An-Najah National University 

Faculty of Graduate Studies 
 

 
 

 

 

 

The Influence of Community Language 

Learning Approach on Improving the 

Students' English Speaking Skills at the 

Arab American University-Jenin 

 

 

 
 

By 

Islam Tayseer Fayed 
 

 

 

 

Supervisor 

Dr. Ahmed Awad 

 
 

 

This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the 

Requirements of the Degree of Master Methods of Teaching 

English Language, Faculty of Graduate studies, An-Najah 

National University, Nablus, Palestine. 

2016 



II 
   

 

 
 

 

 

The Influence of Community Language 

Learning Approach on Improving the 

Students' English Speaking Skills at the 

Arab American University-Jenin 

 
 

By 

Islam Tayseer Fayed 

 

This Thesis was defended successfully on 21/12 /2016 and approved by: 

Defense Committee Members  Signature 

Dr. Ahmed Awad / Supervisor ………..……… 

Dr. Mohammad Farrah / External Examiner ………..……… 

Dr. Ayman Nazzal / Internal Examiner             ………..……… 



III 
   

Dedication 

I dedicate this work to Allah who guides me and gives me 

strength to keep going. 

  To my home land Palestine, the land of beginnings and ends. 

To those who sacrificed their souls for the sake of this land, those 

dignified martyrs who chose the other optimal life. 

To my dear mother, my second soul in this life, the woman who 

has never left me alone, the woman who supported, cared, and always 

loved me. 

To my dear father; my man, who was there for me in every 

single detail of my life, the man who cared, supported and always loved 

me. 

To the kindest hearts, my sisters Shaima and Rayan. To my 

brothers for their constant love and support.  

To my dear uncle Murad for his constant love and support. 

  To my precious friends: Rahma, Amal, Fardous, Naira, Samah 

and Raghad; who have always resembled the meaning of real 

friendship and sweetened my life. 

To the memory of my grandmother Om Jihad. 

To those who left their remains on the walls of my heart, whom 

effect is the like the butterfly effect. 



IV 
   

Acknowledgement 

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor 

Dr. Ahmed Awad for his constant support and encouragement during 

writing this study. I also wish to thank him for making me a better 

researcher through his useful suggestions and guidance. Without his 

valuable recommendations and motivation, I wouldn’t be able to finish 

this study. 

 I wish to express my gratitude to my uncle Mr. Murad Abu-

Alhaija since this work couldn’t have been accomplished without his 

help. He was there for me during my MA academic journey and 

during accomplishing this work. I also wish to thank the external 

examiner Dr. Mohammed Farrah for his valuable notes and 

comments. I further extend my thanks to the internal examiner Dr. 

Ayman Nazzal for his valuable recommendations. 

Finally I would like to thank my family, my friends, my 

colleagues and those who believed in me, trusted me and supported me 

all the way long.  

 



V 
   

 اإلقرار

 أنا الموقعة أدناه صاحبة الرسالة التي تحمل العنوان:

استخدام اسموب التعمم المجتمعي في تحسين المهاراتأثر   
جنين-الجامعة العربية األمريكيةالشفوية لدى طمبة   

The Influence of Community Language 

Learning Approach on Improving the 

Students' English Speaking Skills at the 

Arab American University-Jenin 
 

ُأِقر بأّن ما اشتممت عميو ىذه الرسالة إنما ىي نتاج جيدي الخاص, باستثناء ما تمت 
اإلشارة إليو حيثما ورد, و أّن ىذه الرسالة ككل, أو أي جزء منيا لم يقدم من قبل لنيل أي درجة 

 .بحثية أخرى عممية أو بحث عممي لدى أي مؤسسة تعممية أو

Declaration 

The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the 

researcher‟s own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other 

degree or qualification. 

 :Islam Tayseer Fayed Student‟s Name اسم الطالب:

 :Signature …………………………………… التوقيع: 

 :Date 21/12/2016 التاريخ: 



VI 
   

Table of Contents 

Subject Page 

Dedication III 

Acknowledgement IV 

Declaration V 

Table of Contents VI 

List of Tables VIII 

List of Appendices IX 

Abstract X 

Chapter one: Introduction and Theoretical Background 1 

1.1 Introduction 2 

1.2 Theoretical Background 3 

1.3 Statement of the Problem 13 

1.4 Objectives of the Study 13 

1.5 Questions of the Study 14 

1.6 Significance of the Study 15 

1.7 Limitations of the Study 17 

1.8 Definition of Terms 17 

1.9 Summary 18 

Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature 19 

2.1 Introduction 20 

2.2 Speaking 20 

2.3 Community Language Learning Approach 25 

2.4 The Effectiveness of CLL in Improving Students‟ Oral 

Communicative Skills 

28 

2.5 Studies that Deal with the Role of CLL in Creating a 

Student-Centered Classroom Environment 

32 

2.6 Studies that Deal with the Role of CLL in Reducing 

Students‟ Anxieties 

33 

2.7 Summary 36 



VII 
   

Subject Page 

Chapter Three: Methodology and Procedures 37 

3.1 Introduction 38 

3.2 Study Approach  38 

3.3 Methodology and Design of the Study 38 

3.4 Study Questions 39 

3.5 Study Instruments 41 

3.6 Procedures of data collection and analysis 42 

3.7 Study Population 43 

3.8 Study Sample 44 

3.9 Validity and Reliability of the Instrument  46 

3.10 Study Variables 46 

3.11 Summary 47 

Chapter Four: Findings of the Study  48 

4.1 Introduction 49 

4.2 Findings Related to the Pre-test and Post-test 49 

4.2.1 Findings Related to the Sub Questions 51 

4.2.2 Findings Related to the Main Question 60 

4.3 Summary 62 

Chapter Five: Discussion of Results, Conclusion and 

Recommendations 

63 

5.1 Introduction 64 

5.2 Discussion of the Study Results 64 

5.2.1 Findings Relate to the Main Question 64 

5.2.2 Findings Related to the Sub Questions 68 

5.3 Conclusion 74 

5.4 Recommendations 75 

References 77 

Appendices 85 

 ب الممخص



VIII 
   

List of Tables 

Table No. Subject Page 

Table (1) Sample distribution according to methodology 

variable. 

44 

Table (2) Sample distribution according to gender variable. 45 

Table (3) Sample distribution according to academic level 

variable 

45 

Table (4) Paired Samples T-Test for respondents‟ results 

between the Pre & Post Speaking Test of the 

Experimental Group. 

51 

Table (5) Paired Samples T-Test for respondents‟ results 

between the Pre & Post Speaking Test of the Control 

Group. 

52 

Table (6) Independent Sample T-Test for respondents‟ results 

between the Post Speaking Test of the Control Group 

and the Experimental Group. 

53 

Table (7) Paired Samples T-Test for respondents‟ results 

between the pre & Post Speaking Tests of the 

Experimental Group for males. 

54 

Table (8) Results of the Paired Samples T-Test of the pre & 

Post Speaking Tests of the Experimental Group for 

females. 

55 

Table (9) Paired Samples T-Test for respondents‟ results 

between the pre & Post Speaking Tests of the 

Experimental Group due to Academic level. 

56 

Table (10) Paired Samples T-Test for respondents‟ results 

between the pre & Post Speaking Tests of the control 

Group for males. 

57 

Table (11) Paired Samples T-Test for respondents‟ results 

between the pre & Post Speaking Tests of the control 

Group for females. 

58 

Table (12) Paired Samples T-Test for respondents‟ results between 

the pre & Post Speaking Tests of the control Group due 

to Academic level. 

59 

Table (13) Independent Sample T-Test for respondents‟ results 

between the Post Speaking Test of the Control Group 

and the Experimental Group. 

60 

Table (14) Independent Sample T-Test for respondents‟ results 

between the Post Speaking Test of the Control Group 

and the Experimental Group for each speaking aspect. 

61 

 



IX 
   

List of Appendices 

Appendix No. Title Page 

Appendix A English Speaking Tests 85 

Appendix B The Validation Committee of the Test 91 

Appendix C Permission of The English Language Center at 

The Arab American University 

92 

Appendix D Assessment Sheet 93 

 

 



X 
   

The Influence of Community Language 

Learning Approach on Improving the 

Students' English Speaking Skills at the 

Arab American University-Jenin 

By 

Islam Tayseer Fayed 

Supervisor 

Dr. Ahmed Awad 

Abstract 

 This study investigated the influence of using Community Language 

Learning Approach (CLLA) on improving the students‟ English speaking 

skills at the English language center at Arab American University in Jenin. 

The study also investigated the influence of these variables (gender and 

academic level) on the students‟ performance in a speaking test. So as to 

achieve this purpose, the researcher used a speaking test on a 56-student 

sample that consisted of two groups out of the English intermediate level 

students.  Results  revealed that there were statistical significant differences 

at α =0.05 between the means of the two groups in favor of the 

experimental group which proved the effectiveness of using CLLA in 

improving the students‟ English speaking skill.   In the light of the study 

findings the researcher recommended the appropriate use of CLLA in 

classrooms along with students‟ intensive participation in all class 

activities. Additionally further research was recommended on the influence 

of CLLA on improving the students‟ speaking skills. 



1 
   

 

 

 

Chapter One 

Introduction and Theoretical Background 

1.1 Introduction  

1.2 Theoretical background 

1.3 Statement of the problem 

1.4 Questions of the study 

1.5 Objectives of the study 

1.6 Significance of the study 

1.7 Limitations of the study 

1.8 Definitions of terms 

1.9 Summary 



2 
   

Chapter One 

Introduction and Theoretical Background 

1.1 Introduction:  

Speaking is the human‟s means of communication since the 

beginning of life. People use speaking to express their needs, feelings, 

desires and ideas. Since English became a wide spread language among 

nations, spoken in most countries and used in all life walks, it became 

important to emphasize teaching English in our country. The four language 

skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing are very interrelated, but 

in most of the real life situations students are judged upon their speaking 

ability that‟s why efficient teaching approaches and methods should be 

employed in teaching speaking skills. 

In the early 1970‟s Community Language Learning Approach 

showed up. It‟s a communicative method developed by Curran; which is 

resembled in a counseling learning system. It aims to build a counselor-

client relationship between teachers and students. This method enables 

students to speak freely about what they wish to learn. It also makes 

students more responsible and it eliminates their anxieties towards learning 

which leads to more effective teaching (Curran, 1976). 

 

 



3 
   

1.2 Theoretical background: 

1.2.1 Constructivists Learning Theory: Cognitive constructivism and 

social constructivism: 

The first principle of constructivist education inspired by Piaget‟s 

theory is to develop a socio moral atmosphere in which mutual respect is 

continually practiced. The Piagetian constructivist teacher promotes a 

feeling of community in the classroom, makes it possible for children to 

make classroom rules and many decisions about life in the classroom, 

conducts discussions about social and moral issues, promotes conflict 

resolution, and consults children about what they want to learn. Vygotsky‟s 

theory in education suggests that the child is not a passive recipient of adult 

guidance and assistance; in instructional programs, the active involvement 

of the child is essential. Both Piagetians and Vygotskians consider that 

curriculum should be based on children‟s interests and needs. They also 

emphasize the role of the social education in child development (Devries, 

2000). 

Constructivists believed that learners develop knowledge through 

active participation in their learning. However, Piaget believed that 

cognitive development is achieved through observation and 

experimentation whereas Vygotsky viewed it as a social process, achieved 

through interaction with more knowledgeable members of the culture. 

Piaget‟s theory of cognitive development suggested that humans are unable 

to automatically understand and use information, because they need to 



4 
   

“construct” their own knowledge through previous personal experiences to 

enable them to create mental patterns. Therefore, the primary role of the 

teacher should be to motivate the learners to learn form their own 

knowledge through their own experiences. Vygotsky referred to his work 

as “social” constructivism. Vygotsky‟s theory was very similar to Piaget‟s 

assumptions about how children learn, but Vygotsky placed more 

importance on the social context of learning. Learning activities in 

constructivist settings are characterized by active engagement, inquiry, 

problem solving, and collaboration with others. So the teacher here is a 

guide, facilitator, and co-explorer who encourages learners to question, 

challenge, and formulate their own ideas, opinions, and conclusions 

(Weeger & Pacis, 2012). 

1.2.2 Student- centered classroom and counseling learning: 

Any classroom is a place for learning. However, the modern attitudes 

towards learning call for changing the conventional methods used in 

classrooms. Changing the classroom environment from a quiet and strict 

one into physical environment which includes changing the students' 

seating and forming small groups according to activities and situations is 

considered an effective modern strategy. Classrooms should include a 

variety activities and demonstrations in order to enrich the teaching-

learning process, so teachers should be able to engage students with their 

all senses to focus their attention on the learning material. Most of the time, 

students‟ progress and proficiency are judged based on their oral 



5 
   

participation in the classroom, sometimes students‟ anxieties and fears 

stand as an obstacle in front of the learning progress especially when 

talking about shy, timid, and low self-steam students, they find it difficult 

to speak especially in a conventional classroom, so using modern 

communicative student-centered techniques help improve students 

speaking skill; therefore, improving their overall performance (Jones, 

2007).  

Counseling learning, a new approach to speech correction was 

introduced in the 1950‟s, which was the one that called for the principles of 

teaching foreign languages based on counseling. Backus believed that the 

reduction or removal of possible barriers in terms of interpersonal 

relationships would benefit clients in a better acquisition of speaking skills. 

Her work could be considered as a fundamental psychology of CLLA via 

the plain rapport between the teacher as a counselor and the learner as a 

client (Backus, 1952). 

1.2.3 Community Language Learning Approach: 

Community Language Learning Approach, which differs from other 

traditional methods, has a variety of techniques that help reduce students 

anxieties concerning speaking. These techniques and activities deal with 

students as members of community who follow the teacher‟s guidance. 

Making students work together in a collaborative groups helps to make 

them feel comfortable while learning in a non-competitive environment, 

furthermore,  Giving students the chance to choose the topic that interest 

http://jshd.pubs.asha.org/solr/searchresults.aspx?author=Ollie+Backus


6 
   

them to talk about, creates understanding between the teacher and the 

students and accordingly help students to feel more secure (Freeman, 

2000). 

Community language learning approach as a communicative, 

student-centered approach places a great focus on group work and pair 

work, especially in teaching speaking skill.  Group work and pair work 

have been popular in language teaching for many years and have many 

advantages. They both foster cooperative activities in that the students 

involved in working together to complete a task. In pairs and groups, 

students tend to participate more actively, and they also have more chance 

to experience the language more than it is possible in a whole-class 

arrangement (Harmer, 2007). 

One of the major characteristics in CLLA is to create an atmosphere 

of community to which all the learners belong, as they participate in group 

activities. Another characteristic is the resource person, who is more or less 

a counselor who tries to reduce tension as well as to break the traditional 

concept of the teacher-student relationship by not teaching but counseling, 

not evaluating nor praising. The relationship between the learner and the 

resource person as that of a child and a parent. The understanding and 

acceptance without any evaluation on the part of the resource person is the 

heart of the success of CLL. It is worth mentioning the fact that there is no 

test period in the regular sense of a test set in the CLL procedure, but the 



7 
   

"reflection" phase can provide the same effect as self-evaluation to the 

learners (Tamura, 1983). 

CLLA enables the teacher to focus on the whole class while students 

immediately react positively to work in a community. They respond well to 

peer-correction without any embarrassment, so by working together they 

overcome their fear of speaking. Quieter students are able to offer 

corrections to their peers and gladly contribute to the recording stage of the 

lesson, so CLLA is a teaching method that involves all students in the 

teaching-learning process, not just focusing on certain group of them. By 

employing this approach, both teacher and student will find it easy to 

develop students‟ speaking skill within a friendly and effective classroom 

environment (Moskowitz, 1978) 

1.2.4 CLL syllabus and class activities:  

CLLA is most often used in teaching speaking. CLL does not use a 

traditional syllabus, which sorts out the language in advance into sets of 

grammar, vocabulary, and other linguistic items to be covered and the order 

in which they will be taught. CLLA course syllable is topic based, in which 

learners choose things they wish to talk about and messages they wish to 

convey to other learners. The teacher's responsibility is to provide the 

suitable forms for these meanings in a way that matches the learners' 

proficiency level.  CLL teachers should fit what learners want to express to 

appropriate translations that students may use at that level. In this sense 

CLL syllabus comes out from the interaction between the learner's 



8 
   

expressed utterances and the teacher's reformulations of these into suitable 

target language chunks. Some grammatical and lexical patterns will 

sometimes be separated by the teacher for more detailed study. Each CLL 

has its own syllabus since what develops out of teacher-learner interactions 

in one course will be different from what happens in another (Nagaraj, 

2009) 

1.2.5 Types of learning and teaching activities: 

As explained by Richards and Rodgers (2001) CLL has a variety of 

learning tasks and that include translation collaboration via group work, 

recording, transcription, analysis, listening and reflection among other 

activities that can affect students‟ speaking and personalities as well. 

1.2.6 The Importance of Speaking and Communication Skills: 

From the early beginning, speaking was the first means of 

communication. People used to communicate through sounds and then 

these sounds had shaped a meaningful language units in order to build a 

comprehensible structure. The four language skills of listening, speaking, 

reading and writing are very interrelated. In most of the real life situations, 

students are judged upon their speaking ability. Proficiency in speaking is a 

clear indication of competency in using words in the right order to express 

right meanings, thoughts, ideas and needs. Speaking skill and interaction 

skills are very integrated. Interaction skills involve making decisions about 

communication such as: What to say and how to say it while maintaining 



9 
   

the desired relation with others. Communication skills or what we can call 

interaction skills is to use the person‟s speaking skill besides their 

knowledge and perceptions (Bygate, 1987). 

Real life communicative environment, the sense of community 

atmosphere and interactive student-centered classrooms can boost the 

students‟ communication capabilities. Argumentative oral group 

discussions and debates can make students share and exchange ideas, 

contribute equally to achieve the task purpose and this can be reinforced by 

stimulations or realistic items such as pictures and stories. That‟s why 

teachers should maintain a regular basis speaking practice in their 

classrooms (Jones, 2007). 

Teachers have to motivate students by making lessons enjoyable, 

allowing them to participate, involving them in lessons through a variety of 

activities, using texts and materials which are relevant to students‟ needs 

and also finding interesting ways to help them study exam materials. 

Furthermore, teachers should find topics that hover around the students‟ 

lives and reflect their interests to encourage them to perform a real 

communication inside and outside the classroom walls (Shalaby, 2012). 

Speaking is a very essential skill in which people can‟t accomplish 

their work or reflect their needs without it.  Learners need to communicate 

with their colleagues and teachers, they need to discuss, make 

conversations, negotiate, construct a meaningful discourse, and stand in 

front of others and just speak. At advanced stage of the learner‟s academic 



10 
   

life, they may need to give oral speeches and be interviewed or tested 

verbally, so good speaking skills help in enhancing both personal and 

academic life (Gillis, 2013). 

Speaking is a productive skill of language learning. It involves 

communicative performances and acts, and other important elements, such 

as, pronunciation, structure, grammar and vocabulary. In order to make 

learners able to use the target language in real life situations, teachers have 

a responsibility to prepare the learners as much as possible to be able to 

speak English in daily situations. As a global language, English is used in 

many things we find in our daily life and in many kinds of modern 

technology, such as mobile phones, computers, social media/networks, 

electronic machines, transportation, banking, even used in many labels of 

typical substance or materials, such as, chemicals, medicine, cosmetics, 

foods and beverage, etc. Other impact of English as a global language is the 

English mastery as a condition to have a job especially that governments 

and organizations at the current time hire the staff who have good speaking 

and communication skills (Nirmawati, 2015). 

Harmer (2007) said that communication skills comprise receptive 

skills and productive skills. Listening and reading are receptive skills while 

speaking and writing are productive skills. Receptive skills are these in 

which students receive and process the information but do not need to 

produce a language to do this, while productive skills require the 

production, for instance, a speech. Human communication is a complex 



11 
   

process. People need communication when they want to say something. 

Speakers use communication when they want to express or inform 

someone about something. They use language according to their purpose 

and it is necessary to have a listener and a speaker for effective 

communication. 

There are three main reasons for getting students to speak in the 

classroom. Firstly, speaking activities provide rehearsal opportunities, it 

also provides chances to practice real-life speaking in the safety of the 

classroom. Secondly, speaking tasks in which students try to use any or all 

of the language they know, provide feedback for both teacher and students. 

Everyone can see how well they are doing, how successful they are, and 

also what language problems they are experiencing. Finally, the more 

students have opportunities to activate the various language elements they 

have in their brains, the more automatic their use of these elements 

become. As a result, students gradually become autonomous language 

users. This means that they will be able to use words and phrases fluently 

and unconsciously (Harmer, 2007). 

Palmer (2011) stated that well spoken English is more than a guide 

for helping students write better speeches. It also contains many practical 

ideas for teaching students how to deliver better speeches. He stated that 

how a speech is performed may be more important than how it is build. 

Well spoken English offers excellent strategies to help students to capture 



12 
   

the right tone and voice to achieve the right kind of eye contact, and to be 

aware of how one‟s appearance and actions affect a speech. 

As noted by Goh and Burns (2012), second language learners who 

attend schools where teaching is conducted in the target language can be 

engaged effectively in the discourse of an academic environment if they 

have good speaking abilities. Inability to do so can cause learners to be 

disadvantaged in a system where not only proficiency in the target 

language is desirable, but also the ability to control the academic register in 

the spoken mood is highly valued. Speaking also directly benefits learners 

because it facilitates second language acquisition. This can occur if learners 

get a chance to receive feedback on their spoken performance and are 

pushed to pay attention to linguistic forms that are causing their 

communication problems. 

Goh (2007) stated that speaking is an essential tool for language 

teaching and learning. It can facilitate language acquisition and 

development, and it can be beneficial to learners‟ academic achievement. 

As an important aspect of language skills. Goh (2005) also found that good 

speaking competence is essential to English learners, especially for those 

English majors at normal universities, for English teaching is likely to be 

their lifelong career. 

 

 



13 
   

1.3 Statement of the problem: 

Based on the long experience of the researcher in teaching English 

for the Arab learners at the English language center at the Arab American 

university-Jenin, the researcher noticed that Arab learners of English as a 

second language face problems in English specially in speaking due to their 

personal anxieties, threatening classroom environment, few practice and 

uninteresting topics that don‟t match their levels or interests. The 

researcher investigated if there are any significant differences between 

students‟ speaking skill taught via the various techniques of CLLA in 

which the students are the players and the teacher is the referee and those 

taught by a teacher-centered method in which the teacher is the player and 

the referee. 

1.4 Objectives of the study: 

This study has two objectives which are:  

1. To investigate the influence of CLLA on improving students‟ 

speaking skills 

2. To Find out if there are any statistical significant differences in the 

students‟ speaking results in the speaking tests after applying CLLA 

due to gender and to university academic level. 



14 
   

1.5 Questions of the study: 

This study tried to answer the following questions: 

1. What is the influence of using community language learning 

approach on improving students „speaking skills? 

2. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the experimental group? 

3. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the control group? 

4. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the post-tests for 

both the control group and the experimental group? 

5. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the experimental group due to gender? 



15 
   

6. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the experimental group due to the academic level? 

7. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the control group due to gender? 

8. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the control group due to the academic level? 

1.6 Significance of the study: 

This study is important for two reasons 

Firstly, conventional methods treat students as passive receivers. It 

resembles the teacher as a sacred source of knowledge who should talk 

while students only listen and try to absorb and benefit from what they 

hear. These methods of teaching deprive students from having 

opportunities to speak and to practice the language the way that suits their 

level. Exposing students to such classes and restricted topics wouldn‟t give 

them the chance to practice speaking in real life situation or even to speak 

in the topics that interest them. Students‟ performance will be enhanced if 



16 
   

they choose the material that suit their interests and reflect their needs 

hence CLLA is a good attempt to provide students with this opportunity. 

The diversity of the CLLA techniques such as translation, transactional 

conversations, debates, recording and reflection creates a good chance for 

students to speak more and to practice English in real life situations using 

topics that matches their level of proficiency and meets their interests. 

Using CLLA in teaching enables students to learn through speaking and 

sharing ideas with their colleagues and with the teacher himself. So CLLA 

is efficient because it enhances the students‟ speaking abilities, helps the 

teacher in creating a student-centered classroom and gives feedback for 

teachers about the students‟ progress and performance. 

Secondly, most of learners these days use modern communication 

means like internet applications, so all what they do is sitting in front of 

their mobiles or laptops screens and speak freely by sending typed 

messages. From a psychological point of view, learners prefer this way to 

avoid the pressure of face to face communication. Even though this kind of 

technology is very beneficial but it creates anxieties for learners to speak 

orally. CLLA helps students to overcome these anxieties and feel free to 

speak through the plenty of speaking practice. It also gives feedback for the 

teacher about their students‟ attitudes and feelings. 



17 
   

1.7 Limitations of the study: 

This study considered the following limitations:  

1. Topical limitations: the study investigated the influence of CLLA on 

improving students‟ speaking skills at AAUJ. 

2. Human limitations: the study was conducted on 56 male and female 

of the intermediate English students. 

3. Locative limitations: the study was conducted at the English 

language center at the Arab American University in Jenin. 

4. Temporal limitations: the study was carried out during the summer 

semester of the academic year 2015-2016. 

1.8 Definitions of terms: 

Community language learning approach: 

Community language learning approach is a humanistic approach.it 

represents the use of counseling-learning theory to teach language. The 

basic procedure of CLL is derived from counselor-client relationship. 

(Richards and Rodgers, 2001). 

Speaking skill: 

Bailey (2005) defines speaking as a process of constructing meaning. 

The main goal of learning speaking is to enable students to communicate 

with other people by using English language being learned. The 



18 
   

communication here means to talk to others orally or in the spoken form. It 

is necessary to pay attention to some aspects like aim, time, and subject. 

1.9 Summary: 

This chapter dealt with the theoretical background of CLLA. It spot 

the light on the importance of this approach and highlighted its 

effectiveness in TEFL and in improving the students‟ speaking skills. The 

chapter also included statement of the problem, objectives of the study, 

questions of the study, significance of the study, limitations of the study 

and it ended with definition of terms that are used in the study. 



19 
   

 

 

 

Chapter Two 

Review of Related Literature 

2.1 Introduction 

2.2 Speaking  

2.3  Community Language Learning Approach 

2.4  The Effectiveness of CLL in Improving Students’ Oral 

Communicative Skills 

2.5  Studies that Deal with the Role of CLL in Creating a 

Student-Centered Classroom Environment 

2.6  Studies that Deal with the Role of CLL in Reducing 

Students’ Anxieties 

2.7 Summary 



20 
   

Chapter Two 

Review of Related Literature 

2.1 Introduction: 

This chapter presents the review of related literature which discusses 

review of the previous studies, general concept of speaking, general 

concept of community language learning approach, and the influence of 

CLL on the students‟ performance in speaking English. The researcher 

arranged the different related studies topically for the sake of facilitation, 

clarity and for making reading of the previous studies easy and enjoyable 

2.2 Speaking:  

2.2.1 Speaking definition: 

Burns and Joyce (1997) define speaking as an interactive process in 

which speakers send and receive processed information in order to 

communicate with others. Language form, meaning and function depends 

on the context itself.  Participants use certain patterns and functions in 

certain discourse based on the situation. Speaking is an ongoing process, 

people speak spontaneously to express their needs and desires, but 

sometimes speech is unpredictable.  

Bailey (2005  ( defines speaking as a process of constructing meaning. 

The main goal of learning speaking is to enable students to communicate 

with other people by using English language being learned. The 



21 
   

communication here means to talk to others orally or in the spoken form. It 

is necessary to pay attention to some aspects like aim, time, and subject. 

Speaking is the way lexical items are organized to express meanings 

so that other people can make sense of them. Moreover, it is recognized as 

an interactive, social and contextualized communicative event. Speaking 

requires learners to have a good knowledge about how to produce language 

linguistically, syntactically, and pragmatically to construct appropriate 

utterances in other words, learners need to know how to use the language in 

context Cameron (2001). 

Ur (1996) considered speaking as the most important skill among 

four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) because people who 

know a language are referred to as speakers of that language. This indicates 

that using a language is more important than just knowing about it because 

there is no point knowing a lot about language if you can‟t utter it in a 

meaningful context. 

2.2.2 Speaking Difficulties Encountered by EFL learners: 

Al Hosni (2014) revealed in her study that there are three major 

speaking difficulties encountered by the students at this level, and they are 

linguistic difficulties, mother tongue use, and inhibition.  



22 
   

 Linguistic Difficulties:  

The researcher showed that students struggle to find the appropriate 

vocabulary item when trying to speak in English, which reflects their 

insufficient vocabulary repertoire. 

 Mother Tongue Use:  

The majority of students in EFL classes speak the same language so 

they tend to communicate with each other using their mother tongue which 

they use outside the classroom, so they transfer their own cultural patterns 

into the target language whenever they want to use it, which is a result of 

target language vocabulary lacks, inadequate vocabulary repertoire and 

weak sentence building skills. 

 Inhibition:  

Many students experience inhibition in the classroom which is 

caused by many issues as shyness and fear of making mistakes. In this 

perspective Ur (2000: 111) stated that: “Learners are often inhibited about 

trying to say things in a foreign language in the classroom. Worried about, 

making mistakes, fearful of criticism or loosing face, or simply shy of the 

attention that their speech attracts.” Belhabib (2015) found in her study that 

the pre-mentioned difficulties are due to: 

1. Nothing to Say: When students are obliged to share their thoughts 

and talk about a given topic, most of them prefer to keep silent while 



23 
   

others might say “I have no idea” or “No comment”. These 

expressions are due to the lack of motivation in expressing 

themselves on the chosen topic. The teacher may ask his students to 

talk about an unfamiliar topic or about an unknown subject, thus, 

they don‟t know what to say even in their mother tongue. 

2. Low or Uneven Participation: Since participation is an unrequested 

response from students, there are some of them tend to be dominant 

and take the place of others who prefer to keep silent or they are 

uncertain whether what they will say is correct or not and the 

situation will get worst. So, classroom discussion is dominated by a 

minority of talkative participants and contributions are not evenly 

distributed. This may be a result of mixed ability groups. 

2.2.3 Criteria of Good Speaking Skill: 

Speaking is not simply expressing something orally. However, the 

students need to acquire some speaking aspects to have a good speaking 

skill. As proposed by Brown (2004), those aspects are fluency, accuracy, 

pronunciation, vocabulary, comprehension and task. 

1. Fluency: When teaching speaking, teachers have the same goal to 

achieve which is oral fluency; the main important trait in performing 

speaking. Skehan (1996 as cited in Wang 2014) claimed that fluency 

refers to the ability to produce the spoken language without pausing 



24 
   

or hesitation. Too many hesitations and pauses in speaking may 

obstruct the speaking fluency and also depress the speaker. 

2. Accuracy: “Accuracy is freedom from mistakes or errors: the quality 

or state of being accurate: the ability to work or perform without 

making mistakes” Merriam Webster dictionary. Speakers need to 

follow the rules of the language such as grammar and structure to be 

able to speak accurately. Yuan and Ellis (2003) explained that 

speaking accuracy indicates the extent to which the language 

produced conforms to target language norms; which involves the 

correct use of pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. 

3. Pronunciation: “Pronunciation is how we say certain words or 

names” Merriam Webster dictionary. To make a successful 

communication, the speakers need to be able to deliver clear message 

for listeners. In speaking, teaching pronunciation including stress, 

rhythm, and intonation is very important. 

4. Vocabulary: To be able to speak fluently and accurately, speaker of 

foreign language should master enough vocabulary and use it 

appropriately to convey the wanted message, so knowing word 

classes and derivations help students express themselves accurately. 

(Nation, 2001) stated that it takes learners effort to put the receptive 

vocabulary knowledge into productive use. Levelt (1989) also 

reported that EFL students should store a god amount of vocabulary 



25 
   

in their long-term memory since the ability to quickly recall words 

from one‟s mind may affect the speaking fluency. 

5. Comprehension: “The ability to understand completely and be 

familiar with a situation, facts, and how well students understand and 

respond in written or spoken language” Cambridge dictionary. 

Speakers are required to take in their considerations both content and 

meaning to make a clear message. 

6. Task: Accomplishing the objective of the elicited mission 

considering certain aspects like aim, time, and subject. According to 

Lee (2000) a task is a classroom activity or exercise that has an 

objective attainable only by the interaction among participants, a 

mechanism for structuring and sequencing interaction, and a focus on 

meaning exchange. It is a language learning attempt that requires 

learners to comprehend, manipulate, and/or produce the target 

language as they perform some set of work plans.  

2.3 Community Language Learning Approach: 

2.3.1 Definition of Community Language Learning:  

Community language learning approach is a humanistic approach. It 

represents the use of counseling-learning theory to teach language. The 

basic procedure of CLL is derived from counselor-client relationship. 

(Richards and Rodgers, 2001). 



26 
   

According to Curran (1972), as adopted by Richards and Rodgers 

(2001). Learners in the classroom are regarded not as a class but as a group 

that needs to learn in a certain counseling approach. So, there are no big 

gap between a teacher and students which usually build a comfortable 

atmosphere. The group will form a supportive community sense for the 

students to communicate in the target language.            

2.3.2 Teachers’ Roles:  

According to Richard and Rodgers (1986), Curran (1976) as cited in 

Azaizah (2014); The teachers (counselors‟ role) is to respond calmly and 

non-judgmentally, in a supportive manner and help the client try to 

understand his or her problems better by applying order and analysis to 

them. 

They agreed that CLL teachers operate in supportive roles and 

provide target language translation and imitation on request of the clients. 

Later, interaction may be initiated by the students and the teacher monitors 

learner‟ performance, providing assistance when requested. So the student 

become increasingly capable to accept the criticism and the teacher may 

directly intervene to correct incorrect utterances. The teacher is also 

responsible for providing safe environment in which students (clients) can 

learn and grow. Here, the learners feel secure and free to focus their 

attention on the tasks of communication and learning rather than feeling 

anxious of being mistaken by the teacher or by their peers.  



27 
   

2.3.3 Students’ Roles: 

In CLLA, learners become members of a community. They learn 

through interacting with members of the community. Learning is not 

viewed as an individual accomplishment but as something that is achieved 

collaboratively. Learners are expected to listen attentively to the knower, to 

freely provide meanings they wish to express, to repeat target utterances 

without hesitation, to support fellow members of the community, to show 

their feelings and frustrations as well as joy and pleasure, and to become 

counselors to each other. CLL learners are typically grouped in a circle of 

six to twelve learners, with the number of counselors varying from one per 

group to one per student (Curran, 1976). 

Learning is a "whole person" process, and the learner at each stage is 

involved in the accomplishment of cognitive tasks as well as being 

committed to the classroom values. CLL compares language learning to the 

stages of human growth. Laforge in (Richard & Rodgers, 1986: 121) stated 

that there are five stages of CLLA as follows: 

1)  The learners are like an infant that completely dependent on the 

counselor for linguistic content. Here the learner repeats utterances 

made by the teachers in target language. 

2)  The learner achieves a measure of independence. In this stages, the 

learners begin to establish their own self-reliance and dependence by 

using simple expressions and phrases they have previously heard. 



28 
   

3)   In the third stage, the learners begin to understand others directly in 

the target language. They feel more involved and start making their 

own contributions. 

4)  A kind of adolescence. In this stage, the learners function 

independently. They learn how to elicit knowledge from the teacher. 

5)  The independent stage. This last stage explained that learners 

improve their understanding of the register and vocabulary as well as 

grammatically correct language use. Students then start to imitate 

their teacher by being counselors to their group members. 

2.4 The Effectiveness of CLL in Improving Students’ Oral 

Communicative Skills: 

Parker (1991) found that CLLA seems to provide a methodological 

framework in which there may be a convergence of learning and 

acquisition sequences. Immediacy of communicative need will determine 

both the potential acquisition sequence during investment phases and the 

teaching-learning sequence during the reflection phase. So CLL is a helpful 

way that supports the natural order of language skills. 

Nagaraj (2009) study stated that CLLA is the most responsive of the 

methods which is reviewed in terms of its sensitivity to learned 

communication skills especially speaking. It is applied in various settings; 

it is used as an aid for language learning. CLL emphasis is on whole-person 

learning; the role of a supportive, non-judgmental teacher; the passing of 



29 
   

responsibility for learning to the learners. The teacher must also be 

relatively non-directive and must be prepared to accept and even encourage 

the adolescent aggression of the learner as he or she strives for 

independence. 

In the area of fluency, Nurhayati (2011) found that the main goal in 

teaching speaking is the use of the language for communication fluency 

and effectiveness. There are a three reasons for getting students to speak in 

a classroom. Firstly, speaking activities provide rehearsal opportunities. 

Secondly speaking tasks in which students try to use any or all what they 

know about the language provide feedback for both teacher and students. 

Finally, the more students have opportunities to activate the more 

experience they gain. 

In the area of activities, Oradee (2012) found that teachers should 

construct a variation of English speaking activities which motivate the 

students to learn. Communicative activities such as discussion, problem 

solving, and role-playing can be effected used in the language classroom in 

Thai context. Other important factors in using these activities are the order 

or sequence of these activities. In breaking the students into small groups, 

optimal group size is four individuals. This leads to better success and 

achievement in learning foreign languages. Teacher roles should be 

changed as a provider, an assistant, a consultant to increase effectiveness in 

the learning environment. Interaction in the language classroom can 



30 
   

decrease students‟ anxiety in learning English speaking skills. Students 

should change their role from passive to active learners. 

Sari, Jismulatif and Syarfi, (2012) found in their study that after 

using CLLA, the students were interested because they could comprehend 

the material given by the teacher. This method helped in developing the 

students‟ social skill; therefore, increase their self-esteem and their ability 

to solve the problems that they may face in learning and sharing it with 

their friends in pairs or in group. CLLA proved a god effect in improving 

the students „speaking ability as follows: 

 Most of the students can express their ideas and opinions freely. 

 Most of students can work in group freely. As the result, they will be 

more confidant.  

 Teaching speaking through Community sense creates more 

interaction in the speaking class. 

Language learning specially speaking needs motivation, so teachers 

should stimulate their students to use their newly acquired English. English 

teachers are also expected to give students the chance to speak by using the 

following tips:  

 Choose the discussion topics within the students‟ interest to avoid 

boredom. 

 Spot the light on the students‟ achievements of language production. 



31 
   

 Giving students more speaking practice to improve their fluency and 

comprehension. 

Azizah (2014) stated that CLL proved better results in speaking 

skills than students who are taught with other traditional method. He found 

that students should be given the chance to practice and speak freely to 

improve the students speaking ability. He indicated the importance of the, 

media used to present the speaking martial which should reflect the 

community sense. The study also stated that language is a vehicle for the 

expression of functional meaning. This theory emphasizes the semantic and 

communicative dimension rather than merely the grammatical 

characteristics of language. 

Ulfa (2014) found that the majority of the students like their mother 

language than English language while they consider that English is difficult 

but exciting. After practicing CLLA at school, students were interested and 

they made a progress learning English. According Ulfa‟s study, CLL 

method can be applied to improve the style of teaching and learning 

process. Most of them think that CLL method is very important to be 

applied in their lesson, because they can expand the students‟ mind and can 

make them feel secure in the class. The researcher also found that students 

speaking skill mastery was increased after using the chunks technique in 

which the students were more comfortable and productive learning by 

chunks rather than learning by longer conversations. 



32 
   

However, Al-Humaidi (2009) study stated that the danger of CLL 

approach is that learners would be used to think in their first language and 

transfer their message to the second which might lead obviously to negative 

transfer of patterns and structures. Learners of a second language should be 

trained through the target language with no, or at least minimum, resort to 

the source language to avoid mother language interference. In this method, 

learning is not viewed as an individual accomplishment but as something 

that is achieved collaboratively. This does not take into account differences 

between learners in terms of proficiency and language ability. The result 

would be having proficient students bored awaiting their counterparts to 

intake a certain aspect of language before moving on to another. 

Ghossani, Daya and Wisnu (2012) found that the success of CLL 

depends largely on the translation expertise of the teacher in which any 

default in the teacher translation according to the languages interference 

would affect the students speaking skill and encourage negative habit 

formation. One of the weaknesses points of CLLA that it has reliance upon 

an inductive strategy of learning which doesn‟t consider the students‟ 

individuals‟‟ differences. The teachers are too non-directive which suits 

skillful students and unfair for the week ones. 

2.5 Studies that Deal with the Role of CLL in Creating a Student-

Centered Classroom Environment: 

Methodologies of Communicative Language Teaching advocate the 

use of authentic materials in communicative activities and recommend that 



33 
   

learners be given opportunities to put their language skills to practice in 

real life situations (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Therefore, it is important to 

create an English-speaking environment for our students to use English, 

also students feel encouraged to practice the language and participate when 

they are engaged in daily activities such as games and social expressions. 

In the area of the classroom environment, Puspitasari (2011) stated 

that CLL method is an effective technique to improve students‟ ability in 

speaking for transactional conversation. By using CLL, students can be 

brave to convey their ideas and feelings or speak in front of many people. 

Not only be brave in speaking but also students can be easier and faster to 

learn English especially speaking because this method uses some ways 

which are very appropriate for students. Students can feel so comfortable 

and relaxed in doing learning activities. The teacher only has a role as a 

counselor. She or he only helps and leads them if they face a difficulty in 

making a conversation. 

2.6 Studies that Deal with the Role of CLL in Reducing Students’ 

Anxieties: 

Students are usually reluctant to participate orally because of fear 

and worry. Those students express fear and anxiety over speaking than any 

other language skill. That‟s why teachers find themselves seeking for new 

ways to get their students to speak in the foreign language and promote 

communication in the classroom. Young stated that one of the viral ways to 

reduce students‟ anxieties concerning speaking is through voluntary 



34 
   

responses, group work and accepting students‟ contributions (Young, 

1990). 

Anxiety is the affective factor that most pervasively obstructs the 

learning process. Arnold and Brown (1999). Most of EFL students are 

rather nervous in class especially when they are asked to speak in class 

without any preparation. Too much nervousness makes learners lost their 

words. This absolutely influences their achievement in foreign language 

classroom. That‟s why, EFL learners should be supported enough before 

speaking, so that they can lessen their anxiety and perform better in 

speaking (Shumin, 2002). 

Bertrand (2004) found that CLL is primarily meant as a 'whole' 

approach to teaching and it is equally useful for an occasional lesson, 

especially with teenagers. It enables teachers to refocus on the learner 

while they immediately react positively to working in a community. 

Students are also exposed to peer-correction and by working together they 

overcome their fear of speaking. CLL is a teaching method which 

encompasses all four skills while simultaneously revealing learners' styles. 

  Koba, Ogawa, and Wilkinson (2000) stated that Community 

Language Learning differs from traditional language learning in many 

ways. One of the most significant issues is that it has many techniques to 

reduce anxiety. First, the form of the class, that is, the conversation circle 

itself, provides security. Second, understanding between the teacher and 

learners produces a sense of security, which reduces anxiety. Finally, a 



35 
   

sense of security is woven into each activity of a typical CLL cycle. They 

added that understanding is another key issue in CLL. Active and 

empathetic listening is essential to understanding. The teacher has to be a 

good listener. When a teacher is an understanding person, learners feel 

secure, and then can be open and non-defensive in learning. Within this 

rapport, students‟ anxieties may disappear and effective learning can take 

place. Without communication, defensive learning prevents a learner from 

speaking a foreign language fluently although he knows the grammars and 

linguistic theory but because of the learner‟s anxiety from committing 

mistakes. 

From the previous studies the researcher concluded that some studies 

showed the influence of using CLLA in improving the students speaking 

skills such as:   Koba, Ogawa, & Wilkinson (2000), Richards & Rogers 

(2001), Corbett (2003), Bertrand (2004), Nagaraj (2009), Nurhayati (2011), 

Puspitasari (2011), Oradee (2012), Azizah (2013), Parker (1991), Young 

(1990), Sari et al (2012), and Ulfa (2014). On the other hand, some studies 

showed that there is no correlation between using CLLA and improving 

students‟ skills such as: Al-humaidi (2009) and Ghossani et al (2012). 

Considering the researchers above, the researcher found out many 

advantages for CLL in teaching speaking. But there is still an area of 

studies that has not been explored. It is the peers‟ role in learning English 

especially in discussions and conversation activities. When students choose 

a topic in a group they don‟t do that individually, they agree on one topic 



36 
   

collaboratively. After that students start to pass the topic amongst 

themselves. This way students will have the chance to speak and reflect 

their knowledge and share it with others with interest and joy, considering 

that they will make friends with each other. The researcher also found that 

among the uncovered areas is the role of recording in improving students‟ 

oral proficiency. the researcher also revealed the effectiveness of using a 

diversity of activities in enhancing the students‟ speaking abilities through 

employing the CLLA techniques such as translation, transactional 

conversation, debates, recording , reflection , analysis and listening. 

2.7 Summary: 

This chapter reviewed the related literature to the influence of using 

community language learning approach on improving the students‟ English 

speaking skills. The chapter presented the effectiveness of using CLLA in 

improving the students‟ speaking skills, creating a student-centered 

classroom and reducing the students‟ anxieties.  

 

 



37 
   

 

 

Chapter Three 

Study Methods 

3.1 Introduction 

3.2 Study Approach 

3.3 Methodology and Study Design  

3.4 Study Questions 

3.5 Study Instruments  

3.6 Techniques of data collection and analysis 

3.7 Study Population 

3.8 Study Sample 

3.9 Validity and Reliability of the instruments 

3.10 Study Variables  

3.11 Summary 



38 
   

Chapter Three 

Study Methods  

3.1 Introduction: 

Chapter three presents the methodology and procedures used in 

carrying out the research objectives. It is divided into several parts. They 

are approach of the study, research design, population and sampling, 

variables, instrument of collecting data, method of analyzing data and the 

validity and reliability of the instrumentation. 

3.2 Study Approach: 

The study approach used in this research is descriptive quantitative. 

The researcher used experimental research design in conducting this study. 

Pre and post tests were conducted to find out the influence of using CLL in 

improving students‟ speaking skill.  

3.3 Methodology and Study Design: 

So as to achieve the goal of the study which is to investigate the 

influence of CLL in improving the students speaking skills, this study was 

conducted using an experimental group who was treated by CLLA and a 

control group who was taught by a traditional method. The researcher used 

a quantitative descriptive approach which is suitable to this study. 

 



39 
   

Experimental group: students who were taught by using CLLA 

Control group: students who were taught by using any traditional 

method 

EG: O1     X     O2  

CG: O1          O2  

O1: pre-test 

 O2: post-test 

 X: treatment   

3.4 Study Questions: 

  The study tried to answer the following questions: 

1. What is the influence of using community language learning 

approach on improving the students „speaking skills? 

2. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the experimental group? 

3. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 



40 
   

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the control group? 

4. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the post-tests for 

both the control group and the experimental group? 

5. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the experimental group due to gender ? 

6. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the experimental group due to  academic level? 

7. Are there any significant differences at (α≤0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the control group due to gender? 

8.  Are there any significant differences at (α≤0.05) level of 

significance in the influence of using community language learning 

approach on improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-

test and the post-test of the control group due to academic level? 



41 
   

3.5 Study Instrument: 

 The instrument used in this research is a speaking test. The test 

included different parts. It contains pictures to describe and to answer 

questions about and it contains a written part which is for the students 

themselves to give them time to build the discourse they are going to utter. 

The study tool was restricted to a pre-test and post-test technique to 

investigate the influence of using CLLA on improving the students‟ 

speaking skills. 

3.5.1 Pre-test and Post-test: 

A pre-test was conducted on both the control group and the 

experimental one, but only the experimental group has received the 

treatment which is using CLL strategies and techniques in teaching the 

curriculum units in hands. At the end of the experiment a post-test was 

conducted on both groups. The results of the given tests were gathered as 

the data of this study. 

A pre-test might increase or decrease a subject's sensitivity or 

responsiveness to the experimental variable. Indeed, the effect of pretest to 

subsequent tests may hinder the testing validity (Cook & Campbell, 1979). 

To avoid this threat, the pre and the post tests were not fully similar. The 

researcher used a similar section in both tests; which requires students to 

answer general questions related to their background knowledge of English 

language or let‟s say their language competency “repertoire”. The 



42 
   

researcher manipulated the formulation of these questions in order not to be 

fixed and memorized by students. As for the variant section in the tests, the 

questions in each test were related to the units were given using traditional 

method in the control group and CLL in the experimental group; this is to 

extract the effect of the independent variable. The pre-test was conducted at 

the beginning when both groups were taught using conventional method. 

The post test was conducted at the end after using CLL only on the 

experimental group. 

3.6 Procedures of data collection and analysis: 

3.6.1 Applying CLLA: 

Based on the researcher‟s in depth class observation through her 

classroom practices while applying her method, the researcher evaluated 

the students‟ performance after using CLLA and using other conventional 

way in the classroom. The control group class was a teacher centered one 

which depended on the teacher speaking all the time while students should 

listen and answer the teacher‟s questions when necessary, students here felt 

board and demotivated with a low acquisition of the target language skills, 

they felt frustrated and like forced to learn what the teacher imposed on 

them. As for the experimental group, it was more learner centered where 

students felt more independent, engaged, activated, and responsible about 

their learning because they have the chance to choose what they like to 



43 
   

learn about.  A variety of CLLA activities were used such as group work, 

discussions, recording, transcription, and transactional conversations. 

The researcher conducted a pre-test on both groups before treating 

the experimental group with CLLA and a post-test on both groups after 

employing CLLA. 

3.6.2 Pre-test and Post-test: 

The researcher then conducted a pre-test and a post-test on both the 

experimental group and the control group. Both of the pre-test and the post-

test were out of 30 marks distributed on five areas: planning, fluency, 

vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. 

3.6.3 Data Analysis: 

To analyze the results of the pre and post exams, basic statistical 

description was used showing means, standard deviations, and percentages. 

Independent-Samples T Test and Paired-Sample T Test were used.  

3.7 Study Population: 

The population of the study covered all male and female 

intermediate students at the English Language Center at the Arab American 

University-Jenin for the academic year 2015-2016, summer semester. The 

population contained 180 students from different academic levels 



44 
   

3.8 Study Sample: 

The study sample was selected randomly and consisted of 56 male 

and female intermediate students at the ELC_AAUJ. The control group 

consisted of 30 male and female students while the experimental group 

consisted of 26 male and female students. 

The students were taught using material from Cambridge University 

Press for listening and speaking. Both teaching and testing took place in the 

Arab American University English labs which is fully provided of the 

needed tools in the academic year 2015-2016, summer semester. 

The sample was distributed according to one independent variable 

and two moderator variables. The first three tables show the distribution of 

the sample according to methodology, gender and academic year. 

A. Methodology: 

Table (1): Sample distribution according to methodology variable: 

Methodology Frequency Percent 

Traditional 30 53.6 

CLLA 26 46.4 

Total 56 100.0 

The above table shows that the study frequencies are (30) students 

for the control group which was taught using a traditional method; which 

composed %53.6 and (26) for the experimental group which was taught 

using CLL; which composed %46.4. 



45 
   

B. Gender: 

Table (2): Sample distribution according to gender variable: 

Gender  Frequency Percent 

male 35 62.5 

female 21 37.5 

Total 56 100.0 

The above table shows that the study frequencies are (35) for the 

male participants and (21) for the female participants, which means that the 

male participants composed %62.5 while female participants composed 

%37.5. 

C. Academic year: 

Table (3): Sample distribution according to Academic Year variable: 

Academic year Frequency Percent 

1.00 9 16.1 

2.00 34 60.7 

3.00 7 12.5 

4.00 6 10.7 

Total 56 100.0 

The above table shows that the study frequencies are: (9) for the first 

year students, which means the first year students composed %16.1; (34) 

for the second year students, which means that they composed %60.7; (7) 

for the third year students, which means that they composed %12.5; (6) for 

the fourth year students, which means that they composed %10.7. The total 

number of students composed %100. 



46 
   

3.9 Validity and Reliability of the instrument: 

The pre-test was adapted from the international book “FCE listening 

and speaking skills 2” for Virginia Evans, James Milton 2002. The post test 

was adapted from Cambridge University Press curriculum for listening and 

speaking “unlock listening and speaking skills 2” for Stephanie Dimond-

Bayir 2014. Both of the oral tests were reviewed by a group of experienced 

in English language teaching at schools and universities. 

3.10 Study Variables: 

The study included the following variables 

Dependent variables: 

Students‟ speaking skills 

Independent variables:  

Community language learning approach 

Moderator variables: 

 Gender variable which is divided into two levels: males and females 

 Academic year variable which is divided into four levels: 

a) First academic level 

b) Second academic level 



47 
   

c) Third  academic level 

d) Fourth academic level 

3.11 Summary: 

Chapter III presented the methodology and procedures used to 

investigate the influence of CLLA on improving the students‟ speaking 

skills. The approach of the study, research design, population and sample, 

variables, instrumentation, and procedures of data collection and analysis 

were precisely discussed.  



48 
   

 

 

 

Chapter Four 

Study Findings 

4.1 Introduction 

4.2 Findings Related to the Pre-test and Post-test 

4.2.1 Findings Related to the Sub Questions 

4.2.2 Findings Related to the Main Question 

4.3 Summary 



49 
   

Chapter Four 

Study Findings   

4.1 Introduction: 

In this chapter, the researcher presents findings of the research and 

test results to investigate the influence of CLL on improving the students‟ 

speaking skills at Arab American University of Jenin. 

4.2 Findings Related to the Pre-test and Post-test: 

The main question of the study is: 

What is the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving students „speaking skills? 

This question is considered the main question because it achieves the 

objective of the study which is to investigate the influence of CLLA on 

improving students‟ speaking skills at the ELC at AAUJ. The question 

generates the following sub questions: 

1. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the experimental group? 

2. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 



50 
   

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the control group? 

3. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the post-tests for 

both the control group and the experimental group? 

4. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the experimental group due to gender? 

5. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the experimental group due to the academic level? 

6. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the control group due to gender? 

7. Are there any significant differences at (α=0.05) level of significance 

in the influence of using community language learning approach on 

improving the students‟ speaking skills between the pre-test and the 

post-test of the control group due to the academic level? 



51 
   

4.2.1 Findings Related to the Sub Questions: 

1.  Findings Related to the 1
st
 Sub Questions: 

The hypothesis generated from the first sub question is as follows: 

There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of using 

community language learning approach on improving students‟ speaking 

skills between the pre-test and the post-test of the experimental group at 

(α=0.05) level of significance. 

To answer the first sub question, the researcher used a test for 

differences using the Paired Samples T-Test. A summary of the results of 

this analysis is shown in the following table:   

Table (4): Paired Samples T-Test for respondents’ results between the 

Pre & Post Speaking Test of the Experimental Group. 

test Mean Std. Deviation Mean difference df t Sig 

Pre 9.8846 2.94383 
-4.30769 25 -5.388 .000 

post 14.1923 4.95596 

Based on the table above, it could be seen that the significance is 

.000 which is less than α =0.05, hence we reject the Hypothesis and 

conclude that there are significance differences at (α =0.05) between the  

results of the pre-test(M=9.88, Std=2.94) and the post-test(M=14.19, 

Std=4.955) of experimental group in the favor of the post- test since 

(Sig=.000, Df=25, Std=4.076, M=-4.3076, N=26). The table shows that 

there is an improvement of test results after getting some treatments using 

CLLA in favor of the post test. 



52 
   

2. Findings Related to the 2
nd

 Sub Questions: 

The hypothesis generated from the first sub question is as follows: 

There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of using 

community language learning approach on improving students‟ speaking 

skills between the pre-test and the post-test of the control group at α =0.05 

level of significance. 

To answer the second sub question, the researcher used a test for 

differences using the Paired Samples T-Test. A summary of the results of 

this analysis is shown in the following table:  

Table (5):  Paired Samples T-Test for respondents’ results between the 

Pre & Post Speaking Test of the Control Group. 

test Mean Std. Deviation Mean difference df t Sig 

Pre 10.1333 5.29628 
.56667 29 .894 .379 

post 9.5667 4.57643 

Based on the table above, it could be seen that the significance is 

.379 which is more than α =0.05, hence we accept the Hypothesis and 

conclude that there are no significance differences at (α =0.05) between the  

results of the pre-test(M=10.1333, Std=5.29628) and the post-

test(M=9.5667, Std=4.57643) of control group since (P=.379, Df=29, 

Std=3.470, M=.56667, N=30). The table shows that there is no 

improvement of test results using a traditional method. 



53 
   

3. Findings Related to the 3
rd

 Sub Questions: 

The hypothesis generated from the first sub question is as follows: 

There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of using 

community language learning approach on improving students‟ speaking 

skills between the post-tests for both the control group and the 

experimental group at α =0.05 level of significance. 

To answer the third sub question, the researcher used a test for 

differences using Independent Sample T-Test. A summary of the results of 

this analysis is shown in the following table: 

Table (6): Independent Sample T-Test for respondents’ results 

between the Post Speaking Test of the Control Group and the 

Experimental Group. 

Based on the table above, it could be seen that the significance is 

.001 which is less than α =0.05, hence we reject the Hypothesis and 

conclude that there are significance differences at (α =0.05) between the  

results  the post-test of the control group (M=9.5667, Std=4.5764, N=30) 

and the post-test of the experimental group (M=14.1523, Std=4.9559, 

N=26) in favor of the experimental group since ( Df=54, T=-3.630, 

Sig=.001). The table shows that there is an improvement of test results for 

the favor of the experimental group using CLLA. 

group Mean Std. 

Deviation 

Mean 

difference 

df t Sig 

Post-test   control 

                  

Experimental              

9.5667 4.57643 -4.62564 54 -3.630 .001 

14.1923 4.95596 



54 
   

4. Findings Related to the 4
th

 Sub Questions: 

The hypothesis generated from the fourth sub question is as follows: 

There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of using 

community language learning approach on improving students‟ speaking 

skills between the pre-test and the post-test of the experimental group due 

to gender at α =0.05 level of significance. 

To answer the fourth sub question, the researcher used a test for 

differences using the Paired Samples T-Test. A summary of the results of 

this analysis is shown in the following table:  

Table (7):  Paired Samples T-Test for respondents’ results between the 

pre & Post Speaking Tests of the Experimental Group for males. 

test Mean Std. Deviation Mean difference df t Sig 

Pre 9.2857 2.92018 -3.71429 13 -3.451 .004 

post 13.0000 4.36771 

Based on the table above, it could be seen that the significance is 

.004 which is less than α =0.05, hence we reject the Hypothesis and 

conclude that there are significance differences at (α =0.05) between the  

results of the pre-test(M=9.2857, Std=2.92018) and the post-test 

(M=13.0000, Std=4.36771) of experimental group for males in  favor of the 

post- test since (Sig=.004, Df=13, T=-3.451). The table shows that there is 

an improvement of post-test results for males after getting some treatments 

using CLLA. 



55 
   

Table (8): Results of the Paired Samples T-Test of the pre & Post 

Speaking Tests of the Experimental Group for females. 

test Mean Std. Deviation Mean difference df t Sig 

Pre 10.5833 2.93748 
-5.00000 11 -4.124 .002 

post 15.5833 5.41812 

Based on the table above, it could be seen that the significance is 

.002 which is less than (α=0.05), hence we reject the Hypothesis and 

conclude that there are significance differences at (α=0.05) between the 

results of the pre-test (M=10.5833, Std=2.93748) and the post-test 

(M=15.5833, Std=5.41812) of experimental group for females in favor of 

the post- test since (Sig=.004, Df=11, T=-4.124). The table shows that there 

is an improvement of post-test results for females after getting some 

treatments using CLLA. 

5. Findings Related to the 5
th

 Sub Questions: 

The hypotheses generated from the fifth sub question is as follows: 

There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of using 

community language learning approach on improving students‟ speaking 

skills between the pre-test and the post-test of the experimental group due 

to academic level at α =0.05 level of significance. 

To answer the fifth sub question, the researcher used a test for 

differences using the Paired Samples T-Test. A summary of the results of 

this analysis is shown in the following table:   



56 
   

Table (9): Paired Samples T-Test for respondents’ results between the 

pre & Post Speaking Tests of the Experimental Group due to 

Academic level. 

Academic Level Mean 
Std. 

Deviation 
t df Sig. 

1.00 pre total - post 

total 

-8.00000 4.18330 -4.276 4 .013 

2.00 pre total - post 

total 

-3.26667 3.97252 -3.185 14 .007 

3.00 pre total - post 

total 

-4.50000 3.31662 -2.714 3 .073 

4.00 pre total - post 

total 

-2.50000 .70711 -5.000 1 .126 

Based on the table above, the results indicate that: 

1. There are significant differences between the results of the pre-test 

and post-test of the experimental group in the first academic level 

sig=.013 which is less than α =0.05 (M=-8.00000, STD=4.18330, 

Df=4, Sig=.013). 

2. There are significant differences between the results of the pre-test 

and post-test of the experimental group in the second academic level 

sig=.007 which is less than α =0.05 (M=-3.26667, STD=3.97252, 

Df=14, Sig=.007).  

3. There are no significant differences between the results of the pre-

test and post-test of the experimental group in the third academic 

level sig=.073 which is more than α =0.05 (M=-4.50000, 

STD=3.31662, Df=3, Sig=.073).  



57 
   

4. There are no significant differences between the results of the pre-

test and post-test of the experimental group in the fourth academic 

level sig=.126 which is more than α =0.05 (M=-2.50000, 

Std=.70711, Df=1, Sig=.126).  

6. Findings Related to the 6
th

 Sub Questions: 

The hypothesis generated from the sixth sub question is as follows: 

There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of using 

community language learning approach on improving students‟ speaking 

skills between the pre-test and the post-test of the control group due to 

gender at α =0.05 level of significance. 

To answer the sixth sub question, the researcher used a test for 

differences using the Paired Samples T-Test. A summary of the results of 

this analysis is shown in the following table:   

Table (10): Paired Samples T-Test for respondents’ results between the 

pre & Post Speaking Tests of the control Group for males. 

test Mean Std. Deviation Mean difference df t Sig 

Pre 8.6667 2.98887 
-.09524 20 -.181 .858 

post 8.7619 3.74038 

Based on the table above, it could be seen that the significance is 

.858 which is more than α =0.05, hence we accept the Hypothesis and 

conclude that there are no significance differences at (α =0.05) between the  

results of the pre-test(M=8.6667, Std=2.98887) and the post-

test(M=8.7619, Std=3.74038) for males since (Sig=.858, Df=20, T=-.181). 



58 
   

The table shows that there is no improvement of post-test results for males 

after getting some treatments using a conventional method. 

Table (11): Paired Samples T-Test for respondents’ results between the 

pre & Post Speaking Tests of the control Group for females. 

test Mean Std. Deviation Mean difference df t Sig 

Pre 13.5556 7.77996 
2.11111 8 1.258 .244 

post 11.4444 5.93951 

Based on the table above, it could be seen that the significance is 

.244 which is more than α =0.05, hence we accept the Hypothesis and 

conclude that there are no significance differences at (α=0.05) between the  

results of the pre-test (M=13.5556, Std=7.77996) and the post-test 

(M=11.4444, Std=5.93951) for females since (Sig=.244, Df=8, T=1.258). 

The table shows that there is no improvement of post-test results for 

females after getting some treatments using a conventional method. 

7. Findings Related to the 7
th

 Sub Questions: 

The hypotheses generated from the seventh sub question is as 

follows: There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of 

using community language learning approach on improving students‟ 

speaking skills between the pre-test and the post-test of the control group 

due to academic level at α =0.05 level of significance. 

To answer the seventh sub question, the researcher used a test for 

differences using the Paired Samples T-Test. A summary of the results of 

this analysis is shown in the following table:   



59 
   

Table (12): Paired Samples T-Test for respondents’ results between the 

pre & Post Speaking Tests of the control Group due to Academic level. 

Academic Level Mean Std. Deviation t df Sig. 

1.00 pre total - post 

total 

.75000 1.50000 1.000 3 .391 

2.00 pre total - post 

total 

.21053 3.73540 .246 18 .809 

3.00 pre total - post 

total 

2.00000 6.24500 .555 2 .635 

4.00 pre total - post 

total 

1.00000 1.15470 1.732 3 .182 

Based on the table above, the results indicate that: 

- There are no significant differences between the results of the pre-

test and post-test of the control group in the first academic level 

sig=.391 which is more than α =0.05 (M=.75000, Std =1.50000, 

T=1.000, Df=3, Sig=.391). 

- There are no significant differences between the results of the pre-

test and post-test of the control group in the second academic level 

sig=.809 which is more than α =0.05 (M=.21053, Std =3.73540, 

T=.246, Df=18, Sig=.809).  

- There are no significant differences between the results of the pre-

test and post-test of the control group in the third academic level 

sig=.635 which is more than α =0.05 (M=2.00000, Std =6.24500, 

T=.555, Df=2, Sig=.635). 

- There are no significant differences between the results of the pre-

test and post-test of the control group in the third academic level 



60 
   

sig=.182 which is more than α =0.05 (M=1.00000, Std =61.15470, 

T=1.732, Df=3, Sig=.182).  

4.2.2 Findings related to the main question: 

- What is the influence of using community language learning 

approach on improving students „speaking skills? 

In fact, the third sub question answers the main question in which it 

determines if there are statistical significant differences in the influence of 

using community language learning approach on improving students‟ 

speaking skills between the post-tests for both the control group and the 

experimental group at α =0.05 level of significance. The results of the 

question were as the following table shows 

Table (13): Independent Sample T-Test for respondents’ results 

between the Post Speaking Test of the Control Group and the 

Experimental Group. 

Based on the table above, it could be seen that the significance is 

.001 which is less than α=0.05, hence we reject the Hypothesis and 

conclude that there are significance differences at (α=0.05) between the  

results  the post-test of the control group (M=9.5667, Std=4.5764, N=30) 

and the post-test of the experimental group (M=14.1523, Std=4.9559, 

group Mean 
Std. 

Deviation 

Mean 

difference 
df t Sig 

Post-test   control 

      Experimental              

9.5667 4.57643 -4.62564 54 -3.630 .001 

14.1923 4.95596 



61 
   

N=26) in favor of the experimental group since (Df=54, T=-3.630, 

Sig=.001). The table shows that there is an improvement of test results for 

the favor of the experimental group using CLLA. 

To find out the aspects of speaking that were improved in the 

students‟ results of the post-test after using CLL, the researcher used a test 

for differences using Independent Sample T-Test. A summary of the results 

of this analysis is shown in the following table:   

Table (14): Independent Sample T-Test for respondents’ results 

between the Post Speaking Test of the Control Group and the 

Experimental Group for each speaking aspect. 

Speaking assessment aspects t df Sig Mean Mifference 

planning            -3.688 54 .001 -1.84000 

fluency  -3.384 54 .001 -.79231 

vocabulary -3.403 54 .001 -.75897 

grammar  -2.450 54 .018 -.51795 

pronunciation  -3.184 54 .002 -.69487 

post total -3.630 54 .001 -4.63333 

Based on the table above, the results related to the different speaking 

aspects are as follows: 

1. Planning: There are significant differences between the results of the 

post-test of the control group and the experimental group since 

(Sig=.001, Df =54, T=-3.688). 



62 
   

2. Fluency: There are significant differences between the results of the 

post-test of the control group and the experimental group since 

(Sig.001=, Df =54, T=-3.384). 

3. Vocabulary: There are significant differences between the results of 

the post-test of the control group and the experimental group since 

(Sig=.001, Df =54, T=-3.403). 

4. Grammar: There are significant differences between the results of the 

post-test of the control group and the experimental group since 

(Sig=.018, Df =54, T=-2.450). 

5. Pronunciation: There are significant differences between the results 

of the post-test of the control group and the experimental group since 

(Sig=.002, Df =54, T=-3.184). 

To conclude, there is a positive influence of using community 

language learning approach on improving students‟ speaking skills. As 

shown in the above tables, the students‟ results in the experimental group 

were in increased after applying CLLA on them, accordingly their 

performance in speaking was enhanced for all speaking aspects. 

4.3 Summary: 

This chapter presented the findings of the research and test results to 

investigate the influence of CLL on improving the students‟ speaking skills 

at Arab American University of Jenin. The study main and sub questions 

results were  also presented and discussed in this chapter. 



63 
   

 

 

 

 

Chapter Five  

Findings Discussion, Conclusion & Recommendations 

5.1 Introduction 

5.2 Discussion of the Study Findings  

5.2.1 Findings Related to the Main Question 

5.2.2 Findings Related to the Sub Questions 

5.3 Conclusion 

5.4 Recommendations 

5.5 Summary  

 



64 
   

Chapter Five 

Findings Discussion, Conclusion & Recommendations 

5.1 Introduction: 

In this chapter, the researcher presents the findings of the study 

questions to investigate the influence of CLL on improving the students‟ 

speaking skills at Arab American University of Jenin. In addition, the 

researcher presents conclusion and recommendations. 

5.2 Discussion of the Study Findings: 

5.2.1 Findings Relate to the Main Question: 

- What is the influence of using community language learning 

approach on improving students „speaking skills? 

The researcher concluded that there is a positive influence of using 

community language learning approach on improving the students‟ 

speaking skills. The students‟ results were increased after applying CLLA 

on them, accordingly their performance in speaking was enhanced for all 

speaking aspects including planning (task and comprehension), fluency, 

vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. 

This result agrees with Puspitasari (2011) who found that CLL 

method can improve the students‟ ability in speaking skill in which 

students become more brave and confident in delivering their idea. Azizah 

(2014) also suggested that English teachers should use CLL as a teaching 



65 
   

method especially for teaching speaking because it give students more 

chance to practice English and to speak. 

In addition, Sari, Jismulatif & Syarfi, (2012) Parker, (1991) and 

Ulfa, (2014) reported that after using CLLA, the students were interested 

because they could comprehend the material given by the teacher. This 

method helped in developing the students‟ social skills and speaking skills 

in which the students were more comfortable and productive. Nurhayati 

(2011) & Oradee (2012) also stated that one of the main goals for using 

CLL is to make use of the language for communication fluency and 

effectiveness. 

5.2.1.1 Speaking problems: 

 According to the researchers‟ experience in teaching speaking skills 

during the accomplishment of this study, students face serious problems in 

speaking English. The researcher attributes these problems to several 

factors such as the conventional methods used by teachers, the used 

curricula and the mentality of students. 

The conventional methods are used by most EFL teachers. Most EFL 

teachers use systematic functional methods which treats each language skill 

in isolation from the others. In addition, teachers are dominating the class 

time, they are the main authority while students are only passive receivers 

who are supposed to absorb the knowledge given from their teachers. Their 

classes are very teacher-centered in which students have few contributions 



66 
   

or even no contributions at all. They don‟t present the language as a mean 

of communication but as a set of patterns, structures and rules to memorize. 

Most of the topics included in the given curricula are not within the 

interest of the students, they are not engaged an activated as they should be. 

Students need a material which relates their culture, needs, interests and 

lifestyle to the target language culture in order to use the language as mean 

of communication and sharing. 

Mentality of students at the current time is attached to globalization 

means. Social media applications became an integral part of their daily 

routines. They keep sharing information about themselves with their 

friends or even with the public. They care about how others look at them, 

so their main concern became their image within their social zone. This 

lifestyle is time consuming and distracting at the same time. Therefore, it 

became more difficult for students to focus on their learning process and 

also for teachers to create a motivating effective teaching-learning 

environment that grabs the students‟ attention. 

5.2.1.2 Students after applying CLLA: 

By using CLLA, the researcher transformed the classroom from a 

conventional class to a small community where students are members of 

that community, they communicate with others in certain activities like 

group work and debates or discussions. They use the language as mean of 

communication, they use it to express themselves and share their 



67 
   

knowledge with their colleagues without feeling anxious or afraid. English 

became a language of use not just patterns that they force their minds to 

memorize and construct consciously. 

This results agree with Young (1990); Koba, Ogawa, & Wilkinson 

(2000) and Bertrand (2004) who agreed that using CLL helps to achieve 

effective learning in which students‟ anxieties may disappear. They agree 

that CLL help students overcome their fear of speaking. 

CLLA gives students the chance to choose the topic they want to 

learn about. Teachers and students don‟t find themselves restricted to 

certain topics that could be away from their interest or needs. Here comes 

the role of CLL framework which perceives the teacher as a counselor and 

students as clients. While conducting the study‟s experiment students were 

more activated and involves when they choose what to talk about or what 

topic to discuss especially while doing group work or making debates. 

This results agree with Richard & Rodgers (1986) & Nagaraj (2009) 

who stated that Community Language Learning is very responsive methods 

compared to those methods which are reviewed in terms of its sensitivity to 

learned communication skills especially speaking. CLL emphasis is on 

whole-person learning. Richards & Rogers (2001) also reported that it is 

important to create an English-speaking environment for our students to 

use English, students also feel encouraged to practice the language. 



68 
   

While applying CLL the researcher noticed that students give very 

much attention to the recording technique. They found it funny and 

beneficial at the same time. They felt eager to listen to themselves and to 

each other using English, at the beginning they found it a little bit 

embarrassing to expose their mistakes in front of the class but after a short 

while they got used to it especially at the transcription and analysis stage 

where they reflect on their performance and give feedback to their peers 

when correcting their mistakes. This collaborative error correction made 

students feel serious towards learning English to the extent that they 

became eager to the next recording session.  

To sum up, the study showed that there is a positive influence of 

CLL on improving the students‟ speaking skill, this was obvious from the 

researcher experience while implementing CLL, and it was proved 

statistically as shown in tables 13&14. 

5.2.2 Findings Relate to the Sub Questions: 

Findings Related to the 1
st
 Sub Question: 

The 1
st
 sub question underlies the following hypothesis 

“There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of 

using community language learning approach on improving students‟ 

speaking skills between the pre-test and the post-test of the experimental 

group at α =0.05 level of significance.” 



69 
   

After data analysis, it was found that there are significant differences 

at (α=0.05) between the results of the pre-test and the post-test of 

experimental group in the favor of the post- test. As illustrated in table (4) 

there is an improvement of test results after getting some treatments using 

CLLA in favor of the post test. It means that the students‟ results in the 

post test increased, accordingly their speaking performance enhanced. The 

researcher attributes this result to the fact that CLLA techniques proved its 

effectiveness in improving the students‟ speaking skills. 

Findings Related to the 2
nd

 Sub Question: 

The 2
nd

 sub question underlies the following hypothesis: 

“There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of 

using community language learning approach on improving students‟ 

speaking skills between the pre-test and the post-test of the control group at 

(α =0.05) level of significance.” 

After data analysis, it was found that there are no significant 

differences at (α =0.05) between the results of the pre-test and the post-test 

of control group. Table (5) showed that there is no improvement of test 

results using a traditional method. The researcher attributes this to the fact 

that most students used to be taught using traditional methods that‟s why 

the treatment using a traditional method made no change in their results.  



70 
   

Findings Related to the 3
rd

 Sub Question: 

The 3
rd

 sub question underlies the following hypothesis: 

“There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of 

using community language learning approach on improving students‟ 

speaking skills between the post-tests for both the control group and the 

experimental group at (α =0.05) level of significance.” 

 After data analysis, it was found that there are significant 

differences at (α=0.05) between the results the post-test of the control 

group and the post-test of the experimental group in favor of the 

experimental group. Table (6) showed that there is an improvement of test 

results for the favor of the post test of experimental group using CLLA.  

This shows the distinction between traditional teaching methods and 

community language learning approach as a whole person approach with 

its various strategies and techniques that drove students to get better results. 

 Findings Related to the 4
th

 Sub Question: 

The 4
th
 sub question underlies the following hypothesis: 

“There are no statistical significant differences in the influence of 

using community language learning approach on improving students‟ 

speaking skills between the pre-test and the post-test of the experimental 

group due to gender at (α=0.05) level of significance.” 



71 
   

The data analysis of the fourth hypothesis suggested that there are 

significant differences at (α =0.05) between the results of the pre-test and 

the post-test of experimental group due to gender in the favor of the post- 

test. The tables (7 & 8) showed that there is an improvement of post-test 

results for both males and females after getting treatments using CLLA. 

The results suggested that speaking performance was improved for 

both males and females. CLLA strongly influenced their speaking 

performance since they became more interested in speaking English and in 

learning it as a whole. 

The results also revealed that there is no distinction between males 

and females when it comes to how they were influenced by CLL, the 

researcher attributes this to that both of genders shared the same experience 

and both of them had similar attitudes towards this approach.