chehra nabila

Evaluating The Effectiveness Of English Language Teaching Methods In Public HEIs: A Study Literature From Sulu, Philippines

Introduction

Evaluating the effectiveness of english language teaching methods in public heis: a study literature from sulu, philippines. This study evaluates English language teaching methods (Grammar Translation, Direct, Audio-Lingual) effectiveness in public HEIs in Sulu, Philippines, improving student language competence.

Abstract

This study evaluates and discuss of how the effectiveness from Alnakier A. Sarabi and Charisma S. Ututalum (2024) research the three methods of English teaching for instance: Grammar Translation Method, Direct Method, and Audio-Lingual Method in improving the language competence of college students in public higher education institutions (HEIs) in Sulu, Philippines. This research using the method of study literature which gathering the previous researches to answer the effectiveness of the method English teaching. By analyzing their impact on students’ proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, the study highlights how each method contributes uniquely to language learning from the sample of 200 students from HEIs in Sulu, Philippines. The results show from the research that from the three methods of teaching has a high quality in improving the student’s proficiency English Language skills. This article focuses on discussing the application effectiveness of these methods in teaching and points out the fact that these methods when used should be in moderation to promote language development across the four skills.

Review

This paper, titled "Evaluating The Effectiveness Of English Language Teaching Methods In Public HEIs: A Study Literature From Sulu, Philippines," attempts to address a relevant and persistent topic in language pedagogy: the efficacy of various teaching methodologies. The abstract indicates an aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Grammar Translation Method, Direct Method, and Audio-Lingual Method in improving college students' language competence in public Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Sulu, Philippines. The focus on a specific geographical and institutional context is a commendable aspect, offering potential insights into regional educational practices and outcomes. The topic itself holds significant interest for educators and policymakers concerned with English language proficiency. However, the abstract presents significant methodological ambiguities and serious concerns regarding its clarity and academic rigor. It states that the research uses "the method of study literature," implying a literature review, yet simultaneously refers to evaluating "Alnakier A. Sarabi and Charisma S. Ututalum (2024) research" and discusses "a sample of 200 students from HEIs in Sulu." This creates a profound contradiction: a literature review synthesizes multiple prior works, not typically analyzing a single study's primary data as if it were the current paper's own, nor does it typically involve a "sample of 200 students" in its *own* methodology. It is unclear whether this paper *is* the Sarabi and Ututalum (2024) research, a review *of* that specific research, or a broader literature review poorly described. Furthermore, the abstract's prose suffers from numerous grammatical errors and awkward phrasing, significantly impacting its professional presentation and comprehensibility. Phrases like "evaluates and discuss of how the effectiveness from Alnakier A. Sarabi and Charisma S. Ututalum (2024) research" or "This research using the method of study literature which gathering the previous researches" are indicative of a need for substantial linguistic revision. Given these critical issues, major revisions are essential before this manuscript could be considered for publication. The authors must first and foremost clarify the precise nature of their study: Is it an empirical study presenting original data from 200 students, a comprehensive literature review synthesizing findings from multiple studies on these methods, or a critical review of a *single* specific published work (Sarabi & Ututalum, 2024)? Depending on the answer, the methodology section (and indeed the entire paper) would require a complete overhaul to align with established research conventions. Additionally, a rigorous copyediting process is imperative to address the pervasive grammatical and syntactical errors, ensuring the abstract, and presumably the full manuscript, meets academic writing standards. Without these fundamental clarifications and linguistic improvements, the potential value of the study's findings, which are briefly mentioned as showing "high quality" in improving English proficiency, remains obscured by poor communication and methodological confusion.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.