Student Perception of Traditional English Teaching Methods (CLT approach) and Comparison to Modern Methods (Using Technology)-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Student Perception of Traditional English Teaching Methods (CLT approach) and Comparison to Modern Methods (Using Technology)

Published:2021-03-12 Issue: Volume:15 Page:35-43
ISSN:2074-1316
Container-title:International Journal of Education and Information Technologies
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

AL-Madani Feras Mohammed¹

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Education and Arts, Northern Border University, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the perception of students regarding traditionally used CLT approach for teaching English language and its comparison to modern teaching methods based on technology. Survey was carried out using a quantitative analysis on 200 students of English language teaching institutes that are currently using CLT approach. Pre and post responses survey was carried out wherein their perspectives were assessed before and after exposure to technology-based ELT methods. Analysis was carried out using Wilcoxin test which revealed the impact of modern technological tools used in language teaching, such as, video conferencing, audio CDs, online oral versions, text-to-speech synthesis, interactive books, digital game-based learning and computer assisted language learning (CALL).

Publisher

North Atlantic University Union (NAUN)

Reference30 articles.

1. M. A. Khan, “EFL Teachers’ Perceptions on CLT,” Int. J. Res. Innov., vol. 1, 2016.

2. J. T. Roberts, “The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching: The King is dead! Long live the King!’,” Infernafional J. English Sfudies, 2004.

3. T. H. Mothudi and H. J. Bosman, “Communicative Language Teaching and Learning: Interfacing Theory and Practice — The Case of Botswana Secondary Schools.”

4. T. Dudley-Evans et al., “Cambridge language teaching library The Language Teaching Matrix,” 2001.

5. A. Pop, “The impact of the new technologies in foreign language instruction our experience,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1185–1189, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2010.03.169.