American Journal of Scientific Research ISSN 1450-223X Issue 49 (2012), pp. 131-143 EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2012 http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.

htm

Effect of Skill-Oriented Language Teaching Strategy on the Performance of Non-Native Higher Education Students: A Case of Pakistani Universities
Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel Associate Professor, Iqra University Abid Town, Block-2 Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, Pakistan E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +92214800670-4; Fax: +92214987806 Wasim Qazi Professor, Iqra University Abid Town, Block-2 Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, Pakistan E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +92214800670-4; Fax: +92214987806 Abstract Skill-oriented language teaching strategy, SOLTS in Pakistani universities and the performance of non-native English language students are integral aspects of learning for professional excellence. This helps comprehend the notion that language learners competency comprises skills in listening comprehension, speaking, reading comprehension, writing and grammatical structures. Most universities in Pakistan do not train students in the five skills separately. Conventional language teaching practices followed by three-hour testing affect non-native students performance in academic contexts. These practices promote rote-learned language items that examiners use and repeat intermittently. Consequently, non-native English students mastery in English is affected. Two groups of non-native higher education students n = 237 participated in the study. The teaching strategy of the experimental group was skill-oriented whereas the control group was taught using conventional method to measure the effect size. The study found that Skill-oriented language teaching strategy was significantly better at alpha, the type I error using 0.05 level of significance and beta the type II error < 0.2 with sample size n = 237. The ANOVA model using the independent sample t-test yielded a power of the test as 1- = 0.96. The hypothesis tests generated significant power as part of Meta analysis following the technical guidelines of Cohen, J. (1988). The psychological assessment through Likert Scale generated a reliability index, Cronbach Alpha = 0.74.

Keywords: Skill-oriented language teaching strategy, conventional language teaching, rote-learned language items, effect size, type I error, type II error, power of test.

Effect of Skill-Oriented Language Teaching Strategy on the Performance of Non-Native Higher Education Students: A Case of Pakistani Universities

132

Introduction
English language teaching strategies at higher education in Pakistan play a pivotal role in developing non-native students skills in professional context. In this context, a critical factor is relationship between the individuals learning behaviour and teachers competency to deliver the language contents effectively in formal scholastic settings. Non-skill oriented English language teaching practices at higher education level have had an unfavourable impact on students English language performance in both examinations and real life situations. Students mastery in the current English content area at higher education is associated with an ability to produce assessor-friendly knowledge-oriented responses through a three-hour written form only. Despite having achieved excellence marks in the examinations, the sub-skills of these higher education English students remain incompetent. This form of summative assessment of English language does not help higher education English students attain skills-oriented performance. The assessment of English language proficiency at present in most of the higher education institutions in Pakistan is summative in nature rather than continuous summative assessment. Consequently, this non-skill oriented assessment of proficiency in English at higher education disregards the potential of students in English in different skills. This practice also de-emphasizes the fact that English language proficiency does not come through passing English language examinations in written form only. On the other hand, the demand for the English language in professional contexts has urged the higher educational institutions to embark on a journey of exploring newer ways that conform with the international methods of assessing higher education students English language skills. This has been so to foster genuine English language teaching and learning that can be competent to interact in the fastpaced modern world. Techniques of teaching English language at higher education in Pakistan are not productively followed by the assessment procedures that need to be pragmatic and predominantly skilloriented. Consequently, urgency has bred amongst the higher education institutions to strengthen the current English language teaching strategy to foster skill-oriented linguistic acquisition. The study was based on these questions: 1) How different are conventional and skill-oriented performances of nonnative higher education English students? 2) What parameters can determine the significant effect of skill-oriented language teaching strategy at higher education? 3) What is the impact of a conventional three-hour written English language examination on the performance of students in real life context? 4) Does SOLTS improve the self-esteem and confidence of higher education students? The study is justified in that it highlights measures that can augment higher education students performance in English language. The study of this magnitude was not known to the investigators neither was an efficient tool known to the investigators that they could use to measure the actual competency of higher education English language students. It also emerged from the work of Ancess & Hammond (1994) who carried out a study on authentic assessment procedures through a model of testing linguistic performance.

Perspectives Through Literature

The test of listening comprehension, speaking, reading comprehension and writing along with the test of grammatical structures is pivotal in testing the skills of students at higher education. Most international language tests such as TOEFL and IELTS also emphasize on the same pattern. Sheingold, Storms, Thomas & Heller (1997) in their report also stress on the skill-oriented language tests. The authors imply the need for testing higher education students performance in English through authentic standardized testing with focus on students English language skills. Foxcraft & Davies (2006) describe guidelines for skills test in language through computer and Internet-delivered language testing. In the similar fashion, Hambleton & Patsula (1999) explain the importance of increasing the validity of adapted language tests. They categorically emphasize on myths to be avoided and suggest guidelines for improving higher education English language tests.

133

Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel and Wasim Qazi

Brophy (1982) also affirms that the teachers role and qualifications need to match with the expectation that they have about the students performances in the formal language learning situations. This context can be compared with the language teachers skills and knowledge at a higher educational institution too where the instructors perceived performance from students usually does not seem to correlate with their expectations. Consequently, the skills of such students in a language class remains under standards. Ferris (1994) in his work has significantly stressed on the rhetorical strategies employed in the context of second language learning as part of a programme in effective persuasive writing skills. His contribution in this regard elaborates the differences between the attitude and aptitude of native and non-native English language speakers in global context. This can be contrasted with the fact that the native speakers who become language teachers expect that their non-native higher education students of English would learn the language through skill development as they themselves were trained and developed. This teacher expectation envisions a radical change in students language learning process. This was witnessed by Allen (1966) who examined the roles and performances of the language students in the conventional language classes. Arva & Medgyes (2000) also presented an account of what it makes to be proficient in the language teaching professions and observed how the native and non-native English students perform in the formal pedagogic scenarios. Astor (2000) points out the differences in the skills and attitude of native and non-native teachers of English language. They also see the attitude of these instructors while they engage learners in tasks during classrooms. The study of Canagarajah (1999) leads to other beliefs that sometimes the native speakers non-fallacy leads to under achievement of language students with regards to their skills. Barratt & Contra (2000) stresses the expectations of native-speaking teachers of English in cultures other than their own. This research significantly encompasses the role of native English teachers and the perceived challenges that these teachers may have to experience while teaching non-native English students. This contrast leads to believing that a professionally competent native English language instructor at the higher education has to keep the mother-tongue related assumptions in control. The perspectives, challenges and classroom psychodynamics are also a part of Cook (2005). The author advocates the significance of second language learners skills in English. Although Cooks study lights issues and challenges that ELT experts and professionals experience, the contrast between the native and non-native speakers who become English teachers is not evidently supportive. The text could have been more conducive to ELT professionals in terms of students skills in English. Crozier (2006) advises the non-home country English teachers to be productive while they engage the language learners through active instructions. The article is interesting to draw valid conclusions about the instructions given to second language learners, but it cannot be taken as a rule of thumb since the experiences and expectations of both the ELT teacher and the taught do not remain identical in all learning situations. An instructional framework designed primarily for the sake of English as a second language is entirely different than the one that has been designed for the skill development of non-native higher education students. Swale (1993) advocates the use of lexical importance. He holds that teaching higher education students in the present time has to be linked with the future implication using syntax and situations to make the conversations more meaningful. He contrasted between the trends of past, present and expected future implications. This in particular is interesting to realize that while teaching language development programme in English as a second language to non-native speakers of English, one has to ponder over the implied meanings that a student would have to deal with in real life experiences. This connection seems to be missing in conventional English language classrooms in higher education at present in Pakistani context. Richards & Rogers (1986) describe that teachers of English must comprehend the necessary cultural components of language teaching while dealing with adult students of English. Their work on approaches and methods in modern content delivery in English has to be significantly appreciated as this is the link through which adult English language learners at higher

Effect of Skill-Oriented Language Teaching Strategy on the Performance of Non-Native Higher Education Students: A Case of Pakistani Universities

134

education system can absorb the pressure of expressions in the desired language through improving their skills. Broady and Kenning (2007) illustrate concerns of higher education English language teachers. Their concerns comprise the historical and intellectual autonomy in language teaching strategies. The research describes the functions of language teaching and counseling, information technology and its potential for disseminating language-related experiences and teachers perspective to examine learners views and attitudes. Classification of language teaching strategies is also described in professional context in the study of Watanabe (1999). The writer emphasizes that language teaching strategies encompass a greater sense of cultural harmony. An instructor, therefore not only develops the skills of students, but also opens the doors of cognitive horizons of the people of non-native language origins to bring them closer to the English language culture. Bedell & Oxford (1996) explain a case of China. They worked on cross-cultural differences in language learners across China and other states where the non-native language learners of English receive instruction in English. They found that the difference in learning styles amongst the non-native students of English was the prime cause of differences in their learning behaviour too. This contrast also develops a concern in the language teaching strategies in Pakistan at higher education level. While engaging the students in the tasks of learning, the organization of higher education can run parallel programmes to harmonize English language contents with the real world native people. This attempt is very likely to urge the students of English as a second or foreign language to explore more about the language. Workshops, seminars and training sessions on spoken English skills are the key devices to bring this change and introduce a culture of collegiality amongst the learners. Weaver et.al (2004) assert that if the students in formal learning situations are presented with a list of speaking strategies, they can perceive the task of speaking in the real life situations. Weinstein (2005) suggests that elaborating skills as language learning strategy helps teaching process and sets a path towards accomplishing required skills competently. If the students are taught to point out their own strengths and weaknesses, they can learn to adapt to a system of self-correction and self-motivation. Maser (1992) elaborates that the difference between the native and non-native learners of English language lies in the fact that the native learners care more for the politeness of sound and pronunciation through a natural process whereas the non-native learners have to do the same by putting stress on words that they find uneasy to pronounce. The researcher found out this through a sample of business letters that he perused to find the difference in the two groups of learners. Green & Hecht (1985) also identified the difference in skill assessment of learners whose first language is English and those who are non-natives. They compare the mistakes by the two types of learners while writing compositions. The empowered aspects of English language skills as a source of professional assistance over other languages are also supported in the study of Kaplan (2001). The writer advocates the vibrant use of English language skills in everyday life and professional life. Tonkyn (1994) writes that grammatical structures in language classrooms generate the functional mechanism in the minds of nonnative students. The writers further comments that while teaching syntax, a teacher has be cognizant of the fact that equating grammatical structures in the first language is not the same as it is in the second language. This suggests to language instructors that grammar rules provide the basis for comprehending the real life meanings. Brantmeier (2002) draws a contrast between the non-native secondary and university students attitude towards second language learning. Their work focuses acquisition of second language reading strategy. The writers drew attention of stakeholders towards interlingual variations and cultural disparities. Tarone (1993) on the other hand specifically stresses that non-native Southeast Asian students tend to focus formalities in their writing than the Native Americans in university education. The writer does not find any significant difference in the two groups of learners in terms of their skills

135

Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel and Wasim Qazi

in the target language. The research focuses on the age of learners rather than the origin to learn English. Most internationally recognized higher education institutions and universities have also realized that the pre-existent dominance of English skills around the world in professional contexts urge them to prepare the students for the real world demands and challenges. The skills of non-native higher education students of English are therefore, a vital factor to accept the dominance of English. It has become a social practice at higher educational institutions to teach and test the skills of English students as is advocated by the work of McNamara (2001). It is further supported by Mangeldorf (1997). The writer supports the notion that to draw parallels between higher education speaking and writing in second language acquisition, it is imperative that language learning be introduced at these institutions as a source of exchanging views and opinions. Oxford (1997) describes the language teaching strategies adopted by native speakers as instructors. The writers critical views on strategy-based language learning mechanism elaborates that there are primarily two types of language teaching strategies. The first deals with the approaches that help the teachers and learners to adapt themselves in a new language scenario. The second strategy is indirect language management. Burgos (1993) argues that the metacognitive skills of non-native speakers of English make them different than the native speakers. They adopt learning process as nonnative English learners and tend to practice the same throughout their learning life. The non-native speakers also use think-aloud strategies more frequently while composing their writings on topics during formal learning periods. The writer sampled eight non-native students of English to assess their compositions and found that non-native students of English who paid more attention on content developing and formal organizing did better than those who merely re-arranged their compositions for logics and cohesion. Researchers in language teaching affirm that enjoyable language learning experiences inculcate amongst the non-native students of English language at higher education a sense of appreciation for other foreign languages. This appreciation is critical to foster a true learning motivation for academic purposes. While discussing some of the problems which afflict practices in linguistic skills, it is essential to ponder over the factors that develop inhibitions amongst the language learners. Chern (1993) writes that Chinese non-native students of English respond more enthusiastically when they resolve reading-based tasks in groups and pairs. They find it delightful to discuss the reading tasks and vocabulary questions more than other complicated tasks while learning formally. This scenario can be contrasted with the students in Pakistani language teaching systems across the universities in the country. If students are given word-solving questions in classes as a strategy to enhance vocabulary, they would probably find the strategies in reading as result-oriented. Sheorey (1986) conducted an interesting study to find how the native and non-native speaking instructors of English differed in their expertise to find the errors in students formal writing. The writer was interested to assess the extent to which the perceptions of the two types of language instructors in finding the errors were present and how this difference caused the students to perform in formal settings. The difference in their perception was significant in terms of linguistic errors, but both the groups agreed on errors in verb tenses, subject-verb agreement and the use of clauses.

Design Procedure & Strategy

The research experiment posed the problem as to what extent the higher education students do well if taught through skill-oriented language teaching strategy. The basic model known as cause X (skilloriented language teaching strategy) or predictor variable was expected to generate the effect Y (the performance of treatment group) called the criterion variable. It employed a random sampling procedure with two groups of higher education students with initial homogeneity amongst the groups to ensure randomization and minimize bias. The pre-experiment testing of the two groups was done through a test of homogenous control variables to ensure randomization and non-biased effect on the

Effect of Skill-Oriented Language Teaching Strategy on the Performance of Non-Native Higher Education Students: A Case of Pakistani Universities

136

two groups. The real treatment spread over a semester of 16 weeks in which the experimental group received the pre-defined skill-based treatment. The control variables in the study were examined to prevent the results from being contaminated and ensure the homogeneity. The control variables comprised students age group, past English test score, previous institution type, parental qualification of students, teacher qualification, students semester attendance, instructional language, current tuition fee, past tuition fee, past score in other English-oriented courses, credit hours completed, current GPA, number of courses registered, seating arrangement and class time. The internal and external validity threats were controlled to possible extent. It cannot be claimed that some of the immeasurable variables such as students anxiety, fatigue, boredom or motivation directly or indirectly were controlled fully as they were beyond the level of scope of the study. The sample of the study comprised n = 227 undergraduate students of a large HEC chartered and recognized university offering English as the core competency course. Non-responsive samples were contacted through ordered telephone calls and e-mails to ensure the timely submission and inclusion of the responses in the overall data analysis. The data collection process ensured that no disguise technique was used. This process ensured that internal validity threats did not interfere with the results and its generalization. The filled questionnaires were collected from the respondents through consented e-mails and personal visits. The questionnaires were personally administered and monitored to make the process error free. Voice recording and videotaping strategy helped ensure this plan of bias control. The evidence of students confidence level, perceived stress before the course, experienced stress after the course and achievement level of the two groups after the treatment formed the basis of findings. The time allocation was also revised in some cases owing to unprecedented events and occurrences. The control group was taught through conventional method with a three-hour final examination and a mid-term examination with similar test items. Prior to the randomization process, the effect of control variables on the two groups was ensured through a pre-test instrumentation process. The objective of this technique was to ascertain that the two groups were not chosen on prior assumptions and that the pretest effect obtained for the homogeneity of the participants was not significantly different.

The Statistical Model

The study employed statistical techniques to test the developed hypotheses that emerged from the review of literature and other pedagogic models in educational research. The model used Carl Pearson Correlation, Multiple Regression and Independent Sample t-test to study the mean difference between the two groups. The model was analyzed through the ANOVA procedure too to test its significance. These statistical tools provided the basic analysis to strengthen the assumption that competency of English language teaching could be increased through Skill-oriented language teaching strategy rather than a single administered summative assessment. Descriptive and inferential statistical measures determined the measures of variability, dispersion and standard deviation in both the groups attained score in the tests. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy recorded a value of 0.703 which was highly significant. The p-value was 0.000 in the Bartletts test of sphericity in the Chi square test which was highly significant. Therefore, the test recorded a significant sample size along with a significant Bartletts test of sphericity.

Research Hypotheses
Ho1 There is no significant difference in the overall score achieved in English by non-native higher education students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching strategy.

137

Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel and Wasim Qazi

Ho2 There is no significant difference in the listening comprehension score achieved in English by non-native higher education students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching strategy. Ho3 There is no significant difference in the speaking test score of non-native higher education English students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching strategy. Ho4 There is no significant difference in the reading comprehension test score of non-native higher education English students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching strategy. Ho5 There is no significant difference in the writing test score of non-native higher education English students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching strategy. Ho 6 There is no significant difference in the grammatical structure test score of non-native higher education English students taught by conventional and skill-oriented English language teaching strategy.

Research Instrument
The instrument comprised the questionnaire, observation and interview of students. It comprised the test for both the groups with similar items, but differed in the process of administration. Table 1 elaborates that all the samples n = 227 were included to estimate the internal consistency measure through the test procedure used. None of the samples was excluded from the estimate. Table 2 illustrates that the total number of items used to estimate the measure of reliability using Cronbach Alpha is 5 which were the tests of listening comprehension score, speaking score, reading comprehension score, writing score and grammar score. The value of Cronbach Alpha was 0.74.

Data Analysis
Table 1: Inferential Statistics
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -.52376 -.52789

F Listening Equal variances Comprehension Score assumed Equal variances not assumed 8.808

Sig. .003

t -4.190 -4.229

df 225 212.880

Mean Std. Error Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference .000 .000 -.98881 -.98881

.23600 -1.45387 .23383 -1.44973

Levenes test for equality of variance and t-test for equality of means suggest that the test is significant. The two-tailed independent sample t-test is highly significant with a mean difference between the two groups which reads -0.98881. The test significance is also evident from the fact that the upper and lower confidence interval values at 95% significance level is a non-zero value which rejects the probability of equal means.

Effect of Skill-Oriented Language Teaching Strategy on the Performance of Non-Native Higher Education Students: A Case of Pakistani Universities
Table 2: Inferential Statistics
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

138

F Speaking Score Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 3.211

Sig. .074

t -2.357 -2.369

df 225 222.732

Mean Std. Error Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference .019 .019 -.56900 -.56900

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -.09327 -.09562

.24142 -1.04473 .24021 -1.04237

Levenes test for equality of variance and t-test for equality of means suggest that the test is significant. The two-tailed independent sample t-test is significant with a mean difference between the two groups which reads -0.56900. The test significance is also evident from the fact that the upper and lower confidence interval values at 95% significance level is a non-zero value which rejects the probability of equal means.
Table 3: Inferential Statistics
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -.99777 -.99622 -.15592 -.15747

F Reading Comprehension Score Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 1.988

Sig. .160

t -2.701 -2.711

df 225 224.254

Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .007

Mean Difference -.57685 -.57685

Std. Error Difference .21361 .21282

Levenes test for equality of variance and t-test for equality of means suggest that the test is significant. The two-tailed independent sample t-test is significant with a mean difference between the two groups which reads -0.57685. The test significance is also evident from the fact that the upper and lower confidence interval values at 95% significance level is a non-zero value which rejects the probability of equal means.
Table 4: Inferential Statistics
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -1.10834 -1.10638 -.21552 -.21747

F Writing Score Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 1.318

Sig. .252

t -2.922 -2.935

df 225 223.507

Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .004

Mean Difference -.66193 -.66193

Std. Error Difference .22654 .22554

Levenes test for equality of variance and t-test for equality of means suggest that the test is significant. The two-tailed independent sample t-test is significant with a mean difference between the two groups which reads -0.66193. The test significance is also evident from the fact that the upper and

139

Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel and Wasim Qazi

lower confidence interval values at 95% significance level is a non-zero value which rejects the probability of equal means.
Table 5: Inferential Statistics
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -1.16307 -1.16223 -.30189 -.30273

F Grammar Score Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed .373

Sig. .542

t -3.352 -3.359

df 225 225.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001

Mean Difference -.73248 -.73248

Std. Error Difference .21851 .21809

Levenes test for equality of variance and t-test for equality of means suggest that the test is significant. The two-tailed independent sample t-test is significant with a mean difference between the two groups which reads -0.73248. The test significance is also evident from the fact that the upper and lower confidence interval values at 95% significance level is a non-zero value which rejects the probability of equal means.

One-Way ANOVA
Table 6: Model Significance
ANOVA Sum of Squares 55.434 710.495 765.930 18.356 743.494 761.850 18.866 582.051 600.916 24.841 654.674 679.515 30.419 609.097 639.515 df 1 225 226 1 225 226 1 225 226 1 225 226 1 225 226 24.841 2.910 30.419 2.707 8.537 .004 Mean Square 55.434 3.158 18.356 3.304 18.866 2.587 F 17.555 Sig. .000

Listening Comprehension Score Speaking Score

Reading Comprehension Score

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

5.555

.019

7.293

.007

Writing Score

Grammar Score

11.237

.001

The table illustrates the significance of the model through ANOVA. The p-value for the significance of the model in listening comprehension score is 0.000 <0.05 with an F value of 17.555. The model rejects the probability of equal variance in listening comprehension test. This argument is supported by Table 4.38 through descriptive statistics that proves that there is significantly different variance in both the groups in listening comprehension test. The p-value for the significance of the model in speaking score is 0.019 <0.05 with an F value of 5.555. The model rejects the probability of equal variance in speaking test. This argument is supported by Table 4.38 through descriptive statistics that proves that there is significantly different variance in both the groups in speaking test.

Effect of Skill-Oriented Language Teaching Strategy on the Performance of Non-Native Higher Education Students: A Case of Pakistani Universities

140

The p-value for the significance of the model in reading comprehension score is 0.007 <0.05 with an F value of 7.293. The model rejects the probability of equal variance in reading comprehension test. This argument is supported by Table 4.38 through descriptive statistics that proves that there is significantly different variance in both the groups in reading comprehension test. The p-value for the significance of the model in writing score is 0.004 <0.05 with an F value of 8.537. The model rejects the probability of equal variance in writing test. This argument is supported by Table 4.38 through descriptive statistics that proves that there is significantly different variance in both the groups in writing test. The p-value for the significance of the model in grammar score is 0.001 <0.05 with an F value of 11.237. The model rejects the probability of equal variance in grammar test. This argument is supported by descriptive statistics that proves that there is significantly different variance in both the groups in grammar test.
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Variance
Descriptives 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 12.1695 12.9075 13.2472 13.8073 12.7768 13.2584 12.7852 13.2500 6.7330 19.3023 12.1549 12.8707 12.7682 13.3955 12.5484 13.0287 12.5508 13.0263 9.1725 16.4045 12.0394 12.6614 12.6426 13.2120 12.4167 12.8432 12.4196 12.8403 8.9639 16.2960 12.0685 12.7349 12.7659 13.3614 12.4957 12.9493 12.4994 12.9456 8.5156 16.9293 12.0572 12.6779 12.7993 13.4007 12.5025 12.9425 12.5073 12.9377 8.0671 17.3778

N Listening Comprehension Score Control Experimental Total Model Fixed Effects Random Effects Control Experimental Total Model Fixed Effects Random Effects Control Experimental Total Model Fixed Effects Random Effects Control Experimental Total Model Fixed Effects Random Effects Control Experimental Total Model Fixed Effects Random Effects 117 110 227

Speaking Score

117 110 227

Reading Comprehension Score

117 110 227

Writing Score

117 110 227

Grammar Score

117 110 227

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 12.5385 2.01519 .18630 13.5273 1.48206 .14131 13.0176 1.84094 .12219 1.77701 .11794 .49461 12.5128 1.95473 .18071 13.0818 1.65973 .15825 12.7885 1.83603 .12186 1.81781 .12065 .28459 12.3504 1.69846 .15702 12.9273 1.50662 .14365 12.6300 1.63062 .10823 1.60838 .10675 .28852 12.4017 1.81972 .16823 13.0636 1.57548 .15022 12.7225 1.73399 .11509 1.70577 .11322 .33108 12.3675 1.69481 .15669 13.1000 1.59097 .15169 12.7225 1.68218 .11165 1.64533 .10920 .36638

Minimum 9.00 10.00 9.00

Maximum 17.00 17.00 17.00

BetweenComponent Variance

.46103 9.00 11.00 9.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 .13274 9.00 11.00 9.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 .14356 9.00 10.00 9.00 17.00 16.00 17.00 .19341 9.00 10.00 9.00 16.00 17.00 17.00 .24439

Table 7 signifies that the presence of variance between the two groups makes the SOLTS model significant. The model supports that probability of variance in listening comprehension test score is 0.46103> 0.05 level of significance for a two-tailed test. The mean scores in each skill test between the two groups are significantly different which also supports the presence of variance. The model supports that probability of variance in speaking test score is 0.13274> 0.05 level of significance for a two-tailed test. The mean scores in each skill test between the two groups are significantly different which also supports the presence of variance. The model supports that probability of variance in reading comprehension test score is 0.14356> 0.05 level of significance for a two-tailed test. The mean scores in each skill test between the two groups are significantly different which also supports the presence of variance. The model supports that probability of variance in writing test score is 0.19341> 0.05 level of significance for a two-tailed test. The mean scores in each skill test between the two groups are significantly different which also supports the presence of variance. The model supports that probability of variance in grammar test score is 0.24439> 0.05 level of significance for a two-tailed

141

Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel and Wasim Qazi

test. The mean scores in each skill test between the two groups are significantly different which also supports the presence of variance.

Results and Discussion

The first hypothesis test found that the two strategies have significant differences and the conventional strategy of teaching listening comprehension is less effective. The second hypothesis found that the two strategies have significant differences and the conventional strategy of teaching and training skills in speaking is less effective. The third hypothesis found that the two strategies have significant differences and the conventional strategy of teaching and training skills in reading comprehension is less effective. The fourth hypothesis found that the two strategies have significant differences and the conventional strategy of teaching and training skills in writing is less effective. The fifth hypothesis found that the two strategies have significant differences and the conventional strategy of teaching and training skills in grammar is less effective.

Conclusion
In the light of findings about overall scores in the English course, it is concluded that listening comprehension exercises are essential for the non-native students. A proper test of listening comprehension prepares the student for the real life interaction with native and non-native speakers of English in a particular context. The higher education students who are taught through SOLTS are able to concentrate more on what they are being asked and their oracy is more productive than their overall responses in conventional test. SOLTS gives the non-native higher education English students time to respond to a given condition more appropriately than a conventional test in which teachers ask only a few questions and learners responses are not recorded. SOLTS provides the non-native students of higher education an opportunity to read coherently. Their pressure to do well on the overall test is released. The conventional model of testing does not provide this ease. When writing is introduced as a separate language test item, the students are more focused and can produce effective compositions. Their ability to comment, argue, judge, critique, evaluate, analyze and summarize in specific context can be assessed. SOLTS also requires an ability to observe, perceive and react in logically coordinating experiences. It encompasses a strong sense to visualize the language teaching paradigms around the globe for different reasons and causes. The conventional model of teaching and testing writing skills in English pressurizes the students to perform all the cognitive processes. This teacher-related expectation to write effectively despite pressure of other skills in one three-hour test influences students performance in other skills too. When the non-native higher education students are taught and trained through attention on grammar as separate skill training, they respond better as was witnessed in the experiment. The study conclusion includes the fact that higher education English language teachers need to be equipped with substantial grammatical testing strategy using grammar-only test items. The format of T.O.E.F.L and I.E.L.T.S can be used to prepare the test items.

References
[1] [2] Allen, H. (1966). A Survey of the teaching of English to non-English speakers in the United States. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Ancess, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Authentic teaching, learning, and assessment with new English learners at International High School: A series on authentic assessment and accountability. New York: Columbia University Press. Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom system, 28, 355-372.

[3]

Effect of Skill-Oriented Language Teaching Strategy on the Performance of Non-Native Higher Education Students: A Case of Pakistani Universities [4] [5] [6]

142

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15] [16] [17] [18]

[19]

[20]

[21] [22] [23]

Astor A. (2000). A qualified non-native English-speaking teacher is second to none in the field. TESOL Matters, 10 (2), 18-19. Barratt, L., & Contra, E. (2000). Native English-speaking teachers in cultures other than their own. TESOL Journal, 9 (3), 19-23. Bedell, D. A. & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons of language learning strategies in the Peoples Republic of China and other countries. In R.L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learner and teaching strategies around the world: Cross cultural perspectives (pp. 4760). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Brantmeier, C. (2002). Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and university levels: Variations, disparities, and generalizability. The Reading Matrix, 2(3). Broady. E & Kenning. M.M (eds.) (2007). Promoting learner autonomy in university language teaching. London: Association for Language Studies/CILT. Brophy, J. E. (1982). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and language teacher expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 631-66102. Burgos, M. (1993). The metacognitive processes of non-native English speaking high school students during the composing process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (6), 2092A Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the native speaker fallacy: Non-linguistic roots, nonpedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chern. C-L. (1993). Chinese students word-solving strategies in reading in English. In Huckin, T., Haynes, M., & Coady, J. (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 6785). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cheryl D. Foxcraft & Caroline Davies (2006) Taking ownership of the ITC's guidelines for computer-based and internet-delivered language testing: A South African application. International Journal of Testing, Volume 6, Issue 2 .pp173 180. Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. 4761 Crozier, N. (2006). Home country teachers advice to non-home country teachers: Some initial insights. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37, (1), 27-45. Ferris, D. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English Speakers. Research in the teaching of English, Vol. 26, 4565. Green P. S. & Hecht K: (1985). Native and non-native evaluation of learners errors in written discourse: System, 13 (2), 77-97. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999) Increasing the validity of adapted language tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1, 1-16. Kaplan, R. B. (2001). English the accidental language of science? In U. Ammon (Ed.). The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other language and language communities (pp. 3-26). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Mangeldorf, K. (1997). Parallels between higher education speaking and writing in second language acquisition, in Richness in Writing: Empowering language minority students. Edited by D. M. Johnson and D. H. Roen. New York: Longman, pp. 13445. Maser, P. J (1992). Politeness strategies in business letters by native and non-native English speakers. English for Special Purposes, 11 (3), 189-205. McNamara, Tim. (2001) Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language Testing (2001) 18.4:333-349. Oxford, R. (1997). Language teaching strategies: what every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

143 [24] [25]

Muhammad Yousuf Sharjeel and Wasim Qazi Richards, J.C., & Rogers, T. (1986).Approaches and methods in English language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheingold, K., Storms, B.A., Thomas, W.H., & Heller, J.I. (1997). Pacesetter English portfolio assessment: 1995 Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Center for Performance Assessment. Sheorey, R. (1986). Error perceptions of native-speaking and non-native speaking teachers of ESL. ELT Journal, 40 (4), 306-12. Swales, J. (1993). The higher education English language and its teachers: thoughts past, present and future. ELT Journal 47/4: 283-291. Tarone, E. (1993). The writing of Southeast Asian students in a university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2 (2), 149-72 Tonkyn, A. (1994). Introduction: grammar and the language teacher. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A., & Williams, E. (eds.) Grammar and the language teacher, pp1-14 Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Watanabe, Y. (1999). Classification of language learning strategies. International Christian University Language Research Bulletin, 6(1), 75-102. Weaver, S.J., & Cohen, A.D. (2004). Strategies-based instruction: A teacher-training manual. Minnesota: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota, MN. Weinstein, C. (2005). Elaboration skills as a learning strategy. In H.F. ONeil, Jr. (Ed.), Learning strategies. New York: Academic Press.

[26] [27] [28] [29]

[30] [31]

[32]