Tipo de artículo: Artículo original

Fecha de recibido: 11/10/2025

Fecha de aceptado: 22/12/2025

Fecha de publicado: 15/01/2026

Introduction

Clear and intelligible pronunciation is a key element of effective oral communication in English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Even when learners possess adequate vocabulary and grammatical knowledge, communication may be negatively affected if pronunciation lacks accuracy, particularly in terms of vowel articulation, rhythm, and intonation (Pourhosein, 2016; Derwing & Munro, 2015). As a result, pronunciation has become a crucial area of focus in EFL research due to its direct impact on intelligibility, comprehensibility, and overall communicative success.

Despite its relevance, pronunciation has frequently been marginalized in EFL instruction. In many educational contexts, including higher education, greater emphasis is placed on grammar, reading comprehension, and written production, while pronunciation instruction is often limited to incidental correction. This imbalance may hinder learners’ ability to communicate effectively, as insufficient attention to phonological features prevents the development of accurate and fluent oral skills. Consequently, learners may understand English input but struggle to make themselves understood when speaking.

Pronunciation difficulties are particularly evident in EFL environments where learners have limited exposure to authentic spoken English and few opportunities for sustained oral interaction. In such contexts, students often rely almost exclusively on classroom input, which may not provide enough listening variety or systematic pronunciation practice. These conditions restrict learners’ phonological awareness and articulatory control, resulting in persistent pronunciation errors that may become fossilized over time.

One of the most recurrent pronunciation challenges in English involves the distinction between the vowel sounds /ɪ/ (short i) and /iː/ (long i). These vowels contrast meaning in minimal pairs such as bit/beat and ship/sheep, where even slight differences in vowel duration or quality can alter meaning entirely. Inaccurate production of these vowel sounds frequently leads to misunderstandings, reduced speech clarity, and communicative breakdowns, especially in listening and speaking tasks.

For Spanish-speaking learners, including those in Ecuador, the contrast between /ɪ/ and /iː/ is particularly problematic. Spanish phonology does not use vowel length as a phonemic feature; therefore, learners tend to perceive and produce both English vowels with similar duration and articulatory tension. This phonological similarity increases the likelihood of pronunciation errors and first-language interference, as learners unconsciously transfer Spanish vowel patterns to English (Almalki & Algethami, 2022; Benavides Pruna, 2022).

These pronunciation difficulties often have consequences beyond intelligibility. Learners who are aware of their pronunciation limitations may experience anxiety, reduced confidence, and reluctance to participate in oral activities. As a result, they may avoid speaking opportunities, which further limits practice and reinforces inaccurate pronunciation patterns. This cycle negatively affects oral fluency and communicative competence, particularly at the early stages of language learning.

Within the Ecuadorian educational context, pronunciation instruction has traditionally received less attention than grammar, reading, and writing skills. Although national curricula emphasize communicative competence, explicit and systematic pronunciation training is not always integrated into classroom practice. This situation is especially evident in provincial areas such as Cotopaxi, where limited resources and reduced exposure to spoken English further constrain learners’ opportunities to develop accurate pronunciation.

As a consequence, many Ecuadorian EFL learners complete their initial stages of English instruction without sufficient control of basic phonemic contrasts. These limitations are observable in both receptive and productive skills, as learners struggle to discriminate similar vowel sounds during listening activities and to produce them accurately during oral tasks. Such difficulties highlight the need for instructional approaches that prioritize pronunciation as a fundamental component of language learning.

Pronunciation plays a central role in oral intelligibility because it encompasses both segmental features, such as vowels and consonants, and suprasegmental elements, including stress, rhythm, and intonation (Derwing & Munro, 2015). From a phonetic perspective, English vowel production requires sensitivity to both vowel quality and vowel duration. The distinction between /ɪ/ and /iː/ depends largely on temporal contrast and muscular tension, features that are not present in Spanish phonology. Consequently, Spanish-speaking EFL learners often experience difficulty perceiving and producing these vowel sounds accurately (Enciso et al., 2019).

Research in second language phonology indicates that first-language interference plays a significant role in pronunciation development. According to contrastive analysis theory, learners tend to transfer phonological patterns from their mother tongue to the target language, particularly when certain phonemic contrasts do not exist in the L1 (Jiménez, 2015). In Ecuadorian EFL classrooms, this interference is compounded by limited exposure to authentic spoken input and insufficient pronunciation-focused instruction, leading to persistent vowel production errors (Salazar & Carrión, 2021).

To address these challenges, pronunciation instruction must incorporate explicit listening discrimination, repeated oral production, and immediate corrective feedback. Teaching approaches that provide structured practice and clear auditory models are particularly beneficial for beginner learners, as they help establish accurate pronunciation habits and prevent fossilization. In this regard, methodologies that emphasize repetition and controlled oral practice offer promising solutions.

One instructional approach that aligns with these principles is the Audiolingual Method (ALM), which emerged from structural linguistics and behavioral psychology. ALM conceptualizes language learning as a process of habit formation achieved through imitation, repetition, and reinforcement (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). In pronunciation teaching, this method emphasizes exposure to accurate auditory models, systematic drilling, and immediate correction to reinforce correct sound production.

The Audiolingual Method prioritizes listening and speaking skills over reading and writing, making it particularly suitable for pronunciation-focused instruction at the beginner level. Techniques such as repetition drills, minimal pair practice, substitution drills, and dialogue memorization enable learners to develop phonological control and automaticity in speech production (Thornbury, 2000; Bowen, 2005). These activities allow learners to internalize correct sound patterns through consistent and guided practice.

Empirical studies conducted in various EFL contexts have shown that ALM-based instruction can significantly improve pronunciation accuracy and oral fluency, especially when learners are acquiring new phonemic contrasts absent in their first language (Hasanah & Dahniar, 2017; Ma’rifah, 2023). Although the method has been criticized for its mechanical nature, recent research suggests that when audiolingual techniques are applied systematically and supported by communicative activities, they can effectively enhance learners’ pronunciation skills and confidence.

Effective pronunciation teaching involves guided listening, sound discrimination, repeated oral practice, and timely corrective feedback (Kamidi et al., 2025). In the present study, these principles are operationalized through Audiolingual Method–based instructional strategies and assessment instruments designed to evaluate learners’ recognition, discrimination, and production of the vowel sounds /ɪ/ and /iː/. This pedagogical and theoretical grounding supports the investigation of the Audiolingual Method as an effective approach for improving pronunciation accuracy among Ecuadorian EFL learners, particularly at the university level.

Materials and methods

This research was conducted using a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative components with the aim of assessing the effectiveness of the audiolingual method in students learning English as a foreign language (EFL). This approach facilitated our understanding of the study by exploring and relating two variables: a pre-test and a post-test during the educational process.

The quantitative approach focused on the application of pre- and post-tests, allowing us to measure student performance before and after the method's implementation. Therefore, the assessments were designed to measure two skills: listening comprehension and reading. Consequently, the data provided on the progress achieved are reliable after the method's implementation. On the other hand, the qualitative approach allowed us to identify errors throughout the class.

The population for this study consisted of first-semester students in the National and Foreign Languages Education program at the Technical University of Cotopaxi. Furthermore, a non-probabilistic, purposive sampling method was used, taking into account their willingness and cooperation to participate in the study. This type of sampling proved beneficial, as it allowed us to work with a group readily accessible for the purposes of the research.

The inclusion criteria were students enrolled in the first semester of the English degree program. Participants who had attendance irregularities or who had not previously completed any assessment were excluded. The Audiolingual method intervention was developed over four classes based on behavioral principles such as repetition, repetition exercises, memorization, and structural patterns. During the classes, repetition exercises, immediate correction of mispronounced words, guided practice, and structured dialogues were used, with an emphasis on the production and correct use of the language.

The following instruments were used for data collection:

Pre- and post-test: structured in two sections corresponding to reading and listening skills.

A descriptive method was used to analyze the information, allowing us to organize and present the different results obtained in tables and percentages. An analytical-synthetic method was also employed to interpret the quantitative and qualitative data, enabling us to compare the results obtained before and after the introduction of the audiolingual method. Therefore, this process demonstrates the effectiveness of the method.

Results and discussion

The result of the pre-test for students to identify words containing the long i and short i. In this section, students retake the test using their knowledge without having previously been introduced to the audiolingual method. The test is divided into two sections: Listening and Reading. In the post-test, In the post-test, four classes are introduced using the audiolingual method (Khaldarchayeva, G. S. (2021). Each phase to be followed is detailed below:

· Pre test: In this first phase, we give students a preliminary test to identify their knowledge. It is divided into two sections with three questions. The first question consists of listening to the audio and circling the words with the short sound /ɪ/ and underlining the words with the long sound /i/. In the next question, students must listen carefully to the words and circle the word that has a different vowel sound. In the last question, students must read the words as clearly as possible.

· Planification: Based on the results obtained in the pre test, a plan is designed using the audiolingual method to be taught in four classes. This includes the selection of content such as repetitions and dialogues, substitution exercises (changing words), transformation (changing verb tenses/structures), and chain responses to practice grammatical structures in oral contexts.

· Implementation of the audiolingual method: It is the implementation of strategies in the classroom. Different activities are applied to encourage students to collaborate, participate, and work together. Researchers take on the role of teacher and facilitator of the learning process.

· Post test: In the final phase, the same test was administered at the beginning to see if students, after the introduction of the audiolingual method, were able to improve their skills when learning the English language.

Table 1. Pre - Test

Students	Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Total	27 (57,4%)	10 (21,3 %)	10 (21,3 %)	Total %
Student 1	9	9	8	26	19,13	19,17	17,04	55,34
Student 2	10	8	4	22	21,26	17,04	8,52	46,82
Student 3	11	8	4	23	23,39	17,04	8,52	48,95
Student 4	11	8	6	25	23,39	17,04	12,78	53,21
Student 5	11	8	10	29	23,39	17,04	21,30	61,73
Student 6	10	6	4	20	21,26	12,78	8,52	42,56
Student 7	10	6	8	24	21,26	12,78	17,04	51,08
Student 8	8	8	8	24	17,01	17,04	17,04	51,09
Student 9	6	7	10	23	12,76	14,91	21,30	48,97
Student 10	15	9	10	34	31,89	19,17	21,30	72,36
Student 11	12	6	8	26	25,51	12,78	17,04	55,33
Student 12	16	6	8	30	34,01	12,78	17,04	63,83
Student 13	16	6	10	32	34,01	12,78	21,30	68,09
Student 14	20	5	8	33	42,52	10,65	17,04	70,21
Student 15	15	6	6	27	31,89	12,78	12,78	57,45
Student 16	13	8	6	27	27,64	17,04	12,78	57,46
Student 17	6	8	8	22	12,76	17,04	17,04	46,84
Student 18	12	8	6	26	25,51	17,04	12,78	55,33
Student 19	16	8	8	32	34,01	17,04	17,04	68,09
Student 20	8	10	10	28	17,01	21,30	21,30	59,61
Student 21	9	8	6	23	19,13	17,04	12,78	48,95
Student 22	11	7	4	22	23,39	14,91	8,52	46,82
Student 23	17	6	8	31	36,14	12,78	17,04	65,96
Student 24	8	0	8	16	17,01	0,00	17,04	34,05
Student 25	11	2	6	19	23,39	4,26	12,78	40,43
Student 26	9	3	4	16	19,13	6,39	8,52	34,04
Student 27	5	3	4	12	10,63	6,39	8,52	25,54
Student 28	12	2	8	22	25,51	4,26	17,04	46,81
Student 29	0	1	6	7	0,00	2,13	12,78	14,91
Student 30	3	0	4	7	6,38	0,00	8,52	14,90
Student 31	1	7	4	12	2,13	14,91	8,52	25,56
Student 32	2	6	4	12	4,25	12,78	8,52	25,55

Table 1 shows the results of the 32 students in the pre- and post-tests, in which question 1 represents 57.4% and questions 2 and 3 represent 21.3%. Table 1 shows in detail the results obtained in the subsequent tests of the 32 students. In this assessment, a low to medium level of performance was observed, which allows us to evaluate and simultaneously observe that they have difficulty recognizing vowel sounds such as long and short i. Student number 10 obtained a score of 72.36%, while the other students obtained lower scores. Participants 29 and 30 obtained the lowest scores, with 14.90% and 14.91%, respectively.

Table 2. Post test

Students	Question 1	Question 2	Question 3	Total	27 (57,4%)	10 (21,3 %)	10 (21,3 %)	Total %
Student 1	20	8	10	38	42,52	17,04	21,30	80,86
Student 2	18	10	8	36	38,27	21,30	17,04	76,61
Student 3	21	10	8	39	44,64	21,30	17,04	82,98
Student 4	22	10	10	42	46,77	21,30	21,30	89,37
Student 5	24	9	8	41	51,02	19,17	17,04	87,23
Student 6	26	10	10	46	55,27	21,30	21,30	97,87
Student 7	23	10	10	43	48,90	21,30	21,30	91,50
Student 8	22	10	8	40	46,77	21,30	17,04	85,11
Student 9	24	9	8	41	51,02	19,17	17,04	87,23
Student 10	20	9	10	39	42,52	19,17	21,30	82,99
Student 11	19	10	10	39	40,39	21,30	21,30	82,99
Student 12	17	10	8	35	36,14	21,30	17,04	74,48
Student 13	23	8	10	41	48,90	17,04	21,30	87,24
Student 14	26	9	10	45	55,27	19,17	21,30	95,74
Student 15	20	10	8	38	42,52	21,30	17,04	80,86
Student 16	21	10	10	41	44,64	21,30	21,30	87,24
Student 17	18	9	8	35	38,27	19,17	17,04	74,48
Student 18	24	10	10	44	51,02	21,30	21,30	93,62
Student 19	20	9	10	39	42,52	19,17	21,30	82,99
Student 20	26	10	8	44	55,27	21,30	17,04	93,61
Student 21	22	9	10	41	46,77	19,17	21,30	87,24
Student 22	20	10	10	40	42,52	21,30	21,30	85,12
Student 23	24	10	8	42	51,02	21,30	17,04	89,36
Student 24	23	9	10	42	48,90	19,17	21,30	89,37
Student 25	18	10	8	36	38,27	21,30	17,04	76,61
Student 26	20	9	10	39	42,52	19,17	21,30	82,99
Student 27	22	10	10	42	46,77	21,30	21,30	89,37
Student 28	26	10	10	46	55,27	21,30	21,30	97,87
Student 29	24	9	8	41	51,02	19,17	17,04	87,23
Student 30	20	8	10	38	42,52	17,04	21,30	80,86
Student 31	18	10	8	36	38,27	21,30	17,04	76,61
Student 32	22	9	10	41	46,77	19,17	21,30	87,24

On the other hand, the post-test indicates that all students have improved significantly. Student number 10 did not obtain the highest percentage but rose one scale, resulting in 82.99%. The highest percentage was obtained by student 13 with 97.87%. Notable progress was observed in students 29 and 30. Student number 29 obtained 87.23% and student number 30 obtained 80.86%.

Table 3. Comparative analysis.

	Pre-test			Scales		Methodology		Post-test			Scales		Improvement
Students	Total	Total %						Total		Total %
Student 1	26	55,34		Aceptable		Audiolingual		38		80,86	Good		25,52
Student 2	22	46,82		Needs improvement				36		76,61	Good		29,79
Student 3	23	48,95		Needs improvement				39		82,98	Exellent		34,04
Student 4	25	53,21		Aceptable				42		89,37	Exellent		36,17
Student 5	29	61,73		Good				41		87,23	Exellent		25,51
Student 6	20	42,56		Needs improvement				46		97,87	Exellent		55,31
Student 7	24	51,08		Aceptable				43		91,50	Exellent		40,42
Student 8	24	51,09		Aceptable				40		85,11	Exellent		34,02
Student 9	23	48,97		Needs improvement				41		87,23	Exellent		38,27
Student 10	34	72,36		Good				39		82,99	Exellent		10,63
Student 11	26	55,33		Aceptable				39		82,99	Exellent		27,66
Student 12	30	63,83		Good				35		74,48	Good		10,65
Student 13	32	68,09		Good				41		87,24	Exellent		19,14
Student 14	33	70,21		Good				45		95,74	Exellent		25,54
Student 15	27	57,45		Aceptable				38		80,86	Exellent		23,41
Student 16	27	57,46		Aceptable				41		87,24	Exellent		29,79
Student 17	22	46,84		Needs improvement				35		74,48	Good		27,64
Student 18	26	55,33		Aceptable				44		93,62	Exellent		38,29
Student 19	32	68,09		Good				39		82,99	Exellent		14,89
Student 20	28	59,61		Aceptable				44		93,61	Exellent		34,01
Student 21	23	48,95		Needs improvement				41		87,24	Exellent		38,29
Student 22	22	46,82		Needs improvement				40		85,12	Exellent		38,30
Student 23	31	65,96		Good				42		89,36	Exellent		23,40
Student 24	16	34,05		Needs improvement				42		89,37	Exellent		55,32
Student 25	19	40,43		Needs improvement				36		76,61	Good		36,18
Student 26	16	34,04		Needs improvement				39		82,99	Exellent		48,95
Student 27	12	25,54		Needs improvement				42		89,37	Exellent		63,83
Student 28	22	46,81		Needs improvement				46		97,87	Exellent		51,06
Student 29	7	14,91		Needs improvement				41		87,23	Exellent		72,32
Student 30	7	14,90		Needs improvement				38		80,86	Good		65,96
Student 31	12	25,56		Needs improvement				36		76,61	Good		51,05
Student 32	12	25,55		Needs improvement				41		87,24	Exellent		61,69
SCALES			RANKING		PRE-TEST		PERCENTAGE		POST-TEST			PERCENTAGE
Needs improvement			0 - 50%		16		50,0		0			0,0
Aceptable			51- 60%		9		28,1		0			0,0
Good			61 - 80%		7		21,9		7			21,9
Exellent			81 - 100%		0		0,0		25			78,1
			TOTAL		32		100,0		32			100,0

The pre-test results indicate that 16 students obtained a score of 50%, indicating a need for improvement, 9 students achieved an acceptable level of 51-60%, and 7 students scored between 61-80%, indicating a good level, but none of the participants obtained a score of 81-100%, indicating an excellent level. These results show us that students do not have a command of skills when learning a second language.

Before re-evaluating the students, we introduced the audilingual method and obtained very positive results: 25 students achieved an excellent level, which is on a scale of 81-100%, and 7 students obtained 61-80%, resulting in a good level. The most notable progress was made by participants 29 and 30, who achieved a score of 80%, placing them in the excellent range. Most importantly, no participant remained at an acceptable level or needed improvement. These results show that they not only improved in terms of scores but also in their skills.

The comparative analysis between the two assessments allowed us to observe an increase in the results of each participant. Students who initially performed poorly showed significant change, with improvements exceeding 50% in some cases. This progress is due to the application of the audiolingual method with different exercises such as repetition, dialogues, and instant correction.

Discussion

The behaviorist philosophy underpins the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM), a method of teaching languages that views language acquisition as the development of habits. It prioritizes speaking and listening over reading and writing. (Aduqaxxarovna, I. Z. (2025, July). In relation to this approach, this study conducted pre- and post-tests to identify changes in student performance following the application of the audiolingual method.

The audiolingual approach, which emphasizes the development of language habits through techniques such as imitation, memorization, concentration, and practice or repetition exercises, is an effective way to teach languages. (Sholikhah, Y. I., Ismilah, S., & Baron, R. (2025). Although this method is behaviorist, several studies indicate that the audiolingual method helps to improve and practice the language effectively with immediate intervention and correction from the teacher.

Young learners studying English as a second language showed a substantial 10% improvement in vocabulary recognition and pronunciation when comparing their average scores before and after the test. Hu, X., & Du, H. (2023). This process contributes to the effectiveness of implementing a pre-test before introducing methodologies or strategies to improve students' skills, as they improve effectively and the results are very good in subsequent tests.

The process of teaching English using the audiolingual method allowed us to demonstrate significant progress in student performance, especially in skills such as structured repetition and oral comprehension. When comparing the different results, we obtained in the pre- and post-tests, we observed a progressive improvement in the use of basic structures when producing language, which shows us that guided and constant practice helps to strengthen different skills.

The use of repetitive exercises, modeled dialogues, and oral activities fosters a more collaborative and participatory learning experience, allowing students to gain more confidence when producing language. Instant corrections also help prevent grammatical errors. This contributes to a more fun and dynamic classroom environment, enabling students to improve and practice.

The results obtained confirm that pedagogical intervention prior to a post-test is a methodological strategy and a very effective tool for evaluating pedagogical impact. In this sense, the difference between the various results shows us that the method applied had a significant positive impact, facilitating the acquisition of different skills.

Furthermore, it is clear that the implementation of the audiolingual method helps to improve discipline when learning a second language, in this case English. Different activities such as repetition and instant corrections encourage more fluid and accurate oral production.

Finally, it is concluded that the audiolingual method is a very effective alternative to implement in classrooms when students are beginning to learn a second language, since the pre- and post-intervention assessments allowed us to obtain clear results on student progress, contributing to an improvement in skills and teaching practice.

Conclusions

The objective of this project was to analyze the effectiveness of the audiolingual method in learning English. Throughout this process, different skills were strengthened through repetition, imitation, and the approach used.

Although the initial assessment did not achieve an excellent level, in the subsequent assessment, after the introduction of the methodology, most students achieved a good level. This demonstrates the effectiveness of implementing the audiolingual method with first-semester students, which had a positive effect that helped them gain greater confidence when speaking.

In this regard, the results obtained in this project allow us to conclude that the application of the audiolingual method had a positive influence on the participants. What influenced this process were the different activities that were carried out to help reinforce and improve the production of vowel sounds in the English language, which was observed in the results obtained in the subsequent test.

However, in the preliminary assessment, students presented several difficulties, mainly in identifying vowel sounds. After implementing the method, progress was observed in most students. This shows us that the method is suitable for students who are beginning to learn a language.

Therefore, throughout this process, various positive changes were observed in the students when using the English language, as they showed greater confidence, which allowed them to participate in class. Several students stopped feeling afraid or insecure when making mistakes, which is a very important aspect of foreign language learning.

Likewise, the audiolingual method helped reinforce basic skills such as pronunciation, which is often one of the most complex areas for students who are beginning to learn a language. The progress achieved in the final evaluation reaffirms that guided and repetitive practice contributes to strengthening knowledge in their learning.

In conclusion, it can be said that the implementation of the audiolingual method was effective not only because of the results obtained but also because of its favorable effect on student motivation and confidence. For this reason, the audiolingual method is considered a useful approach for future teaching of students learning English as a second language at beginner levels.

References

Almalki, N., & Algethami, G. (2022). An exploration of the potential benefit of extensive listening along with orthography for improving EFL learners’ pronunciation. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(1), 3. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40862-022-00132-x

Armas, G., & Pila, M. (2025, febrero 6). Exploring Effective Approaches to Pronunciation Instruction in Foreign Language Learning: A Case Study in English Language Teaching in Ecuadorian Public Schools. Revista de Estudios Contemporáneos del Sur Global. https://revistapacha.religacion.com/plugins/generic/hypothesis/pdf.js/viewer/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Frevistapacha.religacion.com%2Findex.php%2Fabout%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F443%2F728%2F1388

Benavides Pruna, M. A. (2022). Efl teaching methods applied in online classes on the major in pedagogy of national and foreign languages. https://repositorio.utc.edu.ec/items/7eb980b8-3e9d-4203-aef9-522d56bb8532

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=SuIr3O8AAAAJ&hl=es&oi=sra

Enciso, O. L. U., Hernandez, S. S. F., Pita, K. L. V., & Pabón, A. S. R. (2019). Problematic phonemes for spanish-speakers’ learners of english. Gist: Education and Learning Research Journal(19), 215-238. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7763420

Esmaeili, M., Sheydayi, A., & Jamalabadi, F. (2025). A Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Content Analysis Applications in Urban Planning Research: Proposing a Mixed Method Approach. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 151(3), 04025020. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/JUPDDM.UPENG-5080

Gamage, K. G. S. (2022). Exploring the efficacy of audio-lingual Method for adults’ English language speaking proficiency: A case from a university in Sri Lanka. Journal of Language Studies, 6(2), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.4038/jls.v6i2.8

Hu, X., & Du, H. (2023). A Pilot Study: The Impact of Phonics Instruction Application on Phonemic Awareness within Reading and Vocabulary Abilities of Elementary School English Teaching. English Language Teaching, 16(6), 186-186. https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v16y2023i6p186.html

Jiménez, Á. L. (2015). When focus goes wild: An empirical study of two syntactic positions for information focus. Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW), 1(1), 119-133. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=421705

Kajamaa, A., Mattick, K., & de la Croix, A. (2020). How to… do mixed‐methods research. The clinical teacher, 17(3), 267-271. https://asmepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/tct.13145

Khaldarchayeva, G. S. (2021). Audio-lingual method and its peculiarities. Academic research in educational sciences, 2(2), 1060-1064. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/audio-lingual-method-and-its-peculiarities

Khamidova, D. (2024). The usage of audio-lingual method in teaching young learners. Central Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies, 1(17), 104-107. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-usage-of-audio-lingual-method-in-teaching-young-learners

Ma’rifah, R. A. (2023). The Effect of Audio-Lingual Method Toward Teaching Speaking Ability in Private English Course. RETAIN : Journal of Research in English Language Teaching, 11(01), 57–66. Retrieved from https://ejournal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/retain/article/view/45199

Mackey, A., & Bryfonski, L. (2018). Mixed methodology. In The Palgrave handbook of applied linguistics research methodology (pp. 103-121). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Pourhosein Gilakjani, A., & Sabouri, N. B. (2016). How can students improve their reading comprehension skill. Journal of Studies in Education, 6(2), 229.

Pupiales Yepez Janeth Patricia (2023); L1 interference in English major students’ pronunciation at Technical University of Cotopaxi. UTC. Pujilì. 59 p https://repoadmin.utc.edu.ec/items/07bde842-7c4b-46bd-9079-89a7a964aaf9

Prasetyo Aji, B. (2022). Enhancing Efl Learners’ Speaking Skills Through the Audio-Lingual Method. Journey. https://www.academia.edu/120519654/Enhancing_Efl_Learners_Speaking_Skills_Through_the_Audio_Lingual_Method

Qari, I. A. (2021). The Effect of Explicit Instruction of Requests on Saudi EFL Learners Using a Pre-Test, Post-Test Approach. Arab World English Journal, 12(1), 113-127. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1297657

Sholikhah, Y. I., Ismilah, S., & Baron, R. (2025). Application of Audio Lingual Method in Teaching English to Students. JIIP-Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, 8(1), 915-919. http://jiip.stkipyapisdompu.ac.id/jiip/index.php/JIIP/article/view/6625

Wullur, A. E., Liando, N. V., & Rorimpandey, R. (2021). Improving students’ motivation in studying english using audio-lingual method. Journal of English Language and Literature Teaching, 5(1). https://www.academia.edu/download/81789349/1416.pdf