ARTICLE INFO
ARTICLE HISTORY
Submitted: 28 March, 2026
Accepted: 15 May, 2026
Published Online: 25 June, 2026
CITATION
Jarssa B.A and Firomsa B.A (2026).
Communicative Grammar Instruction
Practices in Grade 10 English Classrooms:
The Case of Bule Hora University
Community and Bariso Dukale Secondary
Schools. EthioInquiry Journal of Humanities
and Social Sciences. Volume 5(1), 2026,
44-65. https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
OPEN ACCESS
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (CC BY 4.0).
ETHIOINQUIRY Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences has been accredited by
FDRE Ministry of Education and indexed on
AJOL.
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 44
https://journals.hu.edu.et/hu-journals/index.php/erjssh, ISSN: Print 2790-539X, Online 2790-5403
FULL LENGTH ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Communicative Grammar Instruction Practices in Grade 10
English Classrooms: The Case of Bule Hora University
Community and Bariso Dukale Secondary Schools
Ammanuel Berhanu Jarssa1∗�and Behailu Adalla Firomsa2
1Department of English Language and Literature, Bule Hora University, Bule Hora, Ethiopia
2Bule Hora University Community Secondary School, Bule Hora, Ethiopia
∗Corresponding Author’s email: ammanuelber@gmail.com
Abstract
This study examined the use of Communicative Grammar Instruction (CGI) in the Grade 10
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom at Bule Hora University Community and
Bariso Dukale Secondary Schools to investigate teachers’ theoretical understanding of CGI,
their classroom implementation, and the diculties they faced in implementing CGI. The re-
searchers employed a descriptive research design to observe current classroom activities without
manipulating variables, while gathering quantitative and qualitative data through student
questionnaires, classroom observations, and teacher interviews. The research discovered that
teachers understand CGI at a basic level, which they consider essential for building students’
communication skills, while using conventional teaching methods. Classroom assessments,
together with student feedback, demonstrated that students engaged in few communication
activities because teachers focused more on explaining rules and achieving precise sentence
construction than on developing actual language skills. The application of CGI faces challenges
because large classrooms restrict teaching periods and have insucient educational resources.
Students lacked the chance to use their grammatical skills during real-life communication
situations. The study demonstrates that teachers value CGI at the conceptual level. However,
they face practical and contextual barriers that hinder the successful implementation of CGI in
classrooms. This suggests that educators should move away from rote memorization and adopt
inductive and communication-centered strategies, where grammar is viewed as a functional
instrument for meaningful exchanges and real-world use. This pedagogical pivot requires
students to step into an active role via task-based activities, not just sit and receive input. It
shifts them from passive reception to practical discovery. To maintain these changes, institutions
must also address logistical problems such as overcrowding and resource shortages to ensure
consistent CGI implementation.
Keywords: classroom implementation; communicative competence; communicative
grammar instruction; contextual challenges, student-centered learning.
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 45
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
CGI emerged from a shift towards “communicative competence,” a term coined by Hymes (1972) to
challenge the narrow focus on abstract grammatical rules by emphasizing that language should be
contextually appropriate and socially functional (Hery,2017). This basis was supported by Michael
Halliday, whose Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) posits that language is a “social semiotic” sys-
tem where grammar serves specic interpersonal and textual functions rather than existing in isola-
tion (Thwaite,2019). Canale and Swain (1980) further rened this by introducing a four-part frame,
including grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence, which balanced the need
for formal accuracy with the ability to negotiate meaning in real-world settings (Harahap &Ardi,2023).
Widdowson (1978) inuenced the eld by distinguishing between language as a formal system (“us-
age”) and as a communicative tool (“use”), arguing that grammar instruction should prioritize the
expression of concepts and communicative acts (Sreehari,2012). More recently, proponents such as
Watkins (2021) have bridged these theories with classroom practice, advocating for “scaolded” gram-
mar instruction, where linguistic forms are introduced through inductive and discovery-based tasks
that mirror authentic communication.
Grammar is the basic instrument that learners need for eective communication because it helps them
create meaningful and context-appropriate messages while learning to use language for their every-
day needs (Putra,2021). Therefore, the main goal of CGI extends beyond the development of linguis-
tic competence to include the ability to apply grammatical knowledge appropriately across dierent
communicative contexts. The absence of grammar restricts communication to basic words and expres-
sions, which decreases clarity and eectiveness (Azimi,2016). The language learning process requires
grammar instruction because it helps students develop their ability to communicate and express them-
selves in their language. Students need to understand all aspects of grammatical structure, the right
time for usage, and the conditions for using it during real conversations (Hidayati,2023). The current
perspective denotes a change from conventional grammar, which presents xed regulations, to modern
grammar, which functions as an adaptable tool for eective communication in the classroom. Ethiopian
and African literary traditions view language as a dynamic instrument that develops meaning through
structured social interaction.
Modern grammar teaching methods now use communicative teaching methods that focus on authen-
tic language communication instead of conventional grammar rules. Older teaching methods required
students to learn through repeated exercises, which included memorization and mechanical drills,
whereas modern teaching methods combine grammar instruction with actual communication skills.
Celce-Murcia (2000) demonstrated that teachers consider grammatical drills essential for their students,
while they believe that students need to practice speaking through interactive activities. Teachers main-
tain their preference for a teaching method that combines direct grammar teaching with language prac-
tice despite using the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach. Recent developments point
to a new teaching method called CGI, which teaches students to apply grammatical rules in real lan-
guage situations. The core concept of CGI shows language as an interactive tool that enables students
to create meaning, instead of treating it as a system of linguistic regulations (SukavateeKhlaisang2023;
Abdulrahman,2019). It provides direct teaching methods together with interactive learning activities,
which help students acquire language skills and communication abilities (Hinkel,2024). Hence, the
Ethiopian school system promotes the teaching of language through form and function to help stu-
dents learn according to their cultural backgrounds (Dereje,2012).
Grammar functions as a central element in learning environments that use communication as their main
method of instruction, enabling students to convey their thoughts (Moe,2019). Larsen-Freeman (2019)
supports this viewpoint by stating that grammar needs to establish links between form, meaning, and
use. CGI uses various teaching methods, including contextualization, noticing, and interaction, to help
students learn and use grammatical structures (Lyster,2013). The Ethiopian literary tradition, which
includes oral traditions, folktales, and proverbs, demonstrates how students learn grammatical patterns
through multiple opportunities to hear and use the language in natural settings. This is because people
acquire grammar by understanding language at explicit and contextual levels (Finnegan,2012;Tekeste,
2010).
Approaches such as focus-on-form show that grammar instruction needs to occur through real com-
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 46
munication activities instead of teaching grammar as a separate subject (Abdushukurova,2024;Zang,
2018). The Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach enables students to learn grammar through
the execution of assigned tasks (Purgina,2020). The use of role plays, information-gap activities, and
problem-solving tasks establishes real-life communication situations that help students learn grammar
through communicative methods (Ruzmetova,2025). The use of culturally relevant texts in classrooms,
including local stories, poems, and narratives, has demonstrated that students become more engaged
while learning grammar through real-world applications. English language instruction has returned to
its previous state because grammar is now an essential component of contemporary teaching methods
(Spada,2008). Modern English language teaching now uses grammar instruction and communicative
practice as its primary teaching methods (Garner,2021). The process of teaching grammar is dicult
because teachers must nd a way to teach students both accurate language use and uent language
production (Goldberg,2023). Teachers in Ethiopia experience the same diculties that Tadesse (2014)
identied, when he reported that educators in the country could not use innovative teaching methods
because their classrooms had too many students, their resources were insucient, and their teaching
methods focused on preparing students for exams.
Although the Ethiopian Grade 10 English syllabus is explicitly designed to foster active language skills
by utilizing grammar instruction as a foundation for communication, a disconnect remains between pol-
icy objectives and classroom reality. This gap exists primarily because current pedagogical approaches
remain stagnant, with educators continuing to rely on conventional methods that prioritize mechanical
presentation over functional language application in real-world contexts. Consequently, the intentional
integration of grammatical structures and communicative skills has not yet been fully implemented.
Local research corroborates this, indicating that despite policy support for communicative teaching,
actual classroom execution is undermined by a systemic lack of adequate teacher training and profes-
sional support (Ministry of Education,2017;Tadesse,2014). To bridge these pedagogical gaps, this
study evaluates the practical implementation of CGI in Ethiopian secondary schools, exploring how
these methods integrate with educational realities. By aligning CGI frameworks with specic commu-
nicative objectives and language requirements, this study seeks to move beyond generic applications
toward a more nuanced and contextualized approach.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Grammar is recognized as a tool for meaningful communication and eective language learning (Habibur-
rahman,2025). It enables students to use language correctly while applying it to various situations,
which helps them speak clearly and uently (Harun,2019). Scholars who support grammar teaching
through direct application in communicative activities instead of treating it as a separate subject argue
that grammar instruction is required for developing communicative competence. The Ethiopian EFL
context, which uses English as the medium of instruction for secondary and higher education, depends
on grammar to help students understand academic materials and classroom discussions (Heugh et al.,
2007;Tesfaye &Davidson,2008).
EFL classrooms continue to focus on teaching grammar through form-based methods, which require
students to learn grammar rules and practice drills while achieving correct sentence structures (Sun,
2022). Learners are often trained to construct grammatically correct sentences but may struggle to use
them eectively in real-life communications. Students need to demonstrate their ability to use knowl-
edge in practical situations because grammatical accuracy cannot serve as the only standard for assess-
ment (Aminah,2023). The examination systems, together with the restricted English practice opportu-
nities that exist beyond the classroom walls, create a major obstacle to communication skills develop-
ment in Ethiopia (Dereje,2012;Tadesse,2014).
Theoretical frameworks of CGI show their support for a unied design, which combines form, meaning,
and functional use to create communicative skills. The research community continues to debate which
linguistic ability assessment method needs to emphasize higher uency or accuracy scores, together
with its dierent methods for teaching grammar (Amirjanli,2025). Existing problems remain unsolved,
causing teachers to face diculties when making decisions about their teaching methods. The CGI has
been successful in improving students’ grammatical skills and their ability to communicate eectively
(Sadeghi,2024;Woymo,2024). Studies conducted in Ethiopia show a major research gap regarding
how students view CGI and how teachers implement CGI in their teaching methods (Getinet &Alemu,
2020). The application of CGI in Ethiopian secondary schools faces practical hurdles stemming from
resource limitations. Barriers such as overcrowded classrooms, lack of instructional materials, exam-
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 47
driven curricula, and insucient teacher training often hinder the adoption of modern communicative
approaches (Fontana,2015;Sheng,2024). Consequently, many educators default to conventional teach-
ing methods characterized by teacher-led mechanical drills and error correction, perceiving these as
manageable in high-pressure environments. Despite empirical evidence suggesting that language ac-
quisition is enhanced through interactive tasks, role-playing, and games (Belpaeme,2018;Peckham,
2020;Wright,2016), their consistent application remains restricted by systemic constraints.
While earlier local research in Ethiopia has been more interested in how teachers conceptually mix com-
municative approaches with form-focused teaching (Abiy,2011), this study takes a dierent approach
because of its particular design and the analytical depth it brings. Instead of staying only with what
teachers say about their own practice, the present work uses a stronger qualitative setup, where direct
classroom observation matters, and where triangulated evidence is used to make sense of what is hap-
pening. In other words, it looks at the performance of CGI tasks and the specic instructional hurdles
that show up while lessons are being conducted. By not stopping at theoretical match-ups and instead
digging into the rough details that shape whether things succeed or fail in the classroom, this study
oers a more detailed diagnosis of the current state of English language teaching in Ethiopia.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
This study aimed to examine the use of CGI in English classrooms, particularly in Grade 10, at Bule
Hora University Community and Bariso Dukale Secondary Schools. More specically, the objectives of
this study are as follows:
1. Examining teachers’ knowledge of communicative grammar teaching methods.
2. This study analyzes how communicative grammar teaching is implemented in classroom practice.
3. Identify the factors that inuence the use of CGI in English teaching.
1.4 Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. Do teachers possess adequate theoretical knowledge of CGI?
2. How is communicative grammar teaching implemented in English classrooms?
3. What challenges aect the implementation of CGI in classrooms?
2 Literature Review
The eld of ELT has undergone a signicant paradigm shift in recent years, moving away from the
“grammar-free” ideologies of the early CLT era. Research indicates that English language instruction
has eectively returned to its previous state of structural rigor, as grammar is once again viewed as an
essential component of contemporary teaching.
The Re-Emergence of Grammar in Communicative Contexts
Contemporary linguists claim that although the main aim of language learning is communication,
linguistic knowledge acts like the indispensable “shing rod” needed to generate competent speech
(Wang,2010). In current models, grammar is no longer treated as an isolated academic concept but
rather as the structural baseline for coherent and clearly understood communication, especially in high-
stakes professional and academic settings (Allehyani,2026). Therefore, this change feels like a kind of
return to structural rigor, even if it is framed dierently. It acknowledges that being able to handle
complex social and technical situations is tightly bound to a learner’s control of grammatical systems.
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 48
Recent empirical data on linguistic precision further validate the necessity of this structural anchor.
Studies have identied a strong and signicant positive correlation (r = .846) between grammatical
mastery and oral performance, conrming that high-level speaking skills are fundamentally rooted in
grammatical depth (Zam et al., 2025). Consequently, the “myth” that CLT must exclude formal gram-
mar has been exposed by research favoring Form-Focused Instruction (FFI). This method integrates
explicit metalinguistic teaching into communicative tasks, ensuring that learners move beyond “shal-
low” uency toward a more sophisticated and accurate command of the language (Akyel,2000;Rama
&Agulló,2012). Beyond mere performance, grammar is central to the development of metalinguis-
tic awareness, a key component of self-determined learning. Novel research suggests that for learners
to successfully manage their own multilingual development, they must possess a deep and conscious
understanding of how grammatical rules function across dierent linguistic systems (MDPI,2026). By
prioritizing this awareness, contemporary methods empower students to become active architects of
their discourse. This holistic integration of form and function proves that English language instruction
has returned to its previous state of valuing grammar as an essential and foundational component of
the current teaching repertoire.
Contemporary Pedagogical Shifts
The modern landscape of ELT has gone through this sophisticated kind of change, moving beyond
that old twofold debate of “grammar versus communication.” It feels like more of an evolution toward
integrated accuracy, where grammatical rigor is not just a step back into antiquated rote memorization
but a strategic reinforcement of communicative intent. Research indicates that students who engage
in explicit grammatical instruction consistently outperform those in purely meaning-based programs
across listening, speaking, and discourse assessments (Spada,2008). When educators embed structure
within meaningful contexts, uency is supported by a linguistic framework instead of being stuck at
“shallow” expression.
This pedagogical pivot is dened as a fundamental change in the structuring of classroom roles and
goals, compared to historical methods. While conventional grammar instruction focuses on the internal
competence of rules through isolated drills and passive reception, the contemporary communicative
grammar model prioritizes real-world performance and the application of form during interaction. In
this modern setting, instruction is characterized by FFI, which is embedded within communicative
tasks. This redenes the learner’s role from a passive recipient to an active co-creator equipped with
metalinguistic awareness, allowing them to navigate complex linguistic choices dynamically, rather
than relying on static and memorized patterns.
Ultimately, a consensus has emerged among linguists that grammatical knowledge serves as a “basic el-
ement” and a fundamental pillar of the language-learning process. Without this structural scaolding,
learners encounter a “plateau” eect, where they struggle to transfer complex ideas into coherent spo-
ken or written forms (Zam et al., 2025). By repositioning grammar as an essential component of current
teaching methods, the eld has returned to a state of structural balance, ensuring that communicative
output is uent and accurate.
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Design of the Study
The researchers adopted a descriptive research approach because the primary aim of the study was to
observe, describe, and document the existing state of CGI and the learning process in the study area
without manipulating variables. Descriptive research is particularly suitable for providing an accurate
and systematic portrayal of classroom practices, teacher strategies, and learners’ responses within their
natural settings (Best &Kahn,2016). This study aimed to represent CGI execution in schools through
classroom research, excluding experimental designs and correlational research methods that study how
dierent factors interact. The researchers used their approach to collect qualitative and quantitative data
through three methods: observing classrooms, distributing questionnaires, and conducting interviews
to create a complete understanding of teaching methods and student participation and the challenges of
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 49
CGI implementation, which manual methods cannot assess and statistical methods cannot completely
determine.
3.2 Participants and Sampling Techniques
Five English teachers and 124 Grade 10 students from Bule Hora University Community and Bariso
Dukale Secondary Schools participated in the study. The research was conducted in these two schools,
which are among the four secondary schools in Bule Hora Town. The schools were selected using
purposive sampling because of their accessibility, as well as considerations of time, cost, and available
resources. This sampling technique enabled the researchers to conduct the study eciently and feasibly
while addressing the research objectives. The proximity and manageability of these schools made them
suitable sites for examining the application of CGI in a real-world classroom context.
A simple random sampling technique was employed to select the student participants. From a total
of 344 Grade 10 students (40 from Bule Hora University Community Secondary School and 304 from
Bariso Dukale Secondary School), a sample of 124 students was drawn from seven sections: one section
from the Bule Hora University Community Secondary School and six sections from Bariso Dukale Sec-
ondary School. Regarding teachers, ve English language teachers (from both schools) were included
using comprehensive sampling. This approach ensured that all available English teachers in schools
contributed to the study.
3.3 Data Collection Instruments
To ensure the delity of the study, a range of data collection instruments, including questionnaires,
classroom observations, and interviews, were employed. The use of multiple instruments allows for
triangulation, which enhances the overall validity of the ndings by cross-checking data obtained from
dierent sources (Meydan &Akkas,2024). Each instrument was carefully designed and aligned with
the research objectives to ensure that it measured what it was intended to.
3.3.1 Questionnaire
The primary instrument employed in this study was a questionnaire that was meticulously designed
to align with the research objectives. The instrument comprised both closed- and open-ended ques-
tions. The close-ended items utilized a Likert scale format, oering ve response options: “Strongly
agree,” “Agree,” “Neutral,” “Disagree,” and “Strongly disagree.” Likert scales are widely recognized
for their ecacy in measuring attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors, providing quantitative data that
facilitate statistical analysis (South,2022). Conversely, the open-ended questions invited participants
to provide more detailed insights into their experiences with grammar learning. Open-ended ques-
tions are invaluable in educational research because they elicit rich qualitative data that can uncover a
deeper understanding and nuances of student experiences. Responses to these open-ended questions
were systematically reviewed to identify recurring themes or patterns, which were categorized accord-
ingly. The frequency of each response was analyzed, and these qualitative ndings were compared
with the quantitative results from the closed-ended questions to oer a comprehensive understanding
of students’ perceptions of the classroom. The questionnaire, consisting of 14 items, was administered
to 124 students. Of the 124 students, 120 completed and returned questionnaires.
3.3.2 Observation
For the documentation of the observational phase, the lead researcher conducted eight non-participatory
classroom observations. These sessions were spread across four Grade 10 sections in two schools; thus,
the process provided repeated, steady data through a more systematic way that actually used a struc-
tured checklist. centered on classroom behaviors, learner interactions, and particular pedagogical tasks.
The main aim was to check and triangulate what was reported by students in the questionnaires so that
the results would remain reliable and valid (Santos,2020). Since the researcher was a non-participant,
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 50
it was possible to document, in a rather impartial manner, how the teachers delivered lessons and the
students involved in the learning process, especially when cross-referencing the students’ accounts of
teaching approaches (Cents-Boonstra et al., 2021). Finally, a comparison between the researcher’s ob-
servations and the participants’ responses made the results comprehensive.
3.3.3 Interview
The primary source of interview data in this study was teachers, as they are directly responsible for
implementing CGI in the classroom. The interviews focused on teachers’ understanding and applica-
tion of CGI, providing insights into their knowledge of the methodology and its practical implemen-
tation. Teachers were asked about their grasp of CGI principles, techniques, and benets, as well as
how they integrated grammar instruction into communicative contexts, including lesson planning and
classroom activities. Additionally, the interviews explored factors inuencing their practice, such as
training, resources, curriculum constraints, and perceptions of students learning. Using interviews as
a data collection method is particularly important because it allows researchers to capture in-depth nu-
anced perspectives that cannot be fully obtained through questionnaires or observations alone (Osborne
&Grant-Smith,2021). Interviews provide rich qualitative data, enabling researchers to understand the
reasoning, attitudes, and experiences behind teachers’ instructional choices (Olafson et al., 2014). More-
over, teacher interviews facilitate the identication of challenges and contextual factors that aect the
implementation of CGI, supporting data triangulation when combined with observations and ques-
tionnaires. Therefore, interviews are an essential method for gaining a comprehensive understanding
of how communicative grammar teaching operates in practice.
3.4 Fidelity of the Instruments
The research instruments achieved validity through their design process, which involved expert eval-
uation and pretesting procedures. The research questions served as the foundation for developing the
questionnaire items, for which CGI-related literature provided the necessary information. English lan-
guage teaching and educational research experts assessed the instrument to determine its clarity, rele-
vance, and appropriateness, which resulted in improving unclear content and removing unnecessary
elements. The pilot test demonstrated that the questionnaire items achieved their purpose by making
the questions understandable to participants who shared similarities with the target population. The
observation checklist used CGI indicators, which included learner interaction, communicative activ-
ities, and contextualized grammar use, to establish assessment standards that minimized bias while
creating reliable results. The interview guide achieved validity through its semi-structured questions,
which directly measured the research objectives, and the probing techniques, which collected detailed
participant answers that showed their real-life experiences and thoughts about their experiences (Co-
hen et al., 2018;Creswell,2014).
In addition, the researchers established instrument reliability through their use of consistent data col-
lection methods, which produced dependable results. The researchers conducted a pilot study to test
the questionnaire’s reliability, which measured internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. The re-
searchers revised the content of the questionnaire because its items failed to demonstrate a proper con-
nection. The researchers used standardized instructions and uniform administration procedures, which
helped reduce measurement errors and improve the consistency of the test results. The researchers es-
tablished instrument reliability through the implementation of a standardized checklist, which they
used to conduct multiple observations that tracked behavioral changes throughout dierent lessons.
The researchers used peer and supervisor observation record reviews to minimize observer bias during
their study. The research team used a standardized interview guide with all participants and recorded
audio of their sessions to create accurate transcriptions and interpretations. The research team used
combined strategies that enhanced both the quantitative and qualitative data reliability according to
established methodological recommendations (Cohen et al., 2018;Kothari,2004).
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 51
3.5 Data Collection Procedure
Once the study site was chosen (Bule Hora University Community and Bariso Dukale Secondary Schools),
pending a letter of support from Bule Hora University’s postgraduate oce, the data collection proce-
dure involved the following steps: First, informed consent was obtained from participating teachers
and students in the selected schools. Subsequently, the participants received a clear explanation of
the study’s purpose and detailed instructions on how to complete the questionnaires. Next, gram-
mar lessons in a few chosen sections from both schools were observed using a prepared observation
checklist. Subsequently, the questionnaires were administered to the students. After the participants
completed the questionnaires, the researchers collected the completed forms. To further cross-check
the study, the researchers conducted interviews with teachers. Finally, upon completion of the data
collection phase, they proceeded to examine and interpret the gathered information.
3.6 Data Analysis Methods
The analysis of the collected data integrated quantitative and qualitative approaches to achieve a com-
prehensive understanding by combining measurable trends with in-depth insights. On the quantitative
side, descriptive statistical methods were employed to interpret the numerical data obtained primarily
from the closed-ended items of the student questionnaires. Frequencies and percentages were used to
describe response distributions, with percentages calculated using the formula: percentage =F
N100.
To further examine overall response tendencies, mean scores were computed based on a ve-point Lik-
ert scale using the formula: Mean =(f x)
N. These statistical techniques are widely recognized for their
eectiveness in organizing and presenting survey data in educational research (Creswell &Creswell,
2018;Field,2013).
Qualitative methods were also applied to explore the descriptive data gathered from open-ended items.
This involved a systematic process of reviewing and coding student responses to identify recurring
themes, patterns and meaningful insights related to their grammar learning experiences. Qualitative
analysis allowed for an interpretation of students’ perspectives, complementing the numerical ndings
and enhancing the validity of the study through methodological triangulation (Braun &Clarke,2006;
Denzin,2012).
3.7 Ethical Considerations
This study involved human participants and strictly adhered to ethical principles to protect their rights,
dignity, and well-being. Before data collection, the researchers conducted a brieng outlining the
study’s objectives, procedures, and potential risks and benets, allowing the participants to ask ques-
tions and provide informed consent. To ensure privacy and anonymity, all identifying information
was removed and replaced with coded labels, and the data were securely stored with access limited
to the researchers. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee and complied with
the established educational research standards. Throughout the process, the researchers maintained
transparency, respect, and fairness, and the ndings were reported in a way that preserved participant
condentiality while being shared with the schools to support decision-making and future improve-
ments, thereby enhancing the study’s credibility.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Students’ Questionnaire Results
To assess the eectiveness with which teachers applied CGI, a questionnaire consisting of 14 items was
administered to 124 students. Of the distributed questionnaires, 120 out of 124 (97%) were completed,
returned, and included in the nal analysis, providing reliable results.
Table 1reveals that students stated that their teachers explained grammar to enhance communication,
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 52
Table 1: Students’ Feedback about the Practices of Communicative Grammar Instruction
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
My teacher explains grammar in
a way that helps us to communi-
cate better.
Strongly disagree 21 17.5
3.28
Disagree 24 20
Neutral 16 13.3
Agree 19 15.8
Strongly agree 40 33.3
Total 120 100
with responses distributed across ve categories and summarized by a mean score of 3.28, with 120
respondents participating. The largest proportion of students, 33.3% (n=40), “Strongly agree” that
their teacher’s grammar instruction aids in communication, suggesting a signicant level of satisfaction.
Meanwhile, 15.8% (n=19) “Agree”, and 13.3% (n=16) remained “Neutral,” indicating a mix of arma-
tion and indierence. However, a notable portion expressed dissatisfaction: 20% (n=24) “Disagree”
and 17.5% (n=21) “Strongly disagree,” accounting for a combined 37.5% who did not nd the teaching
approach benecial for communication skills. The mean score of 3.28, slightly above the neutral mid-
point of 3.00, indicates a moderate overall agreement but also highlights some division in opinion, with
a lean toward positive perceptions and a signicant contingent of dissenting views. This suggests that
while a plurality of students recognize the communicative value of grammar instruction, a meaningful
portion of students’ responses indicate room for pedagogical improvement.
Table 2: Students’ Remarks about the Real-Life Grammar Use
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
…
Strongly disagree 16 13.3
3.49
Disagree 14 11.6
Neutral 23 19.16
Agree 29 24.16
Strongly agree 38 31.6
Total 120 100
Table 2reects students’ remarks regarding “My teacher focuses on using grammar in real-life situa-
tions,” based on the responses of 120 participants. The majority of students responded positively: 31.6%
(n=38) “Strongly agree” and 24.16% (n=29) “Agree,” totaling 55.76% who support the notion that their
teacher emphasizes practical grammar application. “Neutral” responses accounted for 19.16% (n=23),
suggesting moderate uncertainty. On the other hand, a smaller portion expressed disagreement, with
13.3% (n=16) “Strongly disagree” and 11.6% (n=14) “Disagree,” making up a combined 24.9% who do
not perceive a strong real-life focus in grammar teaching. The calculated mean score of approximately
3.49 indicates an overall favorable assessment that is clearly above the neutral midpoint of 3.00 on the
Likert scale, reinforcing the conclusion that students generally believe their teacher links grammar in-
struction to real-life contexts. However, the presence of both neutral and disagreeing responses suggests
that while the majority is positively inclined, there may be variability in the consistency or perception
of this teaching method. Hence, the results indicate that most students recognize and appreciate their
teachers’ eorts to make grammar instruction relevant to real-life communication.
Table 3: Students’ Statements about Their Teacher’s Ability to Teach Grammar Communicatively
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
I believe that my teacher under-
stands how to teach grammar for
communication.
Strongly disagree 18 15
3.45
Disagree 20 16.7
Neutral 11 9.2
Agree 32 26.7
Strongly agree 39 32.5
Total 120 100
Table 3presents students’ statements, “I believe my teacher understands how to teach grammar for
communication,” based on the responses of 120 participants. The majority of students expressed a
positive view: 32.5% (n=39) “Strongly agree” and 26.7% (n=32) “Agree,” totaling 59.2% who armed
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 53
their teacher’s competence in this area. This strong endorsement suggests that more than half of the
students perceived their teachers as eectively facilitating grammar instruction in a communicative
context. Meanwhile, 9.2% (n=11) responded “Neutral,” reecting a small portion of students who nei-
ther agreed nor disagreed. On the other end, 16.7% (n=20) “Disagree” and 15% (n=18) “Strongly dis-
agree,” indicating that nearly a third (31.7%) of the respondents held some level of skepticism about the
teacher’s ability to teach grammar for communication. The overall mean score of 3.45, above the neu-
tral midpoint of 3.00, suggests a generally favorable view, although the presence of a notable dissenting
minority indicates some variability in students’ experiences or expectations. Thus, the data reect a
generally positive perception of the teacher’s grammar instruction, with a solid majority of students
recognizing communicative competence, while a smaller but notable portion remains unconvinced.
Table 4: Students’ Remarks about Teachers Balancing Grammar Rules and Communicative Use
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
My teacher focuses on grammar
rules and how to use them in
speech and writing.
Strongly disagree 26 21.6
2.9
Disagree 27 22.5
Neutral 24 20
Agree 19 15.8
Strongly agree 24 20
Total 120 100
Table 4presents students’ responses to the statement “My teacher not only focuses on grammar rules,
but also on how to use them in speech and writing,” based on 120 participants. The data show a divided
set of perceptions, with a slight inclination toward disagreement. Specically, 22.5% (n=27) “Disagree”
and 21.6% (n=26) “Strongly disagree,” together making up 44.1% of respondents who do not believe that
their teacher integrates grammar instruction into practical communication contexts. Meanwhile, 20%
(n=24) were “Neutral,” indicating that a signicant portion of students neither conrmed nor denied
the statement. On the positive side, 15.8% (n=19) “Agree” and 20% (n=24) “Strongly agree,” summing
to 35.8% who felt that their teacher does go beyond grammar rules to focus on usage in speech and
writing. The mean score of 2.9 fell below the neutral midpoint of 3.0, suggesting a mild tendency toward
disagreement among the students. This indicates that while some students recognize the eorts to make
grammar instruction communicative, a larger proportion either do not perceive these eorts clearly or
feel that they are insucient. Therefore, students are somewhat divided, but the data suggest that
many do not see their teachers emphasizing the practical use of grammar in communication.
Table 5: Students’ Statements about Grammar Lessons’ Relevance to Daily Language Use
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
Grammar lessons are connected
to our daily language use.
Strongly disagree 6 5
3.79
Disagree 10 8.3
Neutral 28 23.3
Agree 35 29.2
Strongly agree 41 34.2
Total 120 100
Table 5presents student responses to “Grammar lessons are connected to our daily language use,” based
on feedback from 120 participants. A clear majority of students expressed a positive view: 34.2% (n=41)
“Strongly agree” and 29.2% (n=35) “Agree,” totaling 63.4% who armed that lessons were meaningfully
tied to everyday communication. Meanwhile, 23.3% (n=28) responded “Neutral,” indicating that nearly
a quarter of the students were uncertain or perceived a moderate connection. Only a small minority
expressed disagreement, with 8.3% (n=10) “Disagree” and 5% (n=6) “Strongly disagreeing,” together
accounting for just 13.3% of the responses. The calculated mean score of 3.79 was well above the neutral
midpoint of 3.00 on the Likert scale, indicating a generally favorable perception. This suggests that most
students recognize their teachers’ eorts to make grammar instruction relevant to real-life language use.
The results reect strong student agreement that grammar teaching is practical and applicable to their
everyday communication, with very limited opposition.
Table 6reects student responses to the statement “We often do speaking activities that help us prac-
tice grammar,” based on feedback from 120 participants. The distribution reveals a somewhat divided
perception among students, although it is slightly positive overall. A combined 44.16% of students
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 54
Table 6: Students’ Statements about How Often Speaking Activities Support Grammar Practice
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
We often engage in speaking
activities that help us practice
grammar.
Strongly disagree 23 19.16
3.08
Disagree 27 22.5
Neutral 17 14.16
Agree 24 20
Strongly agree 29 24.16
Total 120 100
“Agree” (20%) or “Strongly agree” (24.16%) that speaking activities are regularly used to reinforce gram-
mar learning, suggesting that nearly half of the students recognize the practical, communicative use of
grammar in class. Meanwhile, a signicant proportion, 41.66%, “Disagree” (22.5%) or “Strongly dis-
agree” (19.16%), indicating that many students feel these activities are either insucient or infrequent.
Additionally, 14.16% of students remained “neutral,” possibly reecting uncertainty or variability in
their classroom experiences. The overall mean score of 3.08 was just above the neutral midpoint of 3.00,
indicating a mild tendency toward agreement. This suggests that while many students acknowledge
the use of speaking activities for grammar practice, a notable portion of the class does not fully share
this view, pointing to inconsistencies in how these activities are applied or perceived.
Table 7: Students’ Statements about Group and Pair Work for Grammar Instruction
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
Our teacher uses group or pair
work to teach grammar
Strongly disagree 9 7.5
3.65
Disagree 10 8.3
Neutral 30 25
Agree 36 30
Strongly agree 35 29.16
Total 120 100
Table 7reects student responses to “Our teacher uses group or pair work to teach grammar,” with 120
respondents. A majority of students agreed to some degree, with 36 students (30%) “Agree,” and 35 stu-
dents (29.16%), “Strongly agree,” making up nearly 60% of the total responses. A signicant minority
were “Neutral,” with 30 students (25%) neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the statement. Mean-
while, 10 students (8.3%) “Disagree,” and 9 students (7.5%), “Strongly disagree,” together represent
about 15.8% of the responses. The mean score of 3.65, which is slightly above the neutral point, sug-
gests that students tend to agree that the teacher employs group or pair work in grammar instruction,
indicating a generally positive perception of collaborative learning in grammar lessons. This highlights
the main point that most students recognize and appreciate the use of collaborative methods in gram-
mar instruction in the classroom.
Table 8: Students’ Evaluations about Grammar Use in Writing and Storytelling Activities
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
We use grammar for writing or
storytelling exercises.
Strongly disagree 25 20.8
3.01
Disagree 23 19.2
Neutral 22 18.3
Agree 26 21.6
Strongly agree 24 20
Total 120 100
Table 8shows that 120 respondents evaluated the item “We use grammar in writing or storytelling
exercises,” and the responses were evenly distributed across all the categories. A combined 40% of
participants “Disagree” or “Strongly disagree” (20.8% and 19.2%, respectively), indicating that a sig-
nicant portion of students do not perceive grammar being applied in writing or storytelling tasks.
Meanwhile, 41.6% “Agree” or “Strongly agree” (21.6% and 20%), suggesting that a slightly larger, but
still comparable, group recognizes such integration. About 18.3% remained “Neutral.” The mean score
of 3.01, which is close to the neutral midpoint, implies that there was no strong agreement or disagree-
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 55
ment among the participants. This suggests that the integration of grammar into writing or storytelling
exercises is inconsistent or unclear and may vary depending on the teacher or lesson context. Hence,
the responses reect a balanced view regarding the use of grammar in writing or storytelling, with a
mean (3.01) suggesting a neutral stance. This indicates an inconsistency in the practical application of
grammar in these contexts.
Table 9: Students’ Remarks on Activity-Based Grammar Instruction
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
Grammar is taught through ac-
tivities, not only through exer-
cises and drills.
Strongly disagree 19 15.8
3.48
Disagree 16 13.3
Neutral 12 10
Agree 35 29.2
Strongly agree 38 31.6
Total 120 100
Table 9reects the students’ responses to the statement “Grammar is taught through activities, not only
through exercises and drills,” with 120 participants. The distribution shows that most students held a
favorable view of activity-based grammar instruction. Specically, 35 students (29.2%) “Agree” and
38 students (31.6%) “Strongly agree,” totaling 73 students (60.8%) responded positively to this item.
On the other hand, a smaller portion of students expressed disagreement, with 19 students (15.8%)
“Strongly disagree” and 16 students (13.3%) “Disagree,” combining to 29.1%. Meanwhile, 12 students
(10%) remained “Neutral.” The calculated mean of 3.48, which is above the neutral midpoint on a 5-
point Likert scale, indicates that the students generally agree that grammar teaching involves engaging
activities beyond traditional drills and exercises. This suggests that students perceive a more interactive
and varied approach to grammar instruction in their classroom experience.
Table 10: Students’ Statements about the Opportunities to Use Learned Grammar in Speaking
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
I get a chance to speak English
using the grammar that I have
learned in class.
Strongly disagree 15 12.5
3.48
Disagree 19 15.8
Neutral 17 14.2
Agree 32 26.6
Strongly agree 37 30.8
Total 120 100
Table 10 illustrates the responses to the statement “I get a chance to speak English using grammar we
learned in class,” with 120 participants. The distribution of responses indicates a positive perception
among students regarding opportunities for spoken practice using the learned grammar. Specically,
32 students (26.6%) “Agree,” and 37 students (30.8%) “Strongly agree,” totaling 69 students (57.4%)
who felt that they were given opportunities to apply grammar in spoken English. Meanwhile, 17 stu-
dents (14.2%) responded “Neutral,” possibly indicating uncertainty or inconsistency in their experi-
ences. On the opposing end, 15 students (12.5%) “Strongly disagree,” and 19 students (15.8%) “Dis-
agree,” amounting to 34 students (28.3%) who do not feel they are provided with such opportunities.
The mean score of 3.48, slightly above the neutral midpoint, suggests a modest lean toward agreement.
This implies that while most students perceive a classroom environment that supports speaking ac-
tivities involving grammar, there is still a considerable minority that does not share this experience,
highlighting the need for improvement in making spoken grammar practice consistent across students.
Table 11 presents student responses to the statement “There is enough time in class to practice gram-
mar in real communication,” based on feedback from 120 participants. The distribution of responses
suggests mixed perceptions among the students. A total of 53 students (44.1%) “Agree” to some extent,
with 27 students (22.5%) agreeing and 26 students (21.6%) “Strongly agree,” indicating that nearly half
of the class feels there is sucient time dedicated to applying grammar in meaningful communica-
tion. However, a substantial portion of the students expressed dissatisfaction, with 16 students (13.3%)
“Strongly disagree” and 29 students (24.2%) “Disagree,” totaling 45 students (37.5%) who believed that
there was not enough time for such practice. Additionally, 22 students (18.3%) remained “neutral,” pos-
sibly reecting uncertainty or variability in their classroom experiences. The calculated mean of 3.15,
slightly above the neutral midpoint, reveals a mild leaning toward agreement. This suggests that while
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 56
Table 11: Students’ Suggestions about Sucient Class Time for Communicative Grammar Practice
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
There is sucient time in class
to practice grammar in real com-
munication.
Strongly disagree 16 13.3
3.15
Disagree 29 24.2
Neutral 22 18.3
Agree 27 22.5
Strongly agree 26 21.6
Total 120 100
some students recognize time being allocated for communicative grammar use, many others either do
not perceive it consistently or feel that it is insucient, highlighting an area where instructional time
management might be improved to better support grammar practice in real communication.
Table 12: Students’ Remarks about the Class Size and Participation in Grammar Activities
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
There was an adequate class
size to practice communicative
grammar activities.
Strongly disagree 12 10
3.35
Disagree 25 20.8
Neutral 26 21.6
Agree 23 19.2
Strongly agree 34 28.3
Total 120 100
Table 12 presents student responses to the statement “There is enough class size to practice commu-
nicative grammar activities,” with input from 120 students. The distribution of responses revealed a
generally positive, but varied, perception among students. A total of 57 students (47.5%) expressed
“Agree,” with 23 students (19.2%) “Agree,” and 34 students (28.3%) “Strongly agree,” indicating that
nearly half of the respondents remarked that sucient class size is allowed for communicative gram-
mar practice. Meanwhile, 26 students (21.6%) selected the “Neutral” option, suggesting that a notable
portion of students were unsure about the class size as neither sucient nor insucient. On the other
hand, 12 students (10%) “Strongly disagree” and 25 students (20.8%) “Disagree,” making up 37 stu-
dents (30.8%) who felt that there was not enough class size. The mean score of 3.35, above the neutral
midpoint, reects a modest agreement, implying that while students recognize class size being pro-
vided for using grammar in communication, the experience may not be consistent for all, pointing to
an opportunity for teachers to further enhance or clarify such practices in the classroom.
Table 13: Students’ Anxiety about Using Grammar in Speaking
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
Sometimes, I feel shy or afraid to
use grammar in speaking.
Strongly disagree 10 8.3
3.83
Disagree 9 7.5
Neutral 18 15
Agree 37 30.8
Strongly agree 46 38.3
Total 120 100
Table 13 represents student responses to the statement “Sometimes I feel shy or afraid to use grammar
in speaking,” based on the feedback from 120 participants. The results indicate a clear trend toward
agreement, with a combined 83 students (69.1%) either “Agree” (37 students, 30.8%) or “Strongly agree”
(46 students, 38.3%), suggesting that a signicant majority of students experience some level of anxiety
or hesitation when using grammar in spoken English. Meanwhile, 18 students (15%) responded “Neu-
tral,” which may reect varying experiences of the respondents. On the other end of the scale, only 10
students (8.3%) “Strongly disagree” and 9 students (7.5%) “Disagree,” totaling 15.8%, do not share this
feeling of shyness or fear when speaking English. The mean score of 3.83, well above the neutral point,
reinforces the conclusion that many students feel self-conscious or anxious about applying grammar in
speaking situations.
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 57
Table 14: Students’ Desire for More Activities to Enhance Grammar Use in Speaking and Writing
Statement Responses Frequency Percentage (%) Mean
I want more activities to help me
use grammar when speaking or
writing.
Strongly disagree 6 5
3.54
Disagree 26 21.6
Neutral 23 19.2
Agree 27 22.5
Strongly agree 38 31.6
Total 120 100
Table 14 presents student responses to the statement “I want more activities to help me use grammar
when I speak or write,” based on 120 students. The results show a clear inclination toward agree-
ment, with 27 students (22.5%) “Agree” and 38 students (31.6%) “Strongly agree.” Together, 65 students
(54.1%) expressed a desire for more grammar-integrated activities in speaking and writing, indicating
that more than half of the class saw value in further practical engagement with grammar. Meanwhile,
23 students (19.2%) selected “Neutral,” suggesting some uncertainty or ambivalence toward the current
level of grammar-focused activities in their classes. On the other hand, 26 students (21.6%) “Disagree”
and only 6 students (5%) “Strongly disagree,” totaling 26.6% who do not feel the need for more such
activities. The calculated mean of 3.54, which is above the neutral midpoint on a 5-point Likert scale,
reects a general trend of agreement.
4.2 Classroom Observations Results
Table 15: Teachers’ Educational Background
Teachers Gender Qualication TEFL Experience Secondary School
Teaching Experience
Teacher 1 Female BA in English 10 5
Teacher 2 Male MA in TEFL 18 10
Teacher 3 Male MA in TEFL 9 4
Teacher 4 Male BA in English 6 2
Table 15 shows that among the four teachers observed, there was variation in qualications and teaching
experience. Three of the teachers were male, and one was female. Two teachers (Teachers 2 and 3) hold
Master’s degrees in TEFL, while the other two (Teachers 1 and 4) have Bachelor’s degrees in English.
Teacher 2 stands out as the most experienced, with 18 years of TEFL experience and 10 years of teaching
at the secondary level, suggesting a strong theoretical and practical foundation. Teacher 3 also had an
academic background with nine years of TEFL experience and four years at the secondary level. In
contrast, Teacher 4 was the least experienced, with only six years in TEFL and two years in secondary
teaching, which may have aected her ability to implement advanced instructional strategies. Teacher
1, the only female, has 10 years of TEFL experience and 5 years in secondary education, indicating
moderate experience but only undergraduate-level qualications.
4.2.1 First Round Observation Results
The analysis of the rst round of classroom observation (1st RCO) revealed both strengths and areas
needing improvement in the teacher’s application of CGI. Strong implementation was observed in sev-
eral areas of the study. The teacher consistently presented grammar through contextualized activities
(4 “Yes”), which aligns with CLT principles that emphasize teaching grammar in meaningful contexts
to enhance communicative competence. Group and pair work were regularly encouraged (4 “Yes”),
supporting the idea that collaborative activities foster interaction and negotiation of meaning, which
are central to eective language learning. Grammar instruction was also integrated across all language
skills (4 “Yes”), reecting the holistic approach advocated in CLT, where grammar is taught as part of
communicative tasks rather than in isolation. Role-play and simulation activities were used eectively
(3 “Yes” and 1 “No”), with research showing that such activities can enhance learners’ engagement
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 58
Table 16: Summary of Classroom Observations
Checklist Items
1st RCO 2nd RCO Total Frequency
Yes No Yes No Yes No
No. % No. %
The teacher presents grammar
through contextualized activities 4 - 3 1 7 87.5 1 12.5
The teacher organizes role-play and
simulation activities 3 1 4 - 7 87.5 1 12.5
The teacher facilitates information
gap tasks 2 2 3 1 5 62.5 3 37.5
The teacher encourages group and
pair work 4 - 4 - 8 100 - 0
The teacher incorporates grammar
games - 4 2 2 2 25 6 75
The teacher implements task-based
language teaching (TBLT) 2 2 3 1 5 62.5 3 37.5
The teacher provides error correction
during communicative activities 3 1 4 - 7 87.5 1 12.5
The teacher assigns personalized
speaking and writing tasks - 4 2 2 2 25 6 75
The teacher uses multimedia re-
sources - 4 - 4 - 0 8 100
The teacher integrates grammar
instruction into all language skills
lessons
4 - 3 1 7 87.5 1 12.5
and practical use of grammar. Additionally, the teacher provided timely error correction during com-
municative tasks (3 “Yes” and 1 “No”), supporting the ndings that immediate feedback aids in the
internalization of grammatical structures.
Despite its strengths, the components of the CGI were inconsistent. Information gap tasks and TBLT
were only partially implemented (2 “Yes” and 2 “No”), indicating a need for more consistent use of
these techniques to promote meaningful communication and grammatical accuracy in the classroom.
Grammar games were not used at all (0 “Yes” and 4 “No”), although research indicates that games
provide a fun and engaging way to practice grammar. Similarly, personalized speaking and writing
tasks were absent (0 “Yes” and 4 “No”), even though such tasks have been shown to increase student
motivation and facilitate the application of grammar in real-life contexts. The teacher also did not use
multimedia resources (0 “Yes” and 4 “No”), despite evidence that multimedia can enhance grammar
instruction by providing visual and auditory support for learning. These gaps suggest the need for a
more dynamic, learner-centered approach that incorporates interactive and authentic materials to in-
crease students’ engagement, motivation, and communicative competence. This analysis situates the
ndings within the broader context of current research on communicative grammar instruction, high-
lighting both eective practices and areas for improvement.
4.2.2 Second Round Observation Results
The analysis of the second round of classroom observation (2nd RCO) shows noticeable improvements
in several aspects of CGI compared to the rst round. The teacher demonstrated consistent strength in
organizing role-play and simulation activities (4 “Yes”), encouraging group and pair work (4 “Yes”),
and providing error correction during communicative tasks (4 “Yes”), highlighting a solid emphasis
on interaction and uency development, which are essential components of communicative language
teaching (Hemnani,2023). There was also progress in implementing TBLT, with three “Yes” and only 1
“No”, and a similar improvement in facilitating information gap tasks (3 “Yes” and 1 “No”), suggesting
a growing eort to integrate meaningful communication and real-life language use in classroom prac-
tice. Despite these gains, some areas remain underdeveloped. While grammar games and personalized
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 59
speaking/writing tasks were introduced (2 “Yes” and 2 “No” for both), their limited use indicates that
these strategies are not yet fully embedded, even though research shows that such activities enhance
learner motivation and promote the practical application of grammar in real contexts (Kizi,2024). Mul-
timedia resources continued to be completely absent (0 “Yes” and 4 “No”), reecting a persistent gap in
providing multimodal input to support varied learning styles (Peckham,2020). Additionally, there was
a slight decline in integrating grammar across all language skills (3 “Yes” and 1 “No”) and in presenting
grammar through contextualized activities (3 “Yes” and 1 “No”), indicating an occasional inconsistency
in foundational practices. To further strengthen CGI, teachers should aim to fully incorporate person-
alized, interactive, and multimedia-based activities while maintaining consistent contextualized and
skills-integrated grammar teaching, which research suggests is crucial for developing both accuracy
and communicative competence (Sevy-Biloon,2018).
4.2.3 Observational Data Presentations
The classroom observation results from Bule Hora University Community and Bariso Dukale Sec-
ondary School revealed a generally positive but inconsistent application of CGI in Grade 10 English
classrooms. Overall, teachers showed a strong inclination toward using communicative strategies, es-
pecially to promote interactive grammar learning. Notably, both observations conrmed that grammar
was consistently presented through contextualized activities (87.5% implementation) and that group
and pair work were fully utilized (100%). These ndings indicate that classrooms prioritize meaning-
ful interactions, aligning with the core principles of CGI. Role-play, simulation activities, and error cor-
rection during communication were frequently observed, with an implementation rate of 87.5%. This
suggests that teachers actively foster realistic language use and guide learners toward accurate gram-
mar application without hindering uency. Similarly, grammar instruction was well integrated into all
language skills lessons (87.5%), showing a commitment to holistic language development rather than
isolated grammar instruction.
Despite these strengths, the observation also identied critical gaps that hindered the realization of
CGI principles. The use of information gap tasks and TBLT was moderate, each applied at a rate of
62.5%, reecting the inconsistent application of student-centered communicative tasks. However, the
minimal or absent use of grammar games (25%), personalized speaking and writing tasks (25%), and
multimedia resources (0%) is concerning. These components are essential for increasing student en-
gagement, enhancing input variety, and fostering personalization, all of which are integral to eective
CGI. Their absence suggests that while teachers are familiar with and apply CGI strategies, they still
rely on conventional or teacher-centered practices in certain areas.
4.3 Teachers’ Interview Data
Four English language teachers from Bule Hora University Community School and Bariso Dukale Sec-
ondary School were interviewed to address Research Question Two (RQ2), which focuses on the prac-
tical implementation of communicative grammar teaching strategies in classrooms. The interviews
complemented the data collected through the questionnaires and classroom observations, ensuring the
reliability, consistency, and accuracy of the ndings. By analyzing the teachers’ perspectives, the re-
searchers were able to verify the information and gain a deeper understanding of how CGI is applied
in real-world classroom contexts. The interview responses were systematically summarized and ana-
lyzed to highlight the patterns, successes, and challenges of the practical application of CGI.
The teacher interviews oered rich insights into their understanding of communicative grammar teach-
ing. When asked about their approach, all teachers emphasized that grammar should be taught within
meaningful communication rather than in isolation. They stressed the importance of connecting gram-
matical structures to authentic real-life situations, such as conversations, role-plays, debates, and read-
ing or writing tasks that mirror everyday communication. They noted that this approach helps students
develop both accuracy and uency simultaneously. By embedding grammar instruction in practical
contexts, students can apply structures meaningfully, making learning more engaging, memorable,
and relevant to their everyday language use.
Regarding professional training, all respondents reported having received instruction in communica-
tive approaches to grammar, either during their initial teacher education, TEFL certication programs,
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 60
or through professional development and online courses. This training equipped them to design student-
centered, interactive lessons that balanced form-focused instruction and communicative practice. The
teachers highlighted that linking grammar to real-life communication builds learners’ condence and
promotes active language use. It allows students to internalize grammatical structures naturally rather
than relying solely on rote memorization, fostering a deeper understanding and longer-lasting reten-
tion.
In describing their classroom practices, teachers explained that they used a combination of inductive
and deductive teaching methods depending on students’ prociency levels. Grammar is often intro-
duced within real-life contexts, followed by guided activities where students notice patterns and prac-
tice them through pair work, group tasks, discussions, and role-plays. Speaking and writing exercises,
such as class interviews, surveys, and creative storytelling, were consistently used to provide meaning-
ful opportunities for applying grammar rules. Teachers observed that students responded positively
to these communicative strategies, demonstrating increased motivation, engagement, and condence,
while experiencing lower anxiety levels when using the language in context.
Despite these successes, teachers acknowledged several challenges in fully implementing CGI. Large
class sizes, limited instructional time, insucient resources, and rigid curricular demands have been
cited as major constraints. They also mentioned diculties in balancing accuracy and uency, sup-
porting shy or reluctant learners, and preparing authentic, communicative materials. To address these
challenges, teachers suggested ongoing professional development, access to multimedia and authentic
materials, smaller class sizes, exible lesson schedules, and collaboration with colleagues as potential
solutions. They emphasized that these supports could enhance student engagement, promote inter-
active learning, and allow for more eective integration of communicative grammar instruction in the
classroom.
4.4 Discussions
The results obtained from the questionnaires, classroom observations, and teacher interviews created
an understanding of how CGI operates in educational institutions. Students who experienced CGI in-
struction demonstrated improved uency, greater variety in their syntactic choices, and an enhanced
ability to self-correct during interaction. Research shows that communicative methods help learners use
language eectively while developing their ability to interact with others (Ellis,2003;Larsen-Freeman,
2003). The research results of Tudini (2018) show that students who learn through CGI acquire grammar
skills for real-time communication tasks better than they do through traditional form-focused instruc-
tion. The study showed that CGI improves speaking accuracy for immediate communication needs, but
its eects on grammar skill retention and formal assessment results require further research (Norris &
Ortega,2000).
Teachers demonstrated foundational insight into CGI principles, particularly the importance of teach-
ing grammar through authentic communication. This awareness supports students’ ability to acquire
language skills in meaningful contexts (Richards &Rodgers,2001). The ndings of this study are con-
sistent with Andrian (2023), who reported that both teachers and students perceive CGI as essential for
preparing learners for future academic and real-world demands, including global communication and
problem solving. However, full implementation remains limited because students are not consistently
provided with sucient opportunities to practice grammar in authentic situations. As one teacher
noted, “The communicative approach focuses on teaching grammar through meaningful communica-
tion,” reinforcing the principle that grammar should not be taught in isolation but rather integrated
into communicative activities (Long,1991).
Although teachers possess theoretical knowledge of CGI, their depth of understanding and classroom
application vary considerably (Kolovou,2023). While some teachers demonstrate a grasp of commu-
nicative principles, others exhibit only a supercial understanding, which aects the consistency and
eectiveness of the implementation. This variation is supported by Schoen (2018), who emphasized the
importance of sustained professional development in enhancing teachers’ pedagogical practices. Sim-
ilarly, studies suggest that without adequate training and support, teachers may struggle to translate
theory into practice, leading to partial or inconsistent implementation of communicative approaches
(Butler,2011;Littlewood,2007). Thus, strengthening teacher training and professional development is
essential to ensure a deeper and more uniform understanding of the CGI methodology among educa-
tors.
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 61
However, the data from observations showed that teachers used CGI in dierent ways throughout their
various classrooms. The rst observation showed that teachers applied contextualized grammar pre-
sentation, collaborative learning, and multiple language skill development. These practices follow CLT
principles, which require teachers to present grammar through authentic contexts so that students can
improve their ability to communicate (Richards &Rodgers,2001). The evidence supports the idea that
interactive communicative teaching methods enable students to acquire language skills while practic-
ing grammatical structures in real-life situations (Ellis,2003;Larsen-Freeman,2003). They show that
teachers apply communicative teaching methods through their eorts to create interaction opportuni-
ties and their use of grammar in natural language contexts.
Despite these strengths, the application of eective CGI systems requires further development to ad-
dress multiple critical components. Teaching methods show insucient engagement with students
through dynamic instructional methods, which should include grammar games, customized speaking
and writing activities, and multimedia materials. Research widely supports the role of interactive tasks
and authentic materials in increasing learner engagement, motivation, and communicative competence
(Nunan,2004;Tomlinson,2011), suggesting that their absence may hinder optimal learning outcomes.
The ndings of this study align with those of teachers who face multiple challenges when trying to
implement CGI because of large class sizes, limited time for communicative activities, and a lack of
access to multimedia resources. Studies have highlighted that these constraints reduce teachers’ ability
to diversify their instructional practices and fully adopt communicative approaches in real classroom
contexts (Butler,2011;Littlewood,2007).
Teachers who understand the value of CGI face diculties with its complete application because their
teaching environment includes too many students, their teaching time is restricted, and their teach-
ing materials are insucient. The challenges educators face in their work mirror research ndings
that show that educational institutions face structural challenges that prevent them from implementing
CLT in their academic programs (Hu,2002;Li,1998). The teachers stated their worries about nding the
correct balance between accurate language use and smooth speech because they believed that students
would develop permanent grammar problems through excessive emphasis on spoken communication.
The research demonstrates that teaching methods should combine form-focused instruction with prac-
tical language use, because this approach creates better learning results (Doughty &Williams,1998;
Long,1991). The development of language uency and accuracy requires educators to maintain an
appropriate balance between teaching communication skills and providing direct grammar training.
Generally, this study proves that while CGI enhances learners’ uency, syntactic variety, and real-time
self-correction capabilities, its pedagogical potential is hampered by a disconnect between theoreti-
cal awareness and classroom execution. Although educators recognize grammar as an essential and
contextualized “shing rod” for competent speech (Wang,2010), inconsistent depth of understanding
and systemic barriers, such as overcrowded classrooms, limited resources, and restricted instructional
time, result in only partial implementation. The ndings suggest that English language instruction has
successfully returned to a model in which grammar is viewed as an indispensable pillar of communi-
cation. However, achieving a perfect balance between uency and accuracy requires sustained profes-
sional development and structural support to ensure eective integration of form-focused instruction
into authentic real-world interactions.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
This study set out to evaluate the implementation of communicative grammar instruction at the Grade
10 level by examining teachers’ theoretical knowledge, classroom practices, and the challenges aect-
ing its use. The research found that teachers who possess the necessary qualications and demonstrate
adequate theoretical knowledge of CGI fail to apply this knowledge in their teaching practice. Teach-
ers handle grammar teaching through a system that requires students to adhere to rules while they
demonstrate their understanding of grammar and assess students’ ability to create accurate sentences.
Teachers reported using interactive strategies such as pair and group work, but classroom observa-
tions and student responses showed that these techniques had limited application during the grammar
lessons. Teachers faced two major challenges when attempting to deliver context-based CGI because
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 62
they lacked teaching materials. Students developed strong memorization habits because they had few
chances to practice real language skills, which would help them achieve their language competence
goals.
5.2 Recommendations
To optimize CGI ecacy, educators are encouraged to move away from conventional rote memoriza-
tion toward more dynamic and communication-centered approaches, where grammar is treated as a
functional tool rather than a package of rules. The shift involves inductive teaching strategies, which
help students uncover grammatical patterns during meaningful interactions instead of just passively re-
ceiving explanations. Additionally, learners should have an active role in their own progress by doing
practical task-based classroom activities that narrow the distance between what they know theoreti-
cally and what they can actually use in real life. If these pedagogical changes are to last, schools and
other institutions need to tackle the logistical obstacles, such as crowded classrooms and insucient
resources, so that there is an environment that can support the successful implementation of CGI.
Funding Information
No author received funding for the purpose of this research
Conict of Interests
The authors declare that there are no conicts of interest
References
Abdulrahman,N. C. (2019). Linguistic, communicative, and interactional competences. Journal of Ad-
vances in Linguistics,10(1), 1600–1616.
Abdushukurova,U. (2024). The grammar of uency: Bridging traditional grammar teaching with com-
municative language practice. Interdiscipline Innovation and Scientic Research Conference,2(20),
436–443.
Abiy,Y. (2011). Eects of teacher mediation on student concept development in amharic literacy. Journal
of Language and Culture,2(3), 45–56.
Akyel,A. (2000). Form-focused instruction in communicative language teaching: Implications for gram-
mar textbooks. TESL Canada Journal,18(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v18i1.899
Allehyani,B. (2026). Students’ awareness of the importance of using proper english grammar in the
job market: A critical examination of perceptions and practices. Frontiers in Education.https:
//doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1825388
Aminah,A. (2023). The role of grammar in meaningful communication. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research,14(2), 45–56.
Amirjanli,M. (2025). Explicit vs. implicit grammar instruction: A review of current debates. Language
Teaching Review,19(1), 77–92.
Andrian,D. (2023). Grammar instruction in communicative language teaching classrooms: Student
teachers’ perceptions. Future Trends of Science and Education, 78.
Azimi,M. (2016). E teachers’ beliefs towards current methods of teaching english grammar in a selected language
center [Master’s thesis]. University of Malaya.
Belpaeme,T. (2018). Interactive learning and language development. Educational Technology & Society,
120–132.
Best,J. W., & Kahn,J. V. (2016). Research in education. Pearson.
Braun,V., & Clarke,V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Butler,Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the
asia-pacic region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,31, 36–57.
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 63
Canale,M., & Swain,M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,1, 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Celce-Murcia,M. (2000). Teaching english as a second or foreign language (3rd). Heinle & Heinle.
Cents-Boonstra,M.,Lichtwarck-Ascho,A.,Denessen,E.,Aelterman,N., & Haerens,L. (2021). Fos-
tering student engagement with motivating teaching: An observation study of teacher and
student behaviours. Research Papers in Education,36(6), 754–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02671522.2020.1767184
Cohen,L.,Manion,L., & Morrison,K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th). Routledge.
Creswell,J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th). SAGE
Publications.
Creswell,J. W., & Creswell,J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods ap-
proaches (5th). Sage Publications.
Denzin,N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1558689812437186
Dereje,M. (2012). An exploration of english language teaching in ethiopian secondary schools [MA thesis].
Addis Ababa University [Unpublished].
Doughty,C., & Williams,J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second-language acquisition. Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis,R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Field,A. (2013). Discovering statistics using ibm spss statistics (4th). Sage.
Finnegan,R. (2012). Oral literature in africa (Open Book Publishers ed.). Open Book Publishers. https:
//doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0025
Fontana,M. (2015). The social barriers female chinese international students encounter when transitioning to a
private high school in the united states [Doctoral dissertation]. California Lutheran University.
Garner,B. A. (2021). Garner’s modern english usage (5th). Oxford University Press.
Getinet,T., & Alemu,A. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of communicative language teaching in ethiopian
secondary schools. Ethiopian Journal of Education,40(2), 1–20.
Goldberg,R. T. (2023). Recovering grammar. Legal Writing,27, 1–25.
Habiburrahman,M. A. (2025). The importance of grammar in communication. EJI: English Journal of
Indragiri,9(2), 498–512.
Harahap,W. S. P., & Ardi,H. (2023). Teachers’ communicative competence. Advances in Social Science,
Education and Humanities Research, 276–285. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-166-1_40
Harun,M. (2019). Teaching grammar for communicative purposes. ELT Journal,73(4), 389–398.
Hemnani,B. M. B. (2023). The development of oral interaction: The use of functional language to achieve com-
municative eciency in the e classroom [Unpublished].
Hery,Y. (2017). Teachers and students perceptions of communicative competence in english as a foreign
language in indonesia. Educational Research and Reviews,12(12), 867–883. https://doi.org/10.
5897/err2017.3243
Heugh,K.,Benson,C.,Bogale,B., & Yohannes,M. A. (2007). Final report: Study on the medium of instruction
in primary schools in ethiopia (tech. rep.). Ministry of Education.
Hidayati,R. A. (2023). The eectiveness of the learning together strategy in teaching vocabulary [Doctoral
dissertation]. UIN Mataram.
Hinkel,E. (2024). Teaching academic esl writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar (2nd). Rout-
ledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003312584
Hu,G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language
teaching in china. Language, Culture and Curriculum,15(2), 93–105.
Hymes,D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride &J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–
285). Penguin Books.
Kizi,N. E. (2024). Eective ways of teaching grammar. Eurasian Journal of Academic Research,4(7S), 319–
322.
Kolovou,M. (2023). Teachers’ interaction patterns. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Edu-
cation,21(5), 1451–1472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10270-0
Kothari,C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd). New Age International Publish-
ers.
Larsen-Freeman,D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman,D. (2019). Grammar. In An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 19–34). Routledge.
Li,D. (1998). “it’s always more dicult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived diculties in
introducing the communicative approach in south korea. TESOL Quarterly,32(4), 677–703.
Littlewood,W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in east asian classrooms. Lan-
guage Teaching,40(3), 243–249.
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 64
Long,M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot
et al. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). John Benjamins.
Lyster,R. (2013). Content-based language teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855649
MDPI. (2026). Self-determined learning in multilingual distance education: A review on heutagogical
practices, autonomy, metacognition, and technology-enhanced learning. Multilingual Educa-
tion.https://doi.org/10.3302/3042-6308/2/1/3
Meydan,C. H., & Akkas,H. (2024). The role of triangulation in qualitative research: Converging per-
spectives. In Principles of conducting qualitative research in multicultural settings (pp. 98–129).
https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-3306-8.ch006
Ministry of Education. (2017). Grade 10 english syllabus (tech. rep.). Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, Ministry of Education.
Moe,M. M. (2019). Teaching grammar through communicative language teaching. International Journal
for Advanced Research and Development,4(8), 75–77.
Norris,J. M., & Ortega,L. (2000). Eectiveness of l2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative
meta-analysis. Language Learning,50(3), 417–528.
Nunan,D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Olafson,L.,Grandy,C. S., & Owens,M. C. (2014). Qualitative approaches to studying teachers’ beliefs.
In International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 128–149). Routledge.
Osborne,N., & Grant-Smith,D. (2021). In-depth interviewing. In Methods in urban analysis (pp. 105–125).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1670-4_6
Peckham,S. (2020). Task-based learning in language classrooms. Language Education Studies,12(2), 66–
80.
Purgina,M. (2020). Wordbricks. Journal of Educational Computing Research,58(1), 126–159. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0735633119833011
Putra,M. T. I. (2021). Teaching communicative grammar: A literature review. Cape Comorin Journal.
Rama,J. L., & Agulló,G. L. (2012). The role of grammar teaching: From communicative approaches to
the common european framework of reference for languages. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas
Aplicadas,7.https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2012.1134
Richards,J. C., & Rodgers,T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd). Cambridge
University Press.
Ruzmetova,D. (2025). Interactive techniques in language teaching [Unpublished manuscript].
Sadeghi,K. (2024). Eects of communicative grammar instruction on e learners. Journal of Second Lan-
guage Studies,18(1), 101–119.
Santos,K. D. S. (2020). Multiple triangulation. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva,25, 655–664. https://doi.org/
10.1590/1413-81232020252.12302018
Schoen,R. C. (2018). Cgi teacher development programs (Research Report No. 2018-25).
Sevy-Biloon,J. (2018). Integrating e skills for authentically teaching specic grammar and vocabulary.
Studies in English Language and Education,5(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i2.
9705
Sheng,L. (2024). Challenges in implementing communicative approaches in e contexts. TESOL Quar-
terly,58(2), 233–250.
South,L. (2022). Likert scales in visualization. Computer Graphics Forum,41(3), 43–55. https://doi.org/
10.1111/cgf.14511
Spada,N. (2008). Focus on form. In Encyclopedia of language and education. Springer.
Sreehari,P. (2012). Communicative language teaching: Possibilities and problems. English Language
Teaching,5(12). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n12p87
Sun,Y. (2022). Form-focused instruction in e classrooms: A global perspective. System,105, 102745.
Tadesse,T. (2014). E teachers’ beliefs and practices in ethiopia: The case of communicative language
teaching. Journal of Education and Practice,5(31), 141–147.
Tekeste,N. (2010). Education in ethiopia: From crisis to the brink of collapse. Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Tesfaye,W., & Davidson,L. (2008). The use of english as a medium of instruction in ethiopian secondary
schools. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,29(3), 263–276.
Thwaite,A. (2019). Halliday’s view of child language learning: Has it been misinterpreted? Australian
Journal of Teacher Education,44(5), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n5.3
Tomlinson,B. (2011). Materials development in language teaching (2nd). Cambridge University Press.
Tudini,V. (2018). Interactivity in language learning. The Language Learning Journal,46(2), 132–145. https:
//doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1120738
Wang,F. (2010). The necessity of grammar teaching. English Language Teaching,3(2). https://doi.org/
10.5539/elt.v3n2p78
Watkins,C. (2021). Teaching assistant handbook: A guide for graduate students. Routledge.
Widdowson,H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication.
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 44-65 65
Woymo,W. (2024). Communicative grammar instruction in ethiopian secondary schools. Ethiopian Jour-
nal of Education,44(1), 55–72.
Wright,A. (2016). Games for language learning (3rd). Cambridge University Press.
Zam,Z.,Caicedo,A. L.,Patiño,A. E. C.,Alvarez,A. N. M., & Arévalo,T. V. O. (2025). Speaking skills and
grammar knowledge among english as a foreign language learners at a public high school in
marcabeli, 2025-2026 school year. Ciencia y Reexión,5(1), 672–695. https://cienciayreflexion.
org/index.php/Revista/article/download/810/1407/5510
Zang,X. (2018). Grammar teaching in communicative classrooms. ICESSH 2018 Proceedings, 282–285.
https://doi.org/10.2991/iccessh-18.2018.64
EHSS Jarssa B.A. and Firomsa B.A.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/vyxeg974
