative approach with the integration of grammar translation method (CGT); and Experimental Group II was taught through a newly developed model designed by the integration of ICTs in CGT model (CGTI). Semi-structured interviews (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007) were conducted with three groups taught through different methodologies. Interviews revolved around the respondents’ views regarding the usefulness or otherwise of TM, CGT, and CGTI in teaching English.

Sample
The sample of the current study comprised of 15 respondents who participated in the larger experimental study. Five respondents (women = 2, men = 3) from each (Control, Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II) group were selected using purposive sampling (Cohen el al. 2007) for semi-structured interviews on the basis of demographics collected before intervention. The same respondents were taken for interviews after intervention. These respondents were enrolled in Semester I of BS-Hons programme from a public sector university, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

The five respondents from each group were selected on the basis of highest marks achieved in English; medium of instruction as English or a combination of English and Urdu in school or college; 12 years of studying English; and if they had ticked any two options in using English outside the classroom. Following Creswell and Clark (2011), the selection of the respondents was also made on their availability (throughout the experiment), willingness to participate in the interview, and the ability to communicate their experiences clearly. The respondents of the current study had studied English from Kinder Garden or class 1, had good English communication skills due to medium of instruction in the school and college or had practiced language skills outside the classroom. The age of both male and female respondents ranged from 19-21 years with almost equal mean for male (M = 19.96, SD = 0.83) and female (M = 19.93, SD = 0.79). For referring to qualitative data in analysis, the respondents were identified as Respondent 1 (R1), Respondent 2 (R2), and so on.

Research Instrument: Development and Validation
Semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. The interview protocols were developed keeping in view the main research questions and purpose of the study. Regarding the demographic information, respondents were asked questions about their linguistic background, that is, their first language, their total marks obtained in English (FA/FSC level), medium of instruction in the school or college (e.g. Urdu, English, Combination of English and Urdu), and their involvement in using different resources that enhanced language skills (e.g., listening to the English documentary, watching English movie).

Following guidelines for interview protocol suggested by Creswell (2007), the current interview protocol consisted of the title of the study, which briefly explained its purpose and instructions for the interviewer to follow so that standard procedures could be used for all respondents. Respondents were free to answer the questions and they could use L1 (Urdu) for explaining any idea/concept if they found any difficulty in English at any point. The first question was asked to build rapport. It was followed by 8 questions with probes to follow up and elicit information from the respondents. The interviews explored the respondents’ views about the importance of English, the impact of teaching methods on students’ motivation, and learning the four language skills.

During interviews probing was used, which was helpful in ensuring the validity and reliability of the data as it helped to ensure consistency in the responses. Probing questions were asked to improve the quality of information coming through the main interview questions.

Before the actual interviews, the content validity of the semi-structured interview was established through a committee of experts, who had experience in conducting and analyzing qualitative interviews. Five experts (3 men, 2 women; mean age = 47.2 years, SD = 4.35), two from Department of English and three from Department of Education were chosen for this purpose. All the members had PhD degrees in their fields and had expertise in qualitative research and in mixed method research designs.

This process was followed by piloting of the interview schedule with three students of second semester to refine and see the adequacy and usefulness of the research instrument as suggested by Creswell (2009). The piloting process helped improve the interview protocols in terms of content and conduct of the interviews and the data collection process. This pilot testing of the interview helped in reducing ambiguities, modifying unnecessary questions, and maximising the usefulness and authenticity of the interview schedule. Some questions of the interview were modified, deleted or added including Q 3 ‘How did you find your English class useful in the college?' and Q 5 ‘What new things did you learn during this class?’. Originally, these were separate questions, but after pilot testing, Q 5 was made a part of Q 3.

Procedure
Interviews were conducted before and after the experiment to draw divergent explanations from respondents taught through three different methodologies. The interview guidelines such as avoiding leading questions, taking notes besides audio recording and the piloting process helped maintain the validity and reliability of interviewing. The respondents were informed that their interview was being recorded and would be kept confidential. Informed consent was obtained before the beginning of the interview process. Most of the interviews took about 40-45 minutes. Data analysis proceeded immediately after each interview. The interviews were transcribed before formal thematic analysis and the transcripts were sent to the respondents for validation.

Data obtained through interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The focus of inductive thematic analysis was to explore whether three methodologies influenced or not influenced the motivation of the respondents towards language learning. Inductive analysis is a process of coding the data without trying to fit it into a pre-existing coding frame, or the researcher’s analytic preconceptions. In this sense, this form of thematic analysis is data-driven. The stance of Braun and Clark (2006) was followed for familiarization with the data through transcription on MS word and repeated reading, and drawing the initial list of ideas.

Second phase involved writing down the initial codes from the data. All the important aspects were highlighted in MS word with different colours and coded in front of coloured text in separate column. Then the initial codes were matched with the data extracts that demonstrated that code. It involved copying extracts of data from individual transcripts and collated each code together in separate computer files.

In the third phase, the codes were combined to form themes and subthemes with extracts related to them. In the fourth phase, the themes were read again with the relevant data set to check whether the data is fit in the current theme. Some themes were refined and merged together to form new themes at this stage.

The data were allowed to speak through the emergence of descriptive themes that may support the existing literature or generate new knowledge. In order to increase validity and reliability of the data, two of the researchers cross-checked the categories and compared the identified themes. Breaking down the data and categorizing it gave a general sense of what the students’ viewed new model with ICTs. The common structure across all interviews was meant to establish a point of direct comparisons as well as explain differences between accounts of respondents. These findings were then corroborated with already existing findings of similar context from literature (Braun & Clark, 2006; Johnson & Christensen, 2004). The report was produced on the basis of similar and different interview accounts of respondents and by looking how much evidence was found to support data.

RESULTS

Major Themes Identified before Intervention
The following major themes were developed from the emerging patterns in collected data before conducting the experiment.

Importance of English. The respondents showed their interest in English language because of its international as well as vocational importance. Most respondents seemed to recognise the importance of English as a global means of communication. English was also considered important because it developed the capacity to bring more international awareness and success in life. R2 argued: ‘English is important because every news that we get about the world is in English. We learn it to be successful in our life.’ Similarly, R5 said: ‘The only language that we use to communicate with the world through Internet or any other mode of communication is English.’

These views show that students were aware of the international importance of English language. The motivation behind learning English was its usefulness in the society and around the world as whole. It was pointed out that better proficiency in English enhances the prospects of getting jobs in the job market.

R7 said: ‘English is compulsory for gaining good jobs in the country. Most of the interviews for jobs are conducted in English’. Similarly, R6 argued: ‘When we look for any job, we are conscious of the fact that spoken English plays important role in securing jobs.’

R8 said: ‘A good knowledge of English enables us to excel in our academic and professional pursuits. One is praised among the people, if one is able to speak English.’

The respondents seemed aware of the vocational importance of English in terms of enhancing job prospects language in the country. They were motivated in learning the language because they wanted to secure good position jobs. Respondents also highlighted the importance of English in terms of the social prestige associated with it for those who are proficient in the language

Emphasis on grammatical rules. Respondents seemed motivated to learn grammar and its usage at various places. They emphasized on grammatical rules, when they were asked about teaching methodology in the class. Teachers usually emphasize the use of translation method in the class. The instructors rely on L1 to make the teaching learning process easy.

When asked about the teaching methodology teachers mostly used, one of the respondents, R11, said: ‘The teacher translates difficult sentences into Urdu for explaining complex ideas in prose and poetry.’

R13 argued: ‘It is easy for the students to understand English when it is translated into Urdu. We can quickly recall translated text later.’

Respondents argued that most often they thought and organised their ideas in their native language and then translated them into English when asked to do some kind of composition writing.

Respondents also reported lack of communication abilities in English. In traditional settings, the old pedagogical practices tend to prevail and teachers pay less attention to interact in L2. R7 said: ‘We do not develop confidence in speaking English in or outside the classroom.’

Similarly, R5 argued that she was often reluctant to speak English in the class due to possible ridicule from classmates in case she spoke incorrectly.

Major Themes Identified After Intervention

An important general outcome of analysis of the post- intervention interviews was the identification of differences as well as similarities among the accounts of respondents of the three groups (TM, CGT, and CGTI). The following section summarizes the similarities and differences in the themes from the three groups.

Importance of English. Respondents from all groups showed similar awareness about the importance of English language for securing jobs, getting good grades in examinations, and communicating at international level. These significant aspects` seemed to have been the motivation behind learning English depicted in interview responses of all three groups including TM, CGT, and CGTI after treatment.

One of the respondents from TM group (Control Group) said R2:

‘We learn English because it is international language necessary for communication.’ A respondent from CGT group (Experimental Group 1), R6 argued: ‘English is a global language and everyone should learn it.’

Sharing similar thoughts with the two groups mentioned above, a participant from CGTI group (Experimental Group II), R13 emphasized the importance of English arguing; ‘It is a fact that English is an international language, used in offices and media. Learning English will help us to accomplish tasks and communicate better.’

Most respondents argued that from passing examinations to getting jobs, English is essential for every student. One of the respondents from TM group, R3 stated: ‘English is necessary for job and I learn English to be successful in my studies and job in future.’ R7 emphasized: ‘English is a base to get good jobs and we cannot achieve our targets unless we are able to speak good English… which supports us in our career.’

Similarly, a respondent from the CGTI group, R11 stated: ‘In this modern era, English is necessary for any success in life; a mark for achievement and gaining well paid job.’

Overall respondents from all three groups believed that English has instrumental value as prerequisite for getting through competitive examinations and for securing good jobs and status.

Innovative teaching methodology. The respondents from CGTI group reported a shift from passive to active learning; from memorization to application of language in classroom; and how the language is best taught and learnt through ICTs. Answering a question about the most interesting aspect of learning English, R14 stated: ‘The new method of teaching developed my interest in learning different aspects of language….’ Similarly, R11 argued, ‘the way of teaching was encouraging and kept us on track during the learning process. The teacher introduced different techniques of using Internet and mobile for searching meanings of difficult words, for using bbc.com for learning. The quality of learning was high as I learnt things through personal involvement.’

The respondents seemed motivated through innovative methodology that enhanced their learning of all language skills i.e., Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing with ICTs.

The subthemes related to main theme of innovative teaching methodology are discussed below:

Learning all language skills. The CGTI group was of the view that they had learnt reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills in ICTs oriented classroom. The ICTs supported academic activities like comprehension strategies (skimming and scanning), vocabulary games, practicing oral skills, and listening techniques also enhanced English language learning.

R4 from CGTI said, ‘I developed reading skills through skimming and scanning on laptops. I learned writing in various activities in class…like essay writing, online spelling games, and vocabulary building exercise. Teacher sometimes used Urdu at the end if there was left anything incomprehensible’. Another respondent R11 said: ‘I learned grammar through grammar exercise on websites, understanding of words’ pronunciation through listening to native speakers’ recordings.’

R14 said: ‘Listening to native speakers’ talk was first ever experience in English classroom and I wrote down the answers of different questions simultaneously. For improving our reading skills, we were taught how to do skimming and scanning of a text. The use of Urdu also helped when there was any difficult task to do.’

Using technology as catalyst for learning.The use of technology, especially, multimedia contributed in motivating students of CGTI group to learn English language in interesting ways. Technology transformed teachers centered learning into student centered learning. Use of technology was associated with better learning, confidence building, and faster communication. R14 from the CGTI group argued: ‘I used mobile dictionary for meanings of difficult words, practiced online language tests as class assignment. I have been taught how to take and record interview, listen to and comprehend the recordings of native speakers in the class.’

The use of laptops, mobile dictionaries, Internet, and Power Point presentations enhanced students’ interest and created amicable learning environment. The respondents from this group found multimedia as useful tool and spoke excitedly about it. For example R5 pointed out: ‘Multimedia was first experience in whole learning life which encouraged me for acquiring language skills through use of active participation and teacher’s feedback that requires less time for learning.’ Respondents also found the use of audio and video presentations exciting and absorbing.

Focus on communicative tasks. The respondents of CGT group were motivated to learn language collaboratively through interactive techniques like storytelling, interviewing technique in pair/group work. Real communication through these activities enhanced their motivation.

A respondent from the CGT group, R6 stated: ‘we learned about grammar in different lessons. We acquired skills of learning vocabulary and punctuation…use of grammar during writing essays, and interviewing techniques.’ R9 added: ‘I was hesitant before in saying any sentence in English even if I knew it, but now I feel confident in speaking English... Storytelling to other class fellows in group helped a lot.’

The respondents from CGT group shared their learning experiences in speaking, reading, and writing skills. They learned how to communicate and boasted confidence while speaking. R7 reported: ‘The teacher focused on reading, writing and speaking activities. I found speaking skill the most interesting one. I listened to the teacher attentively when he/she explained lesson and activity’. Similarly, ‘We were engaged in speaking activities like taking interviews or being interviewed by fellow students.’

The respondents of CGT group highlighted learning and improving of communication skills through interaction with the teachers and fellow students. They were encouraged to ask questions in the class and used story-telling techniques for creating motivating environment developing interest and enhancing speaking skills.

Focus on grammatical accuracy. The focus on grammatical accuracy in language learning emerged as a salient theme of TM group. The respondents were motivated to learn grammar in various contexts and writing skills. It emerged from the responses that TM group learned it as rules to be followed for learning language skills. Respondents focused on grammar and language accuracy. As one respondent R2 said, ‘Answering some questions in class is difficult. I always considered that verb comes after noun and kept thinking about correct grammar in sentences.’

Focus on the accuracy in written or oral form sometimes created hindrance in fluency of speech as the respondents above stated that it was not easy to answer in English, while keeping in mind the grammatical accuracy.

R3 from TM group argued, ‘We understand everything very easily when teacher explains the lesson in Urdu (L1).’ Similarly, R15 said, ‘we can ask questions from the teacher in Urdu and the teacher responds in the same language…the most interesting thing in the class is presentation. We read from the paper and write important points on white boards, explaining them in Urdu (L1).’

The use of first language in the classroom influenced the confidence of respondents of TM group in speaking the language particularly. Secondly, they always formed sentences in L1 and then translated in L2 with grammatical accuracy, which was often time consuming.

DISCUSSION

Respondents from all the three groups (Control group, Experimental Group I, and Experimental Group II) viewed English as a global and international language and they regarded it as important for their career and jobs and success in life. These findings are in line with the findings by Sud and Kumar (2006), that university students have high motivation for securing good job. English was viewed vital for better job prospects. Better job prospects motivated university students for learning English language. Gullherme (2009) also support the view that English competency is significant for professional success and it enhances students’ learning.

Findings indicated that students of the Control Group (TM) had more focus on grammar and writing skills, while listening and speaking were the ignored aspects in classroom setting. They had a chance to listen English only when the teacher had to speak or read something in the class, and consequently speaking skills were not developed in traditional teaching practices. Thus the absence of speaking skills in classroom activities resulted in deficient listening and speaking skills (Lam, 2005).

Data also revealed that students were encouraged to learn English language when translation was used to understand complex concepts. This is in accord with Bowen’s (2013) and Rabu’s (2013) studies about the use of L1 in the class. Although, GT method is traditional, still it has great advantages in L2 classrooms at all levels (Cunningham, 2000). When teachers use familiar phrases according to the students’ ability and translate the content according to students’ needs in the classroom (Damiani, 2003), they feel easy and are motivated to learn. On the other hand, over emphasis on L1 hinders in producing sentences in L2 (Bowen, 2013; Rabu, 2013) and results in lack of speaking and listening skills among students. Hence, overall, traditional grammar translation method had less provision to develop motivation for learning English.

Findings revealed that the intervention of CGTI resulted in students’ enhanced learning motivation for English language. On post-test, the respondents from CGTI method exhibited high interest for the new teaching method that increased students’ learning. Furthermore, this method proved to be more interesting and innovative as compared to the traditional method because of significant changes in teaching learning process when technology in integrated in teaching (Ramaley & Zia, 2005). Use of ICTs in the CGTI method resulted in increased learning of communication skills, which is very important for the success in language learning according to Ellis and He (1999) and De La Fuente (2002). The use of multimedia boosts learning and utilizes best of class time (Shyamlee, 2012), and hence, it has emerged as a useful source of motivation that provided interesting environment for learning (Neo, Neo, & Yap, 2008).

Many researchers (e.g., Erbaggio, Gopala, Hobbs, & Liu, 2012; Gilbert, 2007; Miller, 2010) argue that interesting learning environment involve students in activities that enhance language learning. These findings support those of Pressley and Wharton-MacDonald (1997) and Taylor and Parsons (2011) that such learning experiences inculcated confidence among students and made them proficient in English. Besides all this, CGTI caters to the holistic development of language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). All these skills are interdependent and learning these skills in integrated ways produces better learning outcomes in language (Cabrera & Bazi, 2002). Thus, the integration of traditional grammar translation and modern information and communication technologies makes CGTI more learners’ friendly than TM and CGT, and consequently, students are more motivated to learn English through CGTI.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Qualitative studies are often criticized for their limited generalisation (Atieno, 2009). This study specifically involves a minimum sample size that a qualitative study must have (Creswell, 2009) for the acceptance of its findings. Therefore, this study has narrow scope for its generalisation to larger sample. Furthermore, this study is qualitative part of a larger experimental study; therefore, despite having utmost control on different variables, there might exist a chance that the environment at home is changed, which may affect the results. Therefore, there is need to replicate this experiment at different grade levels by considering different situations in order to have more confident interpretation of the effectiveness of CGTI model for the enhancement of motivation for learning L2.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study reveals that respondents from all the three teaching methods were equally motivated for learning English due to its international importance and value in securing good jobs. The traditional method offers only easy way to understand complex concepts, but fails to develop communication skills among learners; and offers less opportunities for developing interest among learners for learning English. CGT model offers relatively more interesting scenario for learners by engaging them in listening and speaking activities, in addition, for plausible use of grammar translation in the class. Whereas CGTI model offers new and more effective ways of teaching than TM and CGT, while focusing on all English language skills.

The use of technology, especially, multimedia in teaching was an interesting and motivating factor for learning English. Multimedia saves time and keeps students attentive in the class. Moreover, the use of different educational websites, mobile dictionaries, and audio recordings for listening comprehension significantly influenced students’ motivation for English language learning. The study was conducted in one university in Pakistan; therefore, the generalisation could only be made to similar situations and contexts. Further research may be conducted at larger scale to explore the impact of this technology integrated teaching method on learners’ motivation for L2.

REFERENCES

  1. Alam, M. M. (2015). Comparative acceptability of GTM and CLT to the teachers of rural secondary high school in Bangladesh. Journal of Literature, Languages, and Linguistic, 5, 1-7.
  2. Arslan, R., & Sahin-Kizil, A. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English Language Learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 183-197.
  3. Atieno, O. P. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13, 13-18.
  4. Bektas-Cetinkaya, Y., & Oruc, N. (2011). Effects of socioeconomic status and physical learning environment on motivation of university students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 21(1), 71-79.
  5. Boehm, K. (2009). A reluctant reader–reluctant: A reader. The Virginia English Bulletin, 5(1), 75-83.
  6. Bowen, T. (2013). Teaching approaches: The grammar-translation method.
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  8. Cabrera, M. P., & Bazi, P. (2002). Teaching the four skills in the primary EFL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(12).
  9. Chang, S. C., (2011). A contrastive study of grammar translation method and communicative approach in teaching English grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 13-24.
  10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007).Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
  11. Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed). London: Edward Arnold.
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Okas, CA: Sage Publications.
  14. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  15. Crouch, M., & McKenzie, H. (2006). The logic of small samples in qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483-499.
  16. Cunningham, C. (2000). Translation in the classroom: A useful tool for second language acquisition.
  17. Damiani, A. J. (2003). The grammar translation method of language teaching. London: Longman Publishers.
  18. De La Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.
  19. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation: Teaching and researching (2nd ed.). Routledge, New York.
  20. Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137-158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reprinted in: K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 357-377). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  21. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
  22. Eggleton, P. J. (2007). Motivation: A key to effective teaching. The Mathematics Educator, 3(2).
  23. Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 319-333.
  24. Erbaggio, P., Gopala K, S., Hobbs, S., & Liu, H. (2012). Enhancing student engagement through online authentic materials. The International Association for Language Learning Technology Journal, 42(2), 27-51.
  25. Fazal, S., & Majoka, M. I. (2014). Integration of information and communication technologies in communicative grammar translation model for effective teaching in L2 classrooms. A paper presented at ACTA 2014: Meeting the Challenge, International TESOL Conference, Melbourne, Australia (29Sep-03Oct).
  26. Fazal, S. (2011). Development of a new model by integrating communicative approach with grammar translation method to teach English as a second language, (Unpublished M.Phil Thesis), Hazara University: Mansehra. Pakistan.
  27. Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt. (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition, (pp. 1-20). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
  28. Gilbert, J. (2007). Catching the knowledge wave: Redefining knowledge for the post-industrial age. Education Canada, 47(3), 4-8.
  29. Gullherme, M. (2009). English as a global language and education for cosmopolitan citizenship. Language and Intercultural Communication. 7(1), 72-90.
  30. Higher Education Commission Pakistan. (2016). HEC vision 2025.
  31. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. New York, USA: Pearson Education.
  32. Kawaguchi, S., & Di-Biase, B. (2009). Aligning second language learning and computer-assisted language learning: Networking the language class, tandem learning and e-movies. The International Journal of Learning, 16(10), 287-302.
  33. Kramarski, B., & Feldman, Y. (2000) Internet in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation, and metacognitive awareness. Educational Media International, 37(3), 149-155.
  34. Lam, W. Y. K. (2005). Is strategic competence teachable? The Journal of Asia - Teachers of English as a Foreign Language, 2, 87-112.
  35. Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3).
  36. Miller, S. F. (2010, July). Promoting learner engagement when working with adult english language learners. Center for Adult English Language Acquisition Network Brief.
  37. Neo, M., Neo, T. K., & Yap, W. L. (2008). Students' perceptions of interactive multimedia mediated web-based learning: A Malaysian perspective.
  38. Nowrozi, V. (2011). The rational for using computer mediated communication to develop communicative and linguistic competence in learners. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 200-205.
  39. Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its development through instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 448-466.
  40. Rabu, (2013, June 26). Re: The grammar-translation method [Enjoyable English Blog].
  41. Ramaley, J., & Zia, L. (2005). The real versus the possible: Closing the gaps in engagement and learning. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds), Educating the net generation (pp. 8.1-8.21).
  42. Roohani, A., & Mohammadi, N. (2014). The relationship between EFL teachers’ emotional intelligence and students’ motivational attributes. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 6(3), 113-133.
  43. Shyamlee, D. S. (2012). Use of Technology in English language teaching and learning: An analysis, International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research IPEDR, 33, 150-156.
  44. Stockwell, G. (2013). Technology and motivation in English-language teaching and learning. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges (pp. 156-175). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  45. Sud, A., & Kumar, S. (2006). Dysfunctional career thoughts, achievement motivation, and test anxiety among university students. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 21(1-2) 41-51.
  46. Tabatabaei, O., & Molavi, A. (2012). Demotivating factors affecting Efl learning of Iranian seminary students. International Education Studies, 5(1), 181-190.
  47. Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1) 1-32.
  48. Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383.
  49. Tuan, (2010). Teaching English discrete sounds through minimal pairs. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(5), 540-561.
  50. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2004). Information and Communication Technologies in the Teaching and Learning of Foreign Languages: State-of-the-Art, Needs and Perspectives. An analytical Survey, Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.
  51. Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dornyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.) Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 93-125). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
  52. Walia, D. N. (2012). Traditional teaching methods vs. CLT: A study. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, (3), 125-131.
  53. Wang, H. J. (2016). Perceptions of grammar-translation and direct methods in teaching Chinese as second language (Unpublished BA-Hons Thesis), Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages; Taiwan, China.

How to Cite this paper?


APA-7 Style
Fazal, S., Majoka, M.I., Khan, M.I., Masood, S. (2017). Technologies Supported Communicative Grammar Translation Model: A Motivational Agent for English Learning. Pak. J. Psychol. Res, 32(1), 175-193. https://pjpr.scione.com/cms/abstract.php?id=231

ACS Style
Fazal, S.; Majoka, M.I.; Khan, M.I.; Masood, S. Technologies Supported Communicative Grammar Translation Model: A Motivational Agent for English Learning. Pak. J. Psychol. Res 2017, 32, 175-193. https://pjpr.scione.com/cms/abstract.php?id=231

AMA Style
Fazal S, Majoka MI, Khan MI, Masood S. Technologies Supported Communicative Grammar Translation Model: A Motivational Agent for English Learning. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research. 2017; 32(1): 175-193. https://pjpr.scione.com/cms/abstract.php?id=231

Chicago/Turabian Style
Fazal, Shawana, Muhammad Iqbal Majoka, Muhammad Ilyas Khan, and Sobia Masood. 2017. "Technologies Supported Communicative Grammar Translation Model: A Motivational Agent for English Learning" Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 32, no. 1: 175-193. https://pjpr.scione.com/cms/abstract.php?id=231