Volume 7, Issue 6, November 2019, Page: 345-350
Assessment of Active Learning Methods in Linguistic Courses: Ambo University in Focus, Ethiopia
Samuel Leykun, Department of Linguistics, Ambo University, Ambo, Ethiopia
Received: Aug. 21, 2019;       Accepted: Oct. 24, 2019;       Published: Dec. 6, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijll.20190706.23      View  447      Downloads  148
This study attempts to explore learning style in Linguistic courses in which learners respond to and use different kinds of stimuli in their learning. Unlike other discipline, in linguistics learning is a development process in which learners use their existing knowledge to make sense of the flow of new information. The objectives of this study were Investigate both students’ and teachers’ feelings towards active learning methods, explore factors that hinder the application of ALMs in Language classes, identify the prevalent practices, opportunities and threats of ALMs Language classes, and seek remedial solutions for the identified problems in linguistics courses. The research design of this study was qualitative and quantitative. To collect the important information for the research the researcher was used the instruments such as questionnaire, and systematic observation. To mention some the findings most of the instructors used different active learning methods specially group discussion, class discussion, and presentation to deliver their lesson in linguistic courses. In addition, there are teachers who used Bus Stop, Gallery, Individual work and Gold Fish Bowl methods in addition to the above four stated methods of teaching to deliver their lesson as needed. Lack of willingness and commitment from teachers and students, Most students’ negative attitude towards ALMs, Large class size, Lack of resources and facilities, Students’ poor academic background, and the influence of old method of teaching. The university should prepare different workshop to develop the knowledge of teachers and students on ALMs in general and linguistic courses in particular.
Active Learning Methods, Education, Linguistic
To cite this article
Samuel Leykun, Assessment of Active Learning Methods in Linguistic Courses: Ambo University in Focus, Ethiopia, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 7, No. 6, 2019, pp. 345-350. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20190706.23
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Atkins, J. Hailom, B. and Nuru, M. (1995) skills developments methodology part 1 Addis Ababa University press.
Atota Badane (2010) An exploration of the primary purpose of teachers’ feedback practices to students’ written works in English classrooms: instructional v/s evaluative with reference to bale zone preparatory schools (TEFL). Unpublished MA Thesis Addis Ababa University.
Betty Mattix (2004) Reading and Writing Well, 3rd ed.
Byrne, D. (1988) Teaching Writing Skills. Long man.
Cohen, A and M. Covalcanti (1990) Feedback on compositions: Teachers and Students verbal Deports. In B. Kroll (ed).
Cohen, A D. Feedback on Writing: The use of Verbal Report. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. (1991).
Cook, V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (3rd. ed) New York: Oxford University Press Inc. (2001).
Cottrell, S. Teaching study skills and Supporting Learning New York: Palgrave, Metamorphous Press. (2001).
Cohen, A. D. Feedback on Writing. The use of Verbal Report, Studies in Second Language Acquisition. (1991).
Bllis, R. The study of second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Pres. (1994).
Plizgerald, J. Research on Revision in writing. Urbana, III: National Council of teachers’ of English. (1987).
Freedman, S. W. Response to Student Writing, Urbana, III: National Council of teachers’ of English. (1987).
Harmer, J. The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed) London: Lond man. 2001.
Gardner, C. what correction Techniques do learners like which are the most effective? In Hill, J. et al (eds). Effective teaching and learning. Modern English publications. (1990).
Getnet T. The Responding Behavior of Sophomore English Instructors of Addis Ababa University to students’ Writing: Unpublished MA. Thesis: Addis Ababa University. (1994).
Italo, B. A comparison of the Effectiveness of Teachers versus peer Feedback on AAU students’ Writing Revisions: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. (1999).
Lightbown, p. and N. Spada focus on Form and Corrective Feedback in Communication Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisiton. 1981.
Littlewood, W. T Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction Cambridge: CUP 1981.
Marion Williams and Robert L. Burden psychologist for Language (1997).
Norish, J. Language Learners and their Errors. Macmillan (1993).
Nunan, D The Learner centered curriculum; Cambridge: Cup Richards. 1988.
Nuna, D. Language Teaching Methodology (1991).
Nuru M. Feedback in the EFL Classrooms: An Exploration of its Role in the communication of Teacher Expectations; Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation (2000).
Ornstein, A, C. Strategies for Effective Teaching (2nd ed) Chicago: Wadswarth, Inc 1995.
Raimes, A. Techniques in Teaching Writing. Oxford University Press (1983).
Shamim, F. Maximizing Learning in Large Classes: Issues and Options Addis Ababa: United Printing press. (2007).
Sheorey, R. Error Perception of Native-Speaking and Non-Native speaking teachers of ESL. In ELT Journal 40/4. (1986).
Woods, D. Error-correction and the Improvement of Language form, TESI Canada Journal (1989).
Zamel, V. The Composing Process of Advanced, ESL Students: Six Case Studies TESOL Quarterly (1989).
Browse journals by subject