International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies

Volume 4, Issue 11, 2017, PP 9-16

ISSN 2394-6288 (Print) & ISSN 2394-6296 (Online)

Enhancing Grammar Competence of the Senior Secondary

Students through Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
Dr. Evangeline H. Alvarez
Instructor at Agusan del Sur State College of Agriculture and Technology, Bunawan, Agusan del Sur
*Corresponding Author: Dr. Evangeline H. Alvarez, Instructor at Agusan del Sur State College of
Agriculture and Technology, Bunawan, Agusan del Sur

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.
Keywords: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), grammar, traditional, competence

INTRODUCTION Since improvement in English speaking skills

requires confidence and mastery of the grammar
The number one problem which the Philippines
rule, the researcher thought of exposing students
is facing is the declining supply of English to a communicative language teaching instruction.
speaking graduates, Since BPO's (Business According to Richards (2006), Communicative
Process Outsourcing) requires a labor force that Language Teaching (CLT) starts with a theory of
is proficient in the English language, this is very language as communication. The goal of classroom
alarming indeed. Experts say that this is brought instruction is focused on developing learners’
about by different factors; one is the mass ability to communicate using target language
exodus of professionals who are experts in the through interaction.
English language. Another factor to consider
also is the migration of workers who are English This study aims to enhance the grammar
competence of the senior high school students of
proficient to other countries for they have
MATS College of Technology, to enable them to
always been in demand abroad. Definitely and
become proficient in the English language, by
admittedly, the public schools are failing to learning grammatical structures and performing
teach the youth good English speaking skills. If various tasks such as describing, expressing ideas,
this would continue, then other countries will giving and following directions, and solving
out-run us in terms of English proficient problem.
workers which would result to the decline of the
attracting foreign investors and transaction of THE GOALS OF LANGUAGE TEACHING
business in the world market will also suffer. Communicative language teaching sets as its goal
Many will lose their jobs, and the economy will the teaching of communicative competence.
gravely suffer. Grammatical competence refers to the

International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies V4● I11● 2017 9
Enhancing Grammar Competence of the Senior Secondary Students through Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT)

knowledge one has of a language that accounts regarded themselves as good in reading and
for his or her ability to produce sentences in a listening but need help in speaking and writing
language. It refers to knowledge of the building skills.
blocks of sentences (e.g., parts of speech, tenses, For this reason, the researcher found it
phrases, clauses, sentence patterns) and how necessary to conduct a study on how to improve
sentences are formed. Grammatical competence grammar teaching among high school students
is the focus of many grammar practice books, to make teaching more meaningful, experiential,
which typically present a rule of grammar on and easier for the students and the teachers as
one page, and provide exercises to practice well. She also noticed that language teachers
using the rule on the other page. The unit of teach grammar with verbosity. Their teaching
analysis and practice is typically the sentence. entails a lot of explanation making the lesson
While grammatical competence is an important more confusing on the part of the learners. Thus,
dimension of language learning, it is clearly not the focus has become more on accuracy, rather
all that is involved in learning a language since than fluency. The what questions has become
one can master the rules of sentence formation the focus rather than the how.
in a language and still not be very successful at
As cited by Larcen-Freeman (2006), the
being able to use the language for meaningful
researcher now agrees that it is essential to
communication. It is the latter capacity which is
integrate some form of grammar instruction
understood by the term communicative competence
within a communicative framework if students
(Folse, 2006). According to Wilde (2010), in CLT,
are to attain high levels of target language
grammar is not studied per se and practiced just for
accuracy. As an alternative to delivery of a
the sake of practicing. It is not a part of the
formal grammar lesson, the communicative task
technique either. Rather, the method includes
has been recommended to supply students with
working on grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse
communicative use of target grammar points.
and strategic competence in the development of
Moreover, as mentioned by Celce-Murcia (
the four skills –listening, speaking, reading and
2006), the use of purely communicative tasks
writing.
which nonetheless require comprehension and
Communicative Language Teaching has been production of target grammar points has been
put forth around the world as an innovative way recommended. It is important, therefore, to
to teach English (Savignon, 2006). This have a wide range of resources in the classroom
method focuses on language as a medium of so that the students can have a rich base and
communication. This recognizes that all stimulus for grammar and speaking
communication has a social purpose of teaching development, and one of these resources must
language to a range of relevant topics and include pictures intended to motivate students to
situation. It allows communication to embrace apply their grammatical skills in speaking.
useful functions like asking where the canteen
In VanPatten and Oikenon’s research as cited in
is, expressing likes and dislikes and the like.
Lee and VanPatten (2006), three groups of
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE learners were compared on their learning of
As observed by the researcher, the common object pronoun and word order rule in Spanish:
method of teaching grammar is the traditional a processing instruction group, a structured input
method wherein the teachers just analyze the only group that receives no explanation, and an
structure of the sentence to teach grammatical explanation-only group. On pretest/posttest
rules. The focus is on grammatical parsing, like experiment, the first two groups made
the form and inflection of words. To some, it is significant improvements and were not different
enough that students just pass the quiz which is from each other. The explanation-only group
more on knowledge formation like underlining made no improvements. The conclusion was
and identifying rather than using it for that the activities alone (the structured input
communication. activities) constituted the necessary and
Consequently, English course for students at the sufficient aspect of the instruction that would
undergraduate level does not bring them the lead to the learners’ improvement.
required competence in all areas of the language Since then, other studies have emerged that
the moment they graduate. Many students are support the findings that explanation is not
not proficient in communication and generally necessary for acquisition. An excellent replication
lack the growing demands of the workplace study of VanPatten’s and Oikenon’s research is
competency. It was found that majority of them one conducted by Sanz and Morgan-Short

10 International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies V4● I11● 2017
Enhancing Grammar Competence of the Senior Secondary Students through Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT)

(2003), in which all instruction happened via 1. What are the pretest mean scores of the
computer with no instructor. The researchers experimental and control group in the
found that not only is explanation unnecessary, following areas:
but with careful constructed activities, even  Verbals;
feedback is unnecessary (and unhelpful, for that  Modifiers;
matter). Benati (2003) has replicated the same  Subject-verb agreement;
results in Italian with the teaching and learning  Prepositions;
of the future tense; Farley (2003) has shown that  Pronouns; and
the Spanish subjunctive can be learned without  Possessive nouns?
explanation; and Wong (2003) has shown that 2. What are the posttest mean scores of the
two structures in French were learnable without experimental and control group in the
explanation. As cited by Schmidt (1995) in Lee following areas:
& VanPatten (2003), to be sure, some research  Verbals;
has shown that explanation may be beneficial
 Modifiers;
early on to help learners get into acquisition
more quickly.  Subject-verb agreement;
 Prepositions;
However, no research that has been known of  Pronouns; and
has demonstrated that explanation or explicit
 Possessive nouns?
information is necessary. As reviewed in the book,
3. Is there a significant difference between the
Making Communicative Teaching Happen by Lee
pre-test and post-test when the respondents
and VanPatten (2003), in 1972 Savignon’s study
are grouped according to:
was the first empirically based research to suggest a
 Experimental and
very important aspect of language acquisition: one
learns to communicate by practicing  Control?
communication. In a similar study conducted in the Hypotheses
Philippines by Sungahid, “The Effectiveness of The following hypotheses were tested using
Communicative Strategies in Teaching English 0.02 level of significance.
Plus”, as cited in the study of Jacobo and Tan Ho1: There is no significant difference in the
(2005) which states that the primary function of pretest/posttest of the control group and the
communicative approach is the interaction and experimental group in the following areas:
communication of students. It is revealed that the  Verbals;
variable exposed in communicative strategies  Modifier;
gained better achievement in school and found  Subject-verb agreement;
enjoyment in social activities. It also states that  Prepositions;
communicative strategies are better than the  Pronouns; and
traditional method in teaching English. The same  Possessive nouns.
result is also evident in the study of Jacobo and Tan METHODOLOGY
(2005), which show that the social communicative
approach in teaching reading has a significant Research Design
effect on the learners, thus beneficial among the The research design used in this study was the
grade six pupils. quasi-experimental design, specifically pretest-
With the advent of communicative teaching, the posttest design which involved selecting groups
instructor is no longer simply drill leader but is without any random pre-selection processes.
also charged with providing students with The experimental group was exposed to the
experimental or independent variable while the
opportunities for communication, that is, using
the language to interpret and express real life other group called the control group was not
messages. The students’ task is no longer to exposed to the experimental variable.
parrot but to create an answer. The instructors’ Locale and Participants of the Study
task is no longer just to drill but to interact. The respondents of the study were taken from
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM the two sections of senior high school. The
This study attempted to show how CLT researcher compared two approaches of
enhanced the grammar competence of senior teaching, the Communicative Language
secondary students of MATS College of Teaching (CLT) and the traditional approach.
Technology. Thus, it sought answers to the The Senior Quezon had been selected as the
following questions: experimental group because the students got

International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies V4● I11● 2017 11
Enhancing Grammar Competence of the Senior Secondary Students through Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT)

lower average grades during the first grading instruments during the study, the researcher saw
period compared to Senior Rizal, which was the to it that answers were readily available. Each
control group. The selection was done test was administered before and after each
according to their average grade in the first learning area had been conducted to find out the
grading period. The former got 82 percent difference between the two approaches. The
while the latter had 84 percent. content of the test in the pretest was the same as
The Senior Quezon, whose class is at 3:15 was in the posttest.
the researcher’s experimental group while the To determine the level of reliability of the
Senior, whose class was at 4:15-5:15, was the paper/pen activity or tests, using George, D. and
control group. The researcher met them for one Mallery, P. (2003), of each content area, the
hour three times a week at the time allotted for following results of reliability were established
their English class in Communication skills, (as seen in p. 90, Appendix E); Verbals-
Excellent, Modifiers-Acceptable, SV-
The class was scheduled from Wednesday to
Agreement-Excellent, Preposition-Excellent,
Friday. Senior Rizal was exposed to the
Pronoun-Excellent, Possessive Nouns-Good.
traditional teaching approach with teacher–
The second instrument was the planned
manipulated activities focusing on lecture, note-
Learning Guide (as shown in Appendix H) for
taking and analyzing sentence structure, while
the two approaches of teaching, the
Senior Quezon used the Communicative
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and
Teaching approach with different learner-
the Traditional, which was used as a helpful tool
centered interactive activities focusing on
to determine the kind of strategies used and the
fluency of language.
flow of teaching.
The participants as well as the teacher used
Data Gathering Procedure
English only as medium of instruction to focus
on the target language, English; the use of Before each content area was taken, a pretest
vernacular was discouraged. was given to the participants. Subsequent to the
study of each content area, a posttest was given.
After considering the threats in the validity of
Answers were readily available for easy
the research, the researcher came up with 28
gathering of data. Then, data were gathered for
participants in the experimental group and 24 in
comparison.
the control group, making them 52 participants
in all. A pretest and posttest were given to each Data Analysis
section prior to and subsequent to the study for The study made use of paper-pen exercises to
comparison to determine the significance. get the pretest/posttest data. These data were
Instrument tabulated and analyzed for comparison to get the
significant difference. The researcher used the
There were two instruments used by the
mean percentage to analyze the pretest mean
researcher in this study, namely the, test
scores and the T-test for the posttest mean
instruments and the learning guide. The first is
scores. The T-test was used to test the
the researcher-made tests (as shown in
significant difference between the mean of the
Appendix E, p. 95) classified as multiple choice
experimental and control group when they were
tests which contain the following content areas
analyzed in terms of pre-test and post test. All
and number of items; Verbal (35), modifier (27),
computations were analyzed using Statistical
S-V Agreement (30), Pronoun (36), Preposition
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) at 0.02
(37), and Possessive nouns(30) items. Each test
level of significance to determine the high
was arranged from easy to difficult whose
affectivity of the result.
rubrics for validation was patterned in Bitgue
(2007) and validated by three highly RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
experienced instructors. The Pretest Means Score of the control and
After recommendations about the coverage were experimental
given, validity of the tests was established with
moderately agree or very good. When The results of the pretest of both groups were
recommendations were met, the instruments gathered and analyzed to answer the first
were administered to the officially enrolled two problem. The mean percentage was used to
sections of the Third year high school students analyze the data. Table 1 presents the data for
of MATS College of Technology for pilot study. the pre-test mean scores of the control and
To facilitate the easy checking of the test experimental group.

12 International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies V4● I11● 2017
Enhancing Grammar Competence of the Senior Secondary Students through Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT)

Table1. The pre-test mean scores of the control and experimental group
Learning Areas Control Group Experimental Group
Mean Level of Performance Mean Level of Performance
Verbals 80.64 Average 81.90 Average
Modifiers 75.23 Below Average 74.00 Failure
SV-Agreement 76.39 Below Average 78.75 Below Average
Preposition 82.78 Average 80.33 Average
Pronoun 87.01 Above Average 88.36 Above Average
Possessive Noun 81.75 Average 79.50 Average
Overall 80.64 Average 80.48 Average
The total average mean score for the control Posttest Mean Score of the Experimental and
group is 81.64 or described as average; likewise Control Group
the total average mean score of the experimental After the study was conducted to both groups;
group is 80.47 or average. With the same level the control (traditional) and the experimental
of performance, homogeneity has been (CLT), posttest was given and data were
established. This implies that both groups have gathered.
equal level of performance before the study was
conducted.
Table2. The post- test mean scores of the experimental and control group
Learning Areas Control Group Experimental Group
Mean Level of Performance Mean Level of Performance
Verbals 85.18 Above Average 85.15 Above Average
Modifiers 75.23 Below Average 76.35 Below Average
SV-Agreement 79.79 Average 85.75 Above Average
Prepositions 84.58 Average 85.45 Above Average
Pronouns 89.48 Above Average 90.74 Outstanding
Possessive Nouns 86.17 Above Average 85.71 Above Average
Overall 83.41 Average 84.86 Average
score of 83.41 while the experimental group has
The posttest of the control group has an overall
a mean score of 84.86 which are both described
mean score of 83.41 or described as average.
as average
The control group has an overall total mean
Pretest and Posttest of the Experimental Group
Table3. The Significant difference of the pretest and posttest mean scores of the Experimental and Control group
XPERIMENTAL GROUP
Areas Mean t-value p-value Decision (Null
Pre test Post test Hypothesis) Interpretation
Verbals 81.90 85.15 4.96 0.00 Reject Significant
Modifiers 74.00 76.35 2.90 0.01 Reject Significant
S-V Agreement 78.75 85.75 9.95 0.00 Reject Significant
Prepositions 80.33 85.45 6.25 0.00 Reject Significant
Pronouns 88.36 90.74 3.54 0.00 Reject Significant
Possessive Nouns 79.50 85.71 9,76 0.00 Reject Significant
Overall 80.48 84.86 12.34 0.00 Reject Significant
CONTROL GROUP
Areas Mean t-value p-value Decision (Null Interpretation
Pre test Post test Hypothesis)
Verbals 80.64 85.18 5.51 0.00 Reject Significant
Modifiers 75.23 75.23 0.001 0.99 Accept Not Significant
S-V Agreement 76.39 79.79 4.94 0.00 Reject Significant
Prepositions 82.78 84.58 2.12 0.05 Accept Not Significant
Pronouns 87.01 89.48 2.89 0.01 Reject Significant
Possessive Nouns 81.75 86.17 7.20 0.00 Reject Significant
Overall 80.64 83.41 9.61 0.00 Reject Significant

International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies V4● I11● 2017 13
Enhancing Grammar Competence of the Senior Secondary Students through Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT)

All the data were gathered for further analysis pronoun content, story construction game as its
and comparison to answer the third problem. strategy; possessive noun content area,
Paired T- test was used to determine the describing pictures as its CLT strategy, have
significant difference of the pre-test and post enhanced the grammar competence of the
test of the experimental group and the control experimental participants based on the mean
group when analyzed according to groups. All score of paper-pen activities or pretest-posttest
computations were analyzed using Statistical results.
Package for Social Sciences at 0.02 level of
significance. On the other hand, in the control group, the
verbal area with lecture/discussion as the
Since both groups yielded significant results as
Traditional strategy and Word race as its technique
the mean scores show and that there is just a
used, In SV- agreement, with lecture/word analysis
slight difference in the results, this means that
as traditional strategy and board work, seatwork,
when compared as groups, there is no
and word game as its techniques used; pronoun,
significant difference in the result. This implies
using lecture/discussion with sentence construction
that either Communicative Language Teaching
game and grammar race as techniques; possessive
(CLT) or Traditional approach, grammar
nouns, with discussion as strategy and drill/seat
competence of the senior secondary students is
work as techniques, made significant results as
enhanced.
shown in the mean score which means that the
With these findings, Savignon (2002) made her traditional approach in the following strategies and
point when her results showed that learner’s techniques enhanced the grammar competence of
performance on tests of discrete morphosyntactical the learners. In view of the aforementioned results,
features was not a good predictor of their the Traditional method is as effective in preparing
performance on a series of integrative students for examination as communicative
communicative tasks. In addition, the researcher methods are. Therefore, whether CLT or
also agrees with Snow (2006) when he said that Traditional approach, grammar is enhanced
for many students enrolled in school where test among learners.
results determine their academic futures and
With these significant results in the mean score
careers, learning how to communicate is not the
of the Traditional approach in enhancing
primary goal; the primary goal is to score well in
grammar competence, it has been observed that
examinations. In such situations, while adding as
there is no single theory of language teaching that
much of a communication skill element as much
can be taken as authoritative. However, in
as possible to a course is no doubt desirable, it
preposition content, which used lecture as
would be irresponsible for the teacher to fail to
traditional strategy and a game on word race as its
prepare students for tests. As a result,
technique, and modifiers, using drill and seat work
traditional methods become as effective in
as technique, there is no significant difference in
preparing students for examination as
these two content areas. This implies that the
communicative methods are.
traditional approach used in preposition and
CONCLUSIONS modifier was not able to enhance the grammar
competence of the participants.
In the light of the findings, the researcher
formed the following conclusions: In all the Furthermore, when compared as group, the
learning contents of the experimental group overall result of the experimental group yielded
which used Communicative Language Teaching higher than the control group (Traditional).
(CLT) approach, there have been significant Thus, both hypotheses are rejected which means
differences in the results of the mean scores. that there is a significant difference in the
performance of the learners in either of the two
The following content areas and their respective
approaches used. Though both groups’ yielded
strategies such as pronoun, role playing/ to significant results as the mean scores of the
television show as CLT Strategy; modifiers paper/pen activity or the pretest-posttest show, there
with, telephone conversation as CLT strategy; was just a slight difference in the results when
subject-verb agreement, interviewing and compared as group. This means that whether
guessing game as CLT strategies; preposition Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) or
content with relaying and carrying out Traditional approach, grammar competence of the
instruction, also a game, as CLT strategy; senior secondary students is enhanced.

14 International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies V4● I11● 2017
Enhancing Grammar Competence of the Senior Secondary Students through Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT)

The researcher also found out that the optimal [2] Batstone, P. B. (2006). Differentiated early
combination of communicative activities in any literacy for English language learners. California
given instructional setting depends on the State University Long Beach. USA
following; the nature and length of instructional [3] Betty Schrampfer Azar, B. S.(1989)
sequence or time element since five months was Understanding and using English grammar 2nd
not enough; class schedule affected the learners’ edition. Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs,
performance; and the opportunities for language New Jersey 07632, 1989
contact outside the classroom since the [4] Berns, M. S. (1993). Communicative language
participants are not used to communicate using teaching: An introduction and sample activities.
Retrieved December 15, 2009, from www.cal.org/
English. There are times that CLT is not adopted in
index.html Colin Suess, 2004. Grammar (no, don't
the environments where non-communicative run, I want to be your friend!) English grammar
method is the norm. modules.
In addition, the researcher also found out that [5] Conde, C. (2006). Erosion of English skills
many students who are enrolled in school where threatens growth in Philippines.New York Times.
test results determine their academic futures and (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.
careers, learning how to communicate is not the Retrieved May 6, 2010, fromhttp:// www.nytimes.
primary goal; the primary goal is to score well in com/2006/11/24/business/worldbusiness/24englis
examinations. In such situations, while adding a h.html
communication skill element as much as [6] Flojo, O.O. & Pablo, B. S. (nd). Curriculum and
possible to a course is no doubt desirable, it instruction Module 6.1: The teaching of English.
would be irresponsible for the teacher to fail to Teacher Education Council, Department of
prepare students for tests and traditional method Education
becomes as effective method in preparing [7] Folse, K. S. (2006). The Art of teaching speaking.
students for test examination as communicative University of Michigan George, D., & Mallery, P.
(2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple
methods are.
guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.).
RECOMMENDATIONS Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
In the light of the findings, the researcher [8] Larcen-Freeman, D. (2006). Teaching grammar.
suggests the following recommendations: Teaching English as a second or foreign language
The teachers who would adopt the Communicative (3rd Edition). UK. McGraw-Hill Companies
Language Teaching (CLT) approach in enhancing Lee, J. & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making language
grammar competence have to monitor the different teaching happen.
strategies to be given to students. Administrators [9] UK. McGraw-Hill Companies Kischner, M. &
should provide training for teachers to enhance Wollin, E. (2002). Writers’ choices; grammar to
improve style. USA. Earl McPeek.
teachers’ competence in using this approach.
Teachers must encourage their students to speak [10] McKenchie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips.
English and be consistent in the language they Houghton Mifflin Company Boston New York
are teaching so students would do away with the [11] Patron, I. Y. (1999). A communicative approach
non-communicative norm. Teachers, therefore, on English plus. Quezon City, Philippines. Great
must use the English language for the students Books Trading
to follow. [12] Peluso, M. J. et al. (2002). Interpreting
communicative language teaching: context and
Because learners’ performance in tests of concerns in teacher education/Edited by Sandra J.
discrete morpho-syntactical features was not a Savignon. New Haven & London. Yale
good predictor of their performance on a series University Press
of integrative communicative tasks, a presentation [13] Raagas, E. (2006), Assessment & evaluation of
rubric is highly recommended because paper-pen students’ learning: concepts & applications, Iwag
activities are not enough to measure grammar Printing and Publishing, Cagayan De Oro City,
competence in communicative tasks. Moreover, Philippines.
a study on the use of Communicative Language [14] Richardson, J. et al. (2006). Reading to Learn in
Teaching (CLT) to enhance the grammar the content area. California, USA: Thomson
competence of students is recommended. Wardworth: 6-22
[15] Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language
REFERENCES
teaching today United States of America:
[1] Baraceros, E. L. (2005). English Plus: Cambridge University Press
Communicative functional grammar. Manila, [16] Rubin, D.B. ( 2006). Probability & Statistics –
Philippines. Rex Bookstore General. Cambridge University Press.

International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies V4● I11● 2017 15
Enhancing Grammar Competence of the Senior Secondary Students through Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT)

Cambridge. Retrieved May 16, 2010, from [19] Snow, D. (2005). More than a native speaker.
http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=27627&cgi Virginia, USA: Printed by Lithorgraphic
=product&isbn=0521674 360 Company, Inc.
[17] Rubistar. (nd). Rubric for teacher. Retrieved [20] Sook, K. (2003). Communicative language
March 16, 2009. From http:// rubistar.4teachers. teaching. Journal. Retrieved December 15, 2009,
org/index.Php?ts=1074040666 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/ dec_03
[18] Salazar, M. Jr. (2007). The Manila Bulletin. _gl_kr. php
Retrieved November 24, 2009, from [21] Wright, A. (2001). Pictures for language learning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/business/wo UK: Cambridge University
rldbusiness/24english.htm

Citation: Evangeline H. Alvarez "Enhancing Grammar Competence of the Senior Secondary Students
through Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) " International Journal of Research in Humanities and
social Studies, vol 4, no. 11, 2017, pp. 9-16.
Copyright: © 2017 Evangeline H. Alvarez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

16 International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies V4● I11● 2017