Bridging the Gap: Integrating Traditional Methodologies in Language Teaching

Authors

  • Inna Kivenko Inna Kivenko, PhD, Associate Professor, Odesa National Maritime University, Ukraine
  • Olena Moskaliuk PhD, Associate Professor, Odesa National Maritime University, Ukraine
  • Hanna Poliakova Сandidate of Pedagogical Science, Assistant Professor, Odesа National Maritime University, Ukraine
  • Iryna Repushevska PhD, Assistant Professor, Odesa National Maritime University, Ukraine
  • Anna Shapoval PhD, Assistant Professor, Odesa National Maritime University, Ukraine
  • Tetiana Yablonska Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Odesa National Maritime University, Ukraine
  • Natalia Koval Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University, Ukraine
  • Olena Koliasa PhD, Post-doctoral Researcher, Lviv Ivan Franko National University; Associate Professor, Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University; Odesa National Maritime University, Ukraine; Visiting Researcher, the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2009, Australia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/17.4/1057

Keywords:

digital learning, educational innovation, English Language Teaching (ELT), language learning methodologies, pedagogical technology, professional development, teaching strategies, technological integration

Abstract

This study examines the adoption of innovative language learning methodologies by English language teachers through a survey of 100 educators across Ukrainian institutions. The research reveals significant pedagogical transformation, with 57% of teachers actively implementing innovative techniques alongside traditional Communicative and Grammar-Translation Methods. Educators are demonstrating an increasing adoption of Content-Based, Blended Learning, Project-Based, and Task-Based approaches, indicating a shift toward dynamic, learner-centred instruction. Academic institutions serve as the primary source of methodological knowledge (45%), followed by Internet resources (28%). However, limited engagement with in-service training, workshops, and scholarly literature reveals gaps in continuous professional development, highlighting the need for structured support programs. Teachers show strong technological integration, with 82% utilising films and videos, while 51-55% employ apps, online worksheets, and digital assessments. This technological fluency reflects fundamental changes in language pedagogy aligned with digital learning environments.Despite positive attitudes, significant barriers impede innovation. Infrastructure deficiencies (37%) and insufficient training (30%) emerge as primary obstacles, alongside curriculum constraints (21%) and limited consultation opportunities (15%). These systemic challenges require institutional investment in resources and comprehensive training programs. Student responses to innovative methods prove overwhelmingly positive, with 88% of teachers reporting favourable reactions and 77% deeming the implementations successful. This alignment between pedagogical innovation and learner engagement validates innovative approaches to education. The findings indicate English language education stands at a transformative juncture. Teachers demonstrate readiness for methodological innovation, yet systemic support remains essential for sustained implementation. Addressing infrastructure and training gaps while maintaining educator enthusiasm offers a pathway toward enhanced language learning outcomes.

References

Babelyuk, O., Koliasa, O., Lopushanskyy, V., Smaglii, V., & Yukhymets, S. (2021). psychological difficulties during the COVID lockdown: Video in blended digital teaching language, literature, and culture. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ). Special Issue on Covid-19 Challenges. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/covid.13

Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833774

Beckett, G. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v19i2.929

Belias, D., Sdrolias, L., Kakkos, N., Koutiva, M. & Koustelios, A. (2013). Traditional teaching methods vs. teaching through the application of information and communication technologies in the accounting field: Quo vadis? European Scientific, 9, pp. 73-101.

Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. NY: Longman.

Cohen, A. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow, England, New York: Pearson/Longman.

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0

Dewey, J. & E. Dewey. (1915). Schools of tomorrow. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.

Egbert, J. L. (2005). Conducting CALL research. CALL: Research Perspectives. ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fried-Booth, D. (1982). Project work with advanced classes. ELT Journal, 36(2), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/36.2.98

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of the English Language in the 21st Century. London: British Council.

Hedge, T. (1993). Key concepts in ELT. ELT Journal, 47(3), 275-277.

Holmes, V. L., & Moulton, M. R. (2001). Cambridge handbooks for language teachers: Writing simple poems: Pattern poetry for language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.

Hubbard, P. (2009). General introduction. Computer-assisted language learning. Critical concepts in linguistics. London: Routledge.

Hutchinson, T. (1991). Introduction to project work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Irujo, S. (2004). Differentiated instruction: We can no longer aim solely at the middle. ELL Outlook.

Ivanytska, N., Koliasa, O., Kovalevska, T., Matsera, O., & Tkachuk, T. (2024). Analysing the Possibilities of Implementing AI and Social Networks in Teaching Foreign Language Students: Ukrainian Universities Case Study. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ). Special Issue on ChatGPT. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/ChatGPT.21

Kasper, L. (2000). Content-based college ESL instruction. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Koliasa, O., Lelet, I., Serebriakova, V., & Yukhymets, S. (2021). The use of hypermedia technologies in higher education institutions during the COVID-19 lockdown. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ). Special Issue on COVID-19 Challenges. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/covid.5

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reflective practice: towards a holistic view. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790000200108

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Little, D. B., Farmer, S., & El-Hilali, O. (2007). Digital data integrity: The evolution from passive protection to active management. John Wiley & Sons.

Markham, T., Larmer, J. & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project-based learning handbook: A guide to standards-focused project-based learning for middle and high school teachers. Calif: Buck Institute for Education.

Motteram, G. (2013). Developing and extending our understanding of language learning and technology. Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching, 177.

Nomass, B. B. (2013). The impact of using technology in teaching English as a second language. Academic Journal: English Language and Literature Studies, 3(1). 111–116.

Ogden, C., & Claus, J. (1997). Reflection as a Natural Element of Service: Service Learning for Youth Empowerment. Equity & Excellence in Education, 30, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568970300110

Olsen, R. E. W.-B., & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. Cooperative language learning: A teacher's resource book (pp. 1–30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 166–172). Cambridge University Press.

Pickett, A. (1996). Reflective teaching practices and academic skills instruction. http://www.indiana.edu/1506/mod02/pickett.html

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Cooperative language learning. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.020

Richardson, V. (1990). The evolution of reflective teaching and teacher education. Encouraging Reflective Practice in Education (pp.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.html

Wedman, J. M., Martin, M. W., & Mahlios, M. C. (1990). Effect of orientation, pedagogy and time on selected student teaching outcomes. Action in Teacher Education, 12(2), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1990.10462744

Downloads

Published

2025-12-18

How to Cite

Kivenko, I., Moskaliuk, O., Poliakova, H. ., Repushevska, I., Shapoval, A., Yablonska, T., Koval, N., & Koliasa, O. (2025). Bridging the Gap: Integrating Traditional Methodologies in Language Teaching . Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 17(4), 274-296. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/17.4/1057

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 4 (2025): Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala

Section

Continuous Education and Upskilling for Career Advancement

License

Copyright (c) 2025 The Authors & InManifest Network

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant this journalright of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND

CC_BY_NC_ND