Abstract

The grammar translation method and direct method were compared in this study to see how they impacted students' English learning outcomes at secondary school. These results were obtained through the use of an experimental pre-test and post-test control group design. In this study, the participants were all students at Govt. Islamia High School Sambrial District Sialkot. Of the 148 students in 10th grade, 60 students were randomly chosen. This study's second phase used pre-test scores to assign students to experimental and control groups. For the purpose of gathering information about students' academic progress, the MCQ test was created. Six weeks of treatment (Grammar translation) were given to the experimental group. A follow-up test was administered to all participants, experimental and control alike. The collected data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The experimental and control groups were compared using a T-test. According to the results, students who were taught English through the grammar-translation method performed better on standardised tests than students who were taught the subject directly.

Key Words

Grammar Translation Method, Direct Method and Overall Student Achievement

Introduction

“New techniques for disapproving a deficiency emerged as the old ones faded. As a result, the last century has revealed a fascinating and diverse array of approaches to teaching foreign languages" Brown (2001) 

Falk (2004) says that whenever a learner wants to learn a second language, they must also get the acquisition aspect of the foreign language. A foreign language learner must learn that language's psychological and sociological aspects. Larson Freeman (2000) says linguists advocated for the active participation of students in the language learning process and admits that many approaches and methods emerged for that very purpose. (Larson Freeman, 2000) tells us that reading and oral communication methods are presented through conducting exercises, and repeating is part of the given practice for boosting the language. In this way, the first method in the 19Th century was GTM (Grammar Translation Method). The written form is considered the most eminent aspect of teaching strategy in this method.

Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and Direct Method (DM) are two main methods used parallel from the late 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. In one method, the role of a teacher is leading, while in the second method, the role of the teacher is recessive. As a developing country, we must follow the superpowers, which are none other than English-speaking countries. Quaid-e-Azam (1947) declared in the first All Pakistan educational conference that Urdu would be the official language, but we cannot ignore the importance of English. The need and importance of the English language have been stressed in national policies, plans, and procedures. The National Education Commission (1959) concluded that English would continue because it is the only effective and efficient means of connecting with the world and the most elegant source of getting knowledge about the latest development in science and technology.

The Research Objectives

i. Measure the main effects of the Grammar translation method on students’ learning achievement in the subject of English at the secondary level.

ii. Measure the main effects of the direct method on students’ learning achievement in the subject of English at the secondary level.

iii. Compare the main effects of Grammar translation and direct methods on students’ learning achievement in the subject of English at the secondary level.




Null Hypothesis

Following Null hypotheses were formulated for the investigation of research objectives:

i. Ho1: There is no significant main effect of the grammar-translation method on students’ learning achievement in English at the secondary level.

ii. Ho2: There is no significant main effect of the direct method on students’ learning achievement in the subject of English at the secondary level.

iii. Ho4: There is no significant difference between the grammar-translation and direct methods' main effects on students’ learning achievement in English at the secondary level.

Significance of Study

The significances of the study are: 

1. The Teachers 

The output of this research is hoped to be a helpful input for the English teachers to improve the students" skills in English.

2. The Students 

As a result of the study's findings, it is hoped that students will be more motivated to work on their English language skills (Speaking, reading, writing).

3. The Headmaster

Hopefully, the results of this research will be useful to the school's principal in developing a strategy for improving English language proficiency among the school's students.

Conceptual Framework

In this study, the effect of the independent variable (IV) has two groups, i.e., the experimental group and the control group. Students" learning achievement was a dependent variable. The study's conceptual framework was divided into Variables, Experiments, and relationships between independent and dependent Variables. 




Variables of Study

The variables in this experiment were divided into two categories: those that were independent (IVs) and those that were dependent (DVs). 

I. As an IV, the teaching method was split into experimental and control groups (each with a different number of students). The direct method was used to instruct the study's experimental and control groups.

II. Students" learning achievement was a dependent variable 

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework



Limitations of Study

The main limitation of the study is the less generalizability of the results to more considerable populations. Similarly, the momentum of the experiment may be affected the study. Moreover, Students in 10 grade in Govt. Islamia High School Sambrial were only boy students. As a result, no information about the gender of the participants could be gathered.

Operational Definitions of Variables

Direct Teaching Methods

This method, also referred to as the direct method, uses only the target language when instructing students on how to speak a foreign language.

1. Learning a language through the direct method is aimed at creating a direct link between the learner's experiences and the target language's words and ideas, as well as between thought and expression.

2. This method's primary goal is to teach students to speak the target language.

3. Instead of forcing the learner to disregard their native tongue, this approach encourages them to treat the new language as if it were their first language.




Method of Grammar Translation 

The term "GTM" refers to a technique that combines grammar and translation activities. If students are taught this method, they should be capable of translating a sentence without tampering with it, recognising its purpose, and interpreting its grammatical structure. As a corollary to GTM, students should actively translate foreign-language texts into their native language.

Morphology, according to Oxford Advanced Learners: "Is a branch of linguistics that studies or investigates the rules of syntax and the forms of words."




Student Learning Achievement

There are four components to a student's success in education: (Pukelis, 2009). Sport, art, and other non-school-related accomplishments are examples of student achievements. However, there is a direct link between student learning achievements and learning outcomes.

Literature Review

(Shejbalová, 2006) Looking at students' acquisition of a second language at an early stage using GTM and DM approaches. According to his experimental group results, GTM outperforms other methods in language acquisition.

Kazi and Iqbal (2011) investigated how language learning strategies are used in Pakistani higher secondary schools. They test the impact of various methods on students from various academic backgrounds. Many teachers use self-efficacy techniques, and students' English proficiency is low or nonexistent. Their English communication skills aren't as good as others. To gather information, researchers utilised the Questionnaire Technique.

Chang (2011) concluded that teaching foreign languages in Taiwan using grammar-translation was his most efficient and effective method. There are experiments taking place in this field of study.

The Grammar Translation Method was the best method for Bangladeshi students (Mondal, 2012), using a survey study method to gather data from teachers. Students at the university were surveyed to determine whether the translation method was beneficial. (Dagieliene, 2012) Translation is the most effective method for learning a foreign language.

(Rahman, 2012) interpreted Bangladesh's teaching methods. GTM-related methodologies and strategies are used in her internship at a school. According to her observations, the GTM method is the most effective for Bangladeshi students. Both Troia (2014) and Khan (2011) emphasise the lack of well-established teaching methods for writing, and Khan (2011) stresses the importance of rote learning and the use of the prescribed textbook. Students are given sample essays to memorise and reproduce on exams, which astounds the authors, even in essay-writing assignments.

There has been a comparison between GTM and other methods (Walia, 2015). Teachers at Rajasthan College were asked to complete questionnaires using the survey method. The results show that the mixed approach is more useful than just one method.

There are many reasons why (Awan & Yasmin 2015). Teachers and mothers use the first step to help children learn to memorise letters, words, and sentences while fostering their creative abilities. To encourage students' imaginative thinking, the only way to help them retain information is to have them read aloud passages from books or poems and then make changes to them (Awan, 2016). Also, textual interpretation of editorials and reading newspapers and specific articles enhance creativity and ingenuity.

Research Design

This section explains the research materials and procedures used. This chapter covers research design, sampling, instrumentation, data collection, and analysis. The study's quantitative component is based on positivistic philosophy, and a treatment design was used to achieve this. The treatment design employed in this investigation is described in full below.




Nature of Study 

Researchers compared the effects of direct instruction and grammar-translation instruction on students at the intermediate and advanced levels of writing proficiency in the English language. The Grammar translation method was employed as an intervention in the classroom to teach English to 10th-grade students, and their results were measured. The research was both treatment and quantitative.




Research Design

Using experimental methods, the researchers looked at the effects of the "direct method" versus the "grammar-translation method" on students of secondary-level English. In this study, the manipulating or independent variable was the “grammar-translation method" and found its effects on dependent variables "students' learning achievements". The investigators employed a pre-test and post-test control group design. There must be at least two control groups, each randomly assigned. A pre-test is given to each group, followed by a treatment and then a follow-up post-test. Assessing treatment efficacy involves comparing pre and post-test results. Pre-test and control groups are used in conjunction with random assignment to ensure that all potential threats to internal validity have been addressed.

Aside from pre-test controls for death and randomisation for maturation, the control group is also subject to controls for history, testing, and instrumentation, in addition to random assignment. Since higher post-test scores should be equal for experimental and control groups, testing is controlled if pre-testing leads to them. A potential interaction between the pre-test and treatment could limit the generalizability of the findings to only other pre-tested groups, which would be a drawback of this design. Pre-testing, treatment, and study length affect this potential weakness's seriousness (Creswell, 2009).




The Population of the Study

All 10th graders enrolled in Govt. Islamia High School Sambrial District Sialkot was the study's target population, 148. All 10th graders of Govt. Islamia High School Sambrial District Sialkot was accessible to the study population. 




Sampling

Random sampling was used for the true representation of subjects in the pre-test and post-test control group design. 148 students were enrolled in the course, and 60 were chosen at random. After that, two groups (control and experimental) were formed randomly using random assignment.

Pairing and Random Assignment of Sample

This study was treatment research in nature. Only one school named Govt. Islamia High School Sambrial District Sialkot was selected for this treatment research. The sample size for this study included all 10th-graders in the school. The study's generalizability was limited to the class that served as the study's sample. 60 students were randomly selected from a total of 148 students  Afterwards, the researcher applied a pre-test (MCQs test) on all selected 60 students and made pairs based on pre-test scores. The researcher divided all the students into 2 groups randomly. The researcher assigned them random names as group A and group B. J. R. Fraenkel, Wallen, and Hyun (2012) suggested that in a treatment study, the sample of 30 was a large and adequate sample to proceed with an experiment (J. R. Fraenkel et al., 2012). Researcher himself gave treatment.




Table 1.

Direct Method	Grammar Translation Method	Total
30	30	60

 




Experimentation

For standardisation, the researcher hired two mathematics teachers of the same experience, age, and ability to conduct the treatment study. One teacher taught the treatment group by the Grammar Translation method, and the second taught the control group with the traditional Direct Method on specific topics of 10th grade English published by PTB. This strategy helped control the internal validity threats like subject characteristics. The test was developed and conducted by the researcher himself. Another internal validity threat is extra coaching by any other teacher or parent after school. The researcher controlled extra coaching within the treatment period with the help of the institution's administrator and the student's parents.

 

Instrumentation

The researcher developed one instrument. The researcher used a test on Students’ learning achievements as a pre-test and post-test based on three sub-components of Students’ learning Achievement in English. This instrument was developed from the selected topics of content outlines of 10th grade English given in the Punjab textbook boards’ syllabus and National Curriculum for Mathematics Grades I – XII, 2006.

 

Piloting

On the development of the MCQs test, it was pilot tested on a small sample to ensure reliability. Only 50 high school students were chosen for the pilot testing. The piloting process's collected data were analysed to verify its validity. Each of the 35 MCQs in the test had one correct answer. More specifically, this test was categorised as follows: i) putting correct verb, ii) putting correct spelling, iii) putting correct synonyms, and iv) putting correct grammar. The test was modified per the expert opinion of the educationists and test developers. Item analysis is part of construct validation in the case of achievement tests. Item difficulty, item discrimination, and distractor analysis are important in item analysis (Linn, 2008).

 

Experimentation

For standardisation, the researcher himself taught the treatment group by grammar translation method strategies and the control group with traditional lecture method on specific topics of 10th grade English published by PTB. This strategy helped control the internal validity threats like subject characteristics. The test was developed and conducted by the researcher himself. Another internal validity threat is extra coaching by any other teacher or by parents after school. The researcher controlled extra coaching within the time of treatment.

 

The Procedure of Intervention/Experiment

The researchers have employed various methods to gauge the method's efficacy.

The procedure of intervention is divided into

the following three parts; are i) Development of grammar translation method Module ii) Implementation of grammar translation method Module iii) Data collection of grammar translation method Module.

 

Development of Grammar Translation Method Module

In the current study, the grammar-translation method Module was developed by the researcher and validated by 6 subject specialists working in the school education department on 16 plus BPS scales. This module was developed in three stages. In 1^st stage, selection and alignment of SLOs from English content was made, 20, SLOS was given in the National Curriculum for English Grades IX – X, 2006 document and at the 2^nd stage development of grammar translation method Module by following blueprint of SLOs. In the third stage, the researcher created 20 lesson plans using the SLOs blueprint and the grammar-translation method Module in alignment.




 

Table 2. Detail of Research Treatment

Description of Research Intervention	Detail
Total Days	22 days
Pretest-Post Test Days	2 days
Total SLOS	20 (one day per SLO)
Days of Research Intervention	22 Days

 




Implementation of Grammar Translation Method Module

Implementation of the Grammar Translation Method module is assured by following the instructions of the academic calendar. The academic calendar is the scheme of studies followed by all public sector schools in Punjab, Pakistan. Each SLO was taught for 1 day. Research treatment was about 4 weeks; the time duration for treatment was 35-40 minutes in each session. According to J. R. Fraenkel, N. E. Wallen, and H. H.  Hyun (2012), attitude, abilities, and skills are initially developed within 4 weeks. Detail of the research treatment is given below;




 

Data Analysis

Table 3. Experimental and Control Groups' Descriptive Statistics Regarding the use of Appropriate Verbs

Group	N	Mean	SD
Experimental	20	4.800	.410
Control	20	4.100	.968

 




Table 3 describes the descriptive analysis of experimental and control groups regarding putting correct verbs taught English subject through direct and grammar-translation methods. The study found that the experimental group's mean score was higher than that of the control group, which was taught using the grammar-translation method (M=4.800, S.D=.410) was greater than the control group taught through the direct method (M=4.100, S.D=.968).

Figure 2

Experiment and Control Groups were Compared for their Ve Descriptive Statistics.




Table 4. Descriptive Statistics about the Correct Spelling of Verbs in the Experimental and Control Groups

Group	N	Mean	SD
Experimental	20	4.750	.550
Control	20	3.650	1.182

 




Table 2 describes the descriptive analysis of experimental and control groups regarding putting correct spellings taught in English through direct and grammar-translation methods. This study's findings reveal the experimental group's mean score for correctly putting correct spellings taught using the grammar-translation method (M=4.750, S.D=.550) was greater than the control group taught through the direct method (M=3.650, S.D=1.182)

Figure 3

Descriptive Statistics about the Correct Spelling of Verbs in the Experimental and Control Groups



Table 5. Experiment and Control Groups' Descriptive Statistics on Synonyms

Group	N	Mean	SD
Experimental	20	4.600	.598
Control	20	3.950	1.191

 




Table 3 describes the descriptive analysis of experimental and control groups regarding putting correct Synonyms taught to English subjects through direct and grammar-translation methods. The analysis shows that the experimental group's mean score for correctly putting Synonyms taught through the grammar-translation method (M=4.600, S.D=.598) was higher than the control group's mean score for correctly putting Synonyms taught through the direct method (M=3.950, S.D=1.191)




Figure 4

Experiment and Control Groups' Descriptive Statistics on Synonyms




Table 6. Experimental and Control Groups' Descriptive Statistics Regarding Grammar 

Group	N	Mean	SD
Experimental	20	4.600	.680
Control	20	3.700	1.218

 




Table 4 describes the descriptive analysis of experimental and control groups regarding putting correct Grammar taught English subject through direct and translation methods. According to the results, the experimental group's mean score for correctly applying grammar taught using the grammar-translation method (M=4.600, S.D=.680) was greater than the control group taught through the direct method (M=3.700, S.D=1.218).

Figure 5

Experimental and Control Groups' Descriptive Statistics Regarding Grammar




Table 7. A Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups in Terms of their Overall Descriptive Statistics

Group	N	Mean	SD
Experimental	20	18.750	1.069
Control	20	15.400	2.210

 




Table 7 describes the descriptive analysis of experimental and control groups regarding Overall Achievement taught English through direct and grammar-translation methods. Analyses reveal that, on average, students in the experimental group who were taught using the grammar-translation method achieved higher levels of overall achievement (M=18.750, S.D=1.069) was greater than the control group taught through the direct method (M=15.400, S.D=2.210).

Figure 6

Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Groups Regarding Overall 




Achievement

 

Table 8. Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups Regarding Putting Correct Verbs

Group	N	Mean	Std.Deviation	t-value	Sig.
Experimental	20	4.800	.410	2.978	.000
Control	20	4.100	.968

 




Table 8 shows the differences between students taught English through direct and grammar-translation methods regarding putting correct verbs. The analysis illustrates that there was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through the grammar-translation teaching method (M=4.800, SD=.41o) and students taught through the direct teaching method (M=4.100, SD=.968) having p=.00o. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught through grammar translation method were better as compared to the students taught through direct teaching regarding putting correct verb.




 

Table 9. Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups Regarding Putting Correct Spellings

Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	t-value	Sig.
Experimental	20	4.750	.550	3.773	.000
Control	20	3.650	1.182

 

 

 




Table 4.7 shows the differences between the mean scores of students taught English through direct and grammar-translation methods regarding putting correct spellings. The analysis illustrates that there was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through the grammar-translation teaching method (M=4.750, SD=.550) and students taught through the direct teaching method (M=3.650, SD=1.182) having p=.000. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught through grammar translation method were better as compared to the students taught through direct teaching regarding putting correct spelling.




 

Table 10. Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups Regarding Putting Correct Synonyms

Group	N	Mean	Std.Deviation	t-value	Sig.
Experimental	20	4.600	.598	2.181	.007
Control	20	3.950	1.190

 




Table 8 shows the differences between the mean scores of students taught English through direct and grammar-translation methods regarding putting correct Synonyms. The analysis illustrates that there was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through grammar translation (M=4.460, SD=.598) and students taught through direct teaching (M=3.950, SD=1.190) having p=.007. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught through grammar-translation methods were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding putting correct Synonyms.




 

Table 11. Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups Regarding Putting Correct Grammar 

Group	N	Mean	Std.Deviation	t-value	Sig.
Experimental	20	4.600	.680	2.884	.005
Control	20	3.700	1.218

 




Table 9 shos the differences between the mean scores of students taught English subjects through direct and grammar-translation methods regarding correct grammar. The analysis illustrates that there was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through grammar translation (M=4.460, SD=.680) and students taught through direct teaching (M=3.700, SD=1.218) having p=.005. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught through grammar-translation methods were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding correct grammar.




 

Table 12. Comparison of Experimental and Control Groups Regarding Putting Overall Achievement

Group	N	Mean	Std.Deviation	t-value	Sig.
Experimental	20	18.750	1.069	6.102	.046
Control	20	15.400	2.210

 




Table 10 shows the differences between the mean scores of students taught English through direct and grammar-translation methods regarding overall achievement. The analysis illustrates that there was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through grammar translation (M=18.750, SD=1.069) and students taught through the direct teaching method (M=15.400, SD=2.210) having p=.046. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught through grammar-translation methods were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding overall achievement.

Findings

A summary of the main findings of the “comparative analysis of direct teaching method and grammar translation teaching method in English at secondary level” is described below.

A. The mean score of the experimental group taught through the grammar-translation method (M=4.800, S.D=.410) was greater than the control group taught through the direct method (M=4.100, S.D=.968). (Table 1)

B. The mean score of the experimental group regarding putting correct spellings taught through the grammar-translation method (M=4.750, S.D=.550) was greater than the control group taught through the direct method (M=3.650, S.D=1.182). (Table 2)

C. The mean score of the experimental group regarding putting correct Synonyms taught through the grammar-translation method (M=4.600, S.D=.598) was greater than the control group taught through the direct method (M=3.950, S.D=1.191). (Table 3)

D. The mean score of the experimental group regarding putting correct Grammar taught through the grammar-translation method (M=4.600, S.D=.680) was greater than the control group taught through the direct method (M=3.700, S.D=1.218). (Table 4)

E. The mean score of the experimental group regarding Overall Achievement taught through the grammar-translation method (M=18.750, S.D=1.069) was greater than the control group taught through the direct method (M=15.400, S.D=2.210). (Table 5)

F. There was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through the grammar-translation teaching method (M=4.800, SD=.410) and students taught through the direct teaching method (M=4.100, SD=.968) having p=.000. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught through 

G. grammar translation method were better as compared to the students taught through direct teaching regarding putting correct verb. (Table .6)

H. There was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through the grammar-translation teaching method (M=4.750, SD=.550) and students taught through the direct teaching method (M=3.650, SD=1.182) having p=.000. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught through grammar translation method were better as compared to the students taught through direct teaching regarding putting correct spellings. (Table 7)

I. There was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through grammar translation (M=4.460, SD=.598) and students taught through direct (M=3.950, SD=1.190) having p=.007. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught grammar-translation methods were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding putting correct Synonyms. (Table 8)

J. There was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through grammar translation (M=4.460, SD=.680) and students taught through direct (M=3.700, SD=1.218) having p=.005. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught through grammar-translation methods were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding correct grammar. (Table 9)

K. There was significant dissimilarity between the means score of students taught through grammar translation (M=18.750, SD=1.069) and students taught through direct (M=15.400, SD=2.210), having p=.046. Furthermore, analysis shows that students taught through grammar-translation methods were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding overall achievement.(Table 10)

Conclusions

Following conclusions were drawn from the above findings.

A. The score of students taught grammar translation regarding putting correct verbs was greater than those taught through direct teaching.

B. The score of students taught grammar-translation methods regarding putting correct spellings was greater than those taught through direct teaching.

C. The score of students taught through the grammar-translation method regarding putting correct synonyms was greater than those taught through the direct teaching method.

D. The score of students taught through grammar translation methods regarding correct grammar was greater than those taught through direct teaching methods.

E. The score of students taught grammar translation regarding overall achievement was greater than those taught through the direct teaching method.

F. The students taught through the grammar-translation method were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding putting correct verbs.

G. The students taught through the grammar-translation method were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding putting correct spellings. 

H. The students taught through the grammar-translation method were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding putting correct Synonyms. 

I. The students taught through the grammar-translation method were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding correct grammar. 

J. The students taught through the grammar-translation method were better than those taught through direct teaching regarding overall achievement.

Discussion

The study results show that the grammar-translation method is better than traditional or direct teaching methods for teaching English at the secondary level. Many other types of research support the results of research. According to Abdullah (2013), the grammar-translation method fulfils learners' needs and improves their learning achievements at the secondary level.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of the study, it is recommended that,

A. The Curriculum developers may add different types of content related to the grammar-translation method in the subject of English at the secondary level.

B. The policymakers may arrange training courses for English teachers to effectively use grammar-translation methods in their classes for teaching English as a second language.

The heads of institutions may motivate teachers to effective use grammar-translation methods in classrooms for teaching English.

References

• Awan., & Ghafoor, A., & Yasmin, K.(2015). New Trends in Modern Poetry” Journal of Literature, Languages, and Linguistics, 13, 63-72.
• Awan, Ghafoor, A., & Yahya, M. (2016)."Critical Discourse Analysis of Ahmad Ali's Novel "Twilight in Delhi", Science International, 28(2), 2047-2052.
• Brown (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. White Plains. NY: Pearson Education.
• Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Chang, C., Liu, S., & Lee, Y. (2011). “A study of language learning strategies used by College EFL learners in Taiwan” ,
• DagilienÄ—, I. (2012). Translation as a Learning Method in English Language Teaching. Studies About Languages, 0(21).
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (R. S. Corley Ed. 8 ed.). Francisco, San Francisco State University: McGraw-Hill.
• Falk, J S, (2004). "Linguistics and language": library of congress, Washington, DC.
• Freeman, DL, (2000). “Techniques and principles in language teaching”, New York, Oxford University press.
• Government of Pakistan. (1947). Proceedings of the Pakistan Education Conference, Ministry of Interior, (Education Division) Karachi.
• Government of Pakistan. (1959). Report of the commission on National Education, Ministry of Education Karachi.
• Khan, H. I. (2011). Testing creative writing in Pakistan: Tensions and potential in classroom.
• Kazi., & Iqbal. (2011). “Use of Language Learning Strategies by Students at Higher Secondary Level in Pakistan”, International Journal of Social Sciences and Education,1(4),
• Linn, M. A. (2008), ‘Library and information science education in Saudi Arabia,’ Education for Information, 14(3), 195- 214.
• Mondal, K. N. (2012). "English language learning through the combination of grammar translation method and communicative language teaching" Academia Arena, 4(6), 20-24.
• Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Gala: Learning Styles & Strategies/Oxford.
• Pukelis K. (2009). Ability, Competency, Learning/Study Outcome, Qualification and Competence: Theoretical Dimension // the Quality of Higher Education, 6, 12– 35.
• Rahman, Abdul. (2012). “Grammar translation: an effective and feasible method in Bangladeshi context”,
• Shejbalová. (2006). “Methods and Approaches in vocabulary teaching and their influence on students’ acquisition. practice. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(15), 111- 119.
• Troia, G. (2014). Evidence-based practices for writing instruction (Document no. IC5). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: