Yirmr, MekonnenGetachew, Haile2018-07-112023-11-092018-07-112023-11-091986-06http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/7922In tht s study an attempt has beer; ;"jade it.) fi nc out whether or not a Situational Approach is more effective than a Struc .cr a] Approach i~ develop- 'ing the communicative ability in spe;:tkin~:fn:'lish. Teach inq mater ia'ls ~/ere prepared in line with the principles of th2 S1tuational and the Structural Approaches. One hun~red Grade ~ine students ~ere ranciomely assigned to the Experimental and the Control Groups. A pr2-te3~ was s~;e~to record the backgrounds of th~ students before the ~xperim~nt was started. Their English proficiency was found to be a~rost the sale. At the end of the instructions of the Experimental Lessons, a posttest was administered to observe the outcome of the Experiment. Thus~ any change that might cume after the experiment can be atributed to the difference in methodology. In the scores obtained, as determined by the t-t.est, the Experimental Group achieved significantly better results that the Control Group. un the bas is of the findings, it is recommended that non-native speakers of English should be taught English through the Situational ~pproach to develop their communicative competenc~. It is also recommended that more research work should be carried out before ary concrete move is takenenCommunicative AbilityThesis