Challenges and Constraints of Implementing Communicative Language Teaching: Teacher-Related vs. Non-Teacher-Related Factors
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Concerns have long been raised regarding the constraints of CLT. The study aims to discern the exact as opposed to the supposed problems that are taken for granted as obstacles. A total of 95 in-service Korean, North American, Chinese, Uzbek English teachers participated in the study. The results reveal that none of the non-teacher-related external factors such as educational policy, class size, classroom layout, learners’ English proficiency, and learners’ motivation, was found to be significant for CLT. Amongst teacher-related internal factors such as teachers’ language proficiency, teacher’s motivation to teach, years in service, teacher competence, and training in instructional methodology, teacher competence was found to be significant. In addition to the influence of the constraints on the teaching methods, the study further investigated teachers’ perception of their teaching. The results that teaching methods were selected for ‘convenience’ and external teaching environments as the No.1 precondition for their change to CLT suggest a need for a shift in teacher perception.
Article Details
References
Adem, H., & Berkessa, M. (2022). A case study of EFL teachers’ practice of teaching speaking skills vis-à-vis the principles of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Cogent Education, 9(1), DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2087458
Ahn, K. (2008). Teaching as one has been taught: The impact of teacher socialization on the implementation of English curricular reform. English Teaching, 63(3), 91-117.
Baek, J. (2017). A Study on the effective usage of task-based language teaching for improving communicative competence. Studies in Linguistics, 42, 369-393.
Belinda, R. V., & Raja, P. (2021). Modifying PPP in promoting communicative language teaching to improve the students’ English communicative competence. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 9(8), 351-365. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss8.3304
Borg, S., & Edmett, A. (2018). Developing a self-assessment tool for English language teachers. Language Teaching Research, 2019, 1-25. https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/2581234
Braine, G. (2005). Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum and practice. Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Butler, Y. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36-57. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annual-review-of-applied-linguistics/article/abs/implementation-of-communicative-and-taskbased-language-teaching-in-the-asiapacific-region/0F5168304508389D5F8BC06EE5C04FE1
Byun, G. (2014). Curriculum change focusing on communicative language teaching. The Journal of Mirae English Language and Literature, 19(2), 465-483.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Canh, L. (2002). Sustainable professional development of EFL teachers in Vietnam. Teachers Edition, 10, 32-37. http://www.nzdl.org/gsdl/collect/literatu/index/assoc/HASH010a.dir/doc.pdf
Cho, Y. (2014). National discourse of EGL and English teaching in Korea: Focusing on education policies and teacher perspectives. Modern English Education, 15(4), 77-98.
Choe, H. (2016). Language education policy in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. The New Studies of English Language & Literature, 63, 1-24.
Choi, S. (2000). Teachers' beliefs about communicative language teaching and their classroom teaching practices. English Teaching, 55(4), 3-32.
Çiftci, H., & Özcan, M. (2021). A contrastive analysis of traditional grammar teaching and communicative language teaching in teaching English grammar and vocabulary. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 8(2), 709-729. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1294310
Doeur, B. (2022). Implementation of communicative language teaching: Cambodian EFL teachers’ attitudes toward communicative language teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 15(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.1529a
Harahap, N. H., Ramadani, R., Sanusi, A., Sinaga, D. P., & Tampubolon, M. (2021). The increasing of students’ English speaking by using Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) through online learning in pandemic Covid-19. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(4), 8935-8941. https://www.bircu-journal.com/index.php/birci/article/view/2879
Hasanova, D., & Shadieva, T. (2008). Implementing communicative language teaching in Uzbekistan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 138-143.
Hasanova, D. (2007). Functional allocations of English in post-soviet Uzbekistan: Pedagogical implications for English language teachers. Purdue University.
Han, I. (2016). Implementation of CLT-based curriculum and consideration of negotiated pedagogy in Korea. Modern English Education, 17(3), 25-52.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Pearson.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.
Hu, W. (2010). Communicative language teaching in the Chinese environment. US-China Education Review, 7(6), 78-82. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED511286.pdf
Humphries, S., & Burns, A. (2015). In reality it’s almost impossible: CLT-oriented curriculum change. ELT Journal, 69(3), 239-248. https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/69/3/239/463588?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin.
Jeon, J. (2009). Key issues in applying the communicative approach in Korea. English Teaching, 64(4), 123-150.
Jeon, Y. (2010). An analysis of the characteristics of communicative English classes using COLT. English Language & Literature Teaching, 16(3), 339-363.
Jin, Y. (2007). Adapting communicative language teaching approach to China’s context. Sino-US English Teaching, 4(10), 29-33.
Johnson, K. (2004). From communicative activity to task: A short but significant journey. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 1(1), 185-195. https://m.earticle.net/Article/A182005
Kim, D., Lee, D., & Lee, S. (2014). A qualitative case study on the elementary school teachers’ workload. The Korean Society for the Study of Teacher Education, 31(3), 1-33.
Kim, H. (2004). Exploring the role of a teacher in a literature-based EFL classroom through communicative language teaching. English Teaching, 59(3), 29-52.
Kim, J. (2009). Effective application of task-based teaching for improving communicative competence of Korean college students. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 17(2), 111-129.
Kim, K., & Park, J. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ administrative workload and classroom preparation time for instruction: Identifying a causal relationship and a moderating effect by school establishment type. The Korean Society for the Study of Sociology of Education, 24(1), 29-54.
Kim, S. (2009). Re-examining the role of reading in the era of communicative language teaching. English Language Teaching, 21(4), 49-74.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Lee, H. (2018). Unresolved Issues in CLT and native-speakerism in Korean English language teaching contexts. English21, 31(1), 277-295.
Lee, M. (2011). The influence of the current national curriculum on pre-service English teacher education in Korea. Journal of the Korea English Education Society, 10, 1-23.
Lee, Y. (2012). The status quo of Korean secondary English education in the new millennium. Journal of the Korea English Education Society, 11(1), 49-69.
Li, D. (2001). Teachers perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. In D. R. Hall, & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching (pp.149-166). Routledge.
Liao, X. (2004). The need for communicative language teaching in China. ELT Journal, 58(3), 270-73. https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/58/3/270/423119
Littlewood, W. (2013). Developing a context-sensitive pedagogy for communication-oriented language teaching. English Teaching, 68(3), 3-25.
Liu, D., Ahn, G., Baek, K., & Han, N. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605-638.
Medgyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 429-442). Heinle and Heinle.
Moodie, I. & Nam, H. (2016). English language teaching research in South Korea: A review of recent studies (2009-2014). Language Teaching, 49, 63-98.
Navruzov, F. (2017). The communicative language teaching approach in Uzbekistan. Humanising Language Teaching, 19(2). http://old.hltmag.co.uk/apr17/mart03.htm
Nikitina, L., & Furuoka, F. (2006). Bridging a gap between traditional instruction and communicative language teaching in a foreign language classroom. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(4), 49-69. http://journal.asiatefl.org/main/main.php?inx_journals=10&inx_contents=316&main=1&sub=2&submode=3&PageMode=JournalView&s_title=Bridging_a_Gap_between_Traditional_Instruction_and_Communicative_Language_Teaching_in_a_Foreign_Language_Classroom
Nonkukhetkhong, K., Baldauf Jr, B., & Moni, K. (2006, January). Learner centeredness in teaching English as a foreign language. 26th Thai TESOL International Conference, Chiang Mai, Thailand. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Learner-centeredness-in-teaching-English-as-a-Nonkukhetkhong-Baldauf/256b64c544b6417a074358c88a902af6c0c1317e
Phoeun, M., & Sengsri, S. (2021). The effect of a flipped classroom with communicative language teaching approach on undergraduate students' English speaking ability. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 1025-1042. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1304417
Pitikornpuangpetch, C., & Suwanarak, K. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices about communicative language teaching (CLT) in a Thai EFL context. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 14(2), 1-27. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/253254
Rabbidge, M., & Chappell, P. (2012). Exploring non-native English speaker teachers’ classroom language use in south Korean elementary schools. TESL-EJ, 17(4), 20-33.
Rao, Z., (2006). Understanding Chinese students’ use of language learning strategies from cultural and educational perspectives. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27(6), 491-508. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.126.2127
Richards, J., & Theodore, R. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155-163. https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/58/2/155/391659?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Shin, S. (2012). It cannot be done alone: The socialization of novice English teachers in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 542–567.
Suh, Y. (2007). The concern and alternatives of CLT in Korea. The Journal of British and American Language and Literature, 23(1), 83-108.
Tahira, M. (2012). Behind MEXT’s new course of study guidelines. JALT: The Language Teacher, 36(3), 3-8. https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/36.3_art1.pdf
Tayjasanant, C., & Barnard, R. (2010). Language teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the appropriateness of communicative methodology: A case study from Thailand. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 7(2), 279-311.
Tomlinson, B., & Bao, D. (2004). The contributions of Vietnamese learners of English to EFL methodology. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 199-222. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/1362168804lr140oa
Walkinshaw, I., & Oanh, D. (2014). Native and non-native English language teachers: Student perceptions in Vietnam and Japan. SAGE Open, 4(2), 1–9. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244014534451
Wang, W., & Lam, A. (2009). The English language curriculum for senior secondary school in China: Its evolution from 1949. RELC Journal, 40(1), 65-82. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0033688208101447
Wei, L., Lin, H., & Litto, F. (2018). Communicative language teaching (CLT) in EFL context in Asia. Asian Culture and History, 10(2) 1-9. https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ach/article/view/74536
Yang, Y. (2014). The implementation of speaking fluency in communicative language teaching: An observation of adopting the 4/3/2 activity in high schools in China. International Journal of English Language Education, 2(1), 193-214. http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijele/article/view/5136
Yook, C. & Kim, Y. (2017). Reconsideration of communicative language teaching for the Korean EFL context. Studies in British and American Language and Literature, 124, 177-198.
Yu, L. (2001). Communicative language teaching in China: Progress and resistance. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 194-198. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3587868
Zhang D., Li, Y., & Wang, Y. (2013). How culturally appropriate Is the communicative approach with reference to the Chinese context?. Creative Education, 4(10A), 1-5. http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=36715
Zhang, H. (2014). Pre-service Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers perceptions about implementation of communicative language teaching [Doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico]. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/educ_llss_etds/49