The Effect of Methodology on Learning Vocabulary and Communication Skills in Iranian Young Learners: A Comparison between Audiolingual Method and Natural Approach

Abstract

<p>In countries in which English is learned as a foreign or as a second language, children&rsquo;s language education has been recognized as an important factor. The present study aims to investigate the progress of EFL young learners via the two methods of Audiolingual and Natural approach. The focus therefore is on the acquisition of English words and communicative skills in a certain period of time, and on the best method for improving communication in English for EFL young learners. The participants in this study were 40 Iranian female young learners aged between 7 and 9. They were chosen randomly from two elementary schools where English was taught as an extra-program subject. In one school, English was taught through Audiolingual method and in the other, via Natural approach. The final tests&rsquo; scores of each group were analyzed to see the improvement of the young learner's vocabulary and communicative skills in each method. The results indicated that young learners' vocabulary learning and communication skills improved significantly in Natural approach compared in that of Audiolingual method.<strong></strong></p

The Effectiveness of Natural Approach on Language Learning in Higher Education

“…The natural approach provided by the teachers in higher education is effective to make available meaningful input for the students. It is supported by [14] in his study about the natural approach of teaching the English language on a flipped classroom platform and by [15] in their research discussing the effect of methodology on learning vocabulary and communication skills in Iranian young learners: a comparison between audio-lingual method and natural approach that the students in higher education have a motivation to communicate in English since natural approach offers them low anxiety level. They can have responses in their L1 to the teachers' questions, explanations, invitation, command, etc.…”

Effects of the Vaughan Method in Comparison with the Audiolingual Method and the Communicative Language Teaching on Iranian Advanced EFL Learners’ Speaking Skill

“…They converse about their personal experiences with their instructors and fellow students. Unlike the Audiolingual method, where the students imitate what the teacher says, the communicative method uses only conversations (Ghofur et al, 2017;Tehrani et al, 2013;Zhenhui, 2002). Additionally, a teacher using the communicative method teaches topics on different situations and circumstances.…”

“…The present research aims to compare the effectiveness of Vaughan Method with two other alternative methods, namely the Audiolingual method and communicative language teaching. There are various studies (Gorsuch, 2001;Zhenhui, 2002;Tehrani at al., 2013;Ghofur at al., 2017) which showcase how the application of different methods has been influential for learner progress. While the application of each method depends on certain criteria, the main aim of applying the Vaughan method is to generate positive learner attitudes toward learning (Vaughan, 2016).…”

Investigation of the variables related to TEOG English achievement using Language Acquisition Theory of Krashen

“…Gradman ve Hanania'nın (1991) çalışması, girdi hipotezini destekleyen güzel bir örnek olarak gösterilebilir; çünkü sayıca oldukça fazla birçok faktör içinden okul dışında İngilizce kitap okuyarak dile maruz kalmanın, dil edinimindeki başarıya katkı sağlayan en önemli değişken olduğunu ifade etmektedir. Anlaşılır girdi temelli pedagojinin etkinliği (Rodrigo, Krashen & Gribbons, 2004), öğrencilerin okuma becerileri üzerinde anlaşılır girdiyi arttırmanın pozitif ve manidar etkisi (Yang, 2011) ve çocukların kelime öğrenimi ve iletişim becerileri üzerinde girdi temelli yaklaşımların olumlu etkisi (Tehrani, Barati & Youhanaee, 2013) üzerine de ayrıca çalışmalar mevcuttur. Ek kanıtlar için, girdi hipotezini destekleyen birçok çalışmanın yer verildiği ilgili alanyazının (Krashen 1994(Krashen , 2004b(Krashen , 2013a) okunması tavsiye edilmektedir.…”

“…The study of Gradman and Hanania (1991) could be a good example for supporting input hypothesis, in which, out of a large number of background factors thought to contribute to success in language learning, the extent of active exposure to the language through outside individual reading was found to be the most important one. There are also studies related to the efficacy of comprehensible input based pedagogy (Rodrigo, Krashen & Gribbons, 2004), the positive and significant effect of increasing comprehensible input on the students' reading ability (Yang, 2011) and the positive effect of input hypothesis based approaches on young learners' vocabulary learning and communication skills (Tehrani, Barati & Youhanaee, 2013). For further evidence, it is suggested to refer to the related literature (Krashen 1994(Krashen , 2004b(Krashen , 2013a, where a number of studies supporting input hypothesis are addressed.…”