<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.1" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title>Enhancing grammar competence of the senior secondary students through Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart>Alvarez, Evangeline H</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">creator</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="text">s.l</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <publisher>Sryahwa Publications</publisher>
    <dateIssued>2017</dateIssued>
    <issuance>continuing</issuance>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <abstract>Abstract : This study sought to determine how Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) enhances the grammar competence of the senior students. This made use of teaching grammar in six areas: verbal, modifier, subject-verb agreement, pronoun, preposition, and possessive noun, in a communicative way through varied communicative strategies with grammar and language focus. Learning performance was measured using the pretest and posttest scores in CLT group (experimental) and the traditional language teaching (control). The method used in the study was the quasi-experimental design in a pretest and posttest group design with fifty-two senior secondary participants CLT developmental activities were based on a teacher made rubric and evaluated through teacher-made questionnaires validated by experts with TOS with teacher’s learning guide. Traditional teaching approach was based on discussion and lecture method. When posttest results were compared in the six areas, the experimental group’s result using communicative language teaching (CLT) showed significant difference in their performance as reflected in their posttest mean score in all areas while there were only four learning areas in the control group using traditional approach. Subsequently, when compared in groups, findings showed that there was no significant difference between CLT (experimental) and Traditional approach (control) in teaching English language. This implies that either of the two approaches used could enhance grammar skill. </abstract>
  <note type="statement of responsibility">Evangeline H. Alvarez.</note>
  <note>Includes bibliographical references.</note>
  <subject>
    <topic>Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>English language</topic>
    <topic>Grammar</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Senior high school students</topic>
    <topic>Grammar competency</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Students</topic>
    <topic>Grammar competency</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Research</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>English language</topic>
    <topic>Research</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Quantitative research</topic>
    <topic>Quasi-experimental design</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>Journal articles (Open access)</topic>
  </subject>
  <relatedItem type="host">
    <titleInfo>
      <title>International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <part>
      <text>, volume 4, number 11 (2017), pages 9-16.</text>
    </part>
  </relatedItem>
  <identifier type="issn"> 2394-6296 </identifier>
  <identifier type="uri">https://www.ijrhss.org/papers/v4-i11/2.pdf</identifier>
  <location>
    <url>https://www.ijrhss.org/papers/v4-i11/2.pdf</url>
  </location>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordContentSource authority="marcorg"/>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">250217</recordCreationDate>
    <recordChangeDate encoding="iso8601">20250331030831.0</recordChangeDate>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
