A contrastive analysis of traditional grammar translation method and communicative language teaching in teaching English grammar and vocabulary

Although extensive research has been conducted on why and how to teach English language grammar, no other studies exist comparing the effectiveness of teaching English grammar and vocabulary in Traditional Grammar Translation Method (henceforward TGTM) with that of Communicative Language Teaching (henceforward CLT) in a Turkish EFL class. This study was based on a mixed method design to obtain a detailed and comprehensive understanding of whether TGTM or CLT is more effective in teaching English language grammar and vocabulary. Sixty-eight 9th grade students attending to Göller Yöresi Anatolian High School in Burdur participated in this study. Their intact classes were then identified as experimental (9-C) and control group (9-A). Prior to the implementation of the study, the participants were not informed about the method and approach that would be implemented in their classes. A pre-test including the grammar topics of the first mid-term was administered to the participants to identify their proficiency level and readiness for the study. After the implementation of the pre-test, five literary texts of different genres were implemented on the basis of TGTM in experimental group (henceforward EG) and on the basis of CLT in control group (henceforward CG). Additionally, during the implementation process of these literary texts, the oral productions of the participants were also recorded and a quiz was conducted to the students after each literary text. As a last step of the implementation process, a post-test containing the same questions with those of pre-test was administered to compare the results of the pre and post-tests of the groups. The results of the pre and post-tests, quizzes and the transcriptions of the sound recordings obtained from the participants during the implementation process of the study were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively on the basis of error analysis. The study revealed that, the errors stemming from developmental error category were higher than interference errors not only the participants' written productions but also in their oral productions. However, it was observed that EG, who was taught English grammar on the basis of TGTM made fewer errors than those of CG who was taught on the basis of CLT in developmental error categories and interference error categories in both their written and oral productions. As a result, the quantitative and qualitative findings of the study suggested that TGTM was more practicable and productive than CLT in teaching and learning English grammar teaching and vocabulary.