Issues around the Implementation of CLT

CLT becomes problematic in the context of teaching English as a foreign language or in expanding circles. Jarvis and Atsilarat (2004) contend that the problems generated by implementing the communicative approach have varied. They could be the students’ level of proficiency, the class size and the time allocated. Lai (1994) has outlined in particular problems happening in the classrooms of secondary schools in Hong Kong such as limited time to use the language and lack of student confidence to speak in English (self-esteem, language anxiety and lack of opportunities). Further noteworthy according to Lai (1994) was that students’ perceptions of students’ poor competence in English as well as teachers’ attitude towards learners’ performance became critically important. Zhang (2004) added that cultural barriers occurred in implementing CLT such as lacking in English use, English language proficiency of teachers in communication and the examination system focusing on grammar. ‘Confucianism’ of Chinese students in which that teachers are the central figure that must be honored whereas students’ role in learning is as receptive learners

Ch. 2: Communicative English Language Teaching and the Curriculum Page 39

generally interfere in the implementation of CLT (Liao, 2004; Miller, 2000). In the United Arab Emirates, Deckert (2004) found that the failure of CLT is due to excessive teacher talk and the perceptions of teacher and student concerning effective English teaching. Further noteworthy was the work of Gahin and Myhill (2001) regarding the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects that contributed to the failure of CLT. The intrinsic aspect regards the cultural factors such as students’ attitude and insufficient capacity of pedagogical performance and English language proficiency. The external aspects include low salary, lack of resources, large classes as well as ‘pressure’ from parents, principals and supervisors blocking teachers’ creativity to implement an ideal CLT syllabus.

Nunan (2003) noted that Korean teachers have insufficient English proficiency, insufficient language teaching materials as well as inadequate assessment practices for CLT whereas Lee (2014) asserted that CLT Korean teachers are ‘still very restricted to communication or speaking skill’. Kavanagh (2012) finds that CLT in Japan is difficult to execute due to sociocultural and educational factors within the Japanese English education system. ‘Japanese English teachers will continue to interpret and mediate CLT to harmonize with the needs of the teaching context they are within and as such will continue the need for grammar based tuition for university entrance examinations (Kavanagh, 2012, p. 737). Sreehari (2012) contended that teachers in Saudi Arabia focused on developing subject knowledge and classroom activities and were dominated by teacher talking/lecturing and followed by students working individually.

In a similar vein, Li (1998) and Nishino and Watanabe (2008) remarked how the failure of CLT in South Korea and Japan was in four domains, teacher, student, educational system and the construct of CLT itself. Teachers had misconceptions or lack of competence regarding CLT, particularly their English language proficiency. Students had little motivation to learn English or to develop their communicative activities. Problems also arise due to the education system such as having large classes (40-50 students) and a reliance on grammar-based examinations that leads teachers and students to continue traditional and non-communicative classroom methodologies.

To conclude the debates regarding the CLT implementation in class, Richards (1985) noted that there is no actual empirical evidence that communicative language classrooms produce better language learners than traditional class. Similarly, scholars such as Hu (2005), Nunan (2003) and Zhang and Hu (2010) find that the efforts to promote Western pedagogical practices showed limited success.

The notion of communicative competence is closely interrelated to the teaching of grammar even though language learning is not seen merely as a set of grammatical rules and vocabulary to memorize. It is seen as whole meaningful texts that can be conveyed to interlocutors or readers.

Ch. 2: Communicative English Language Teaching and the Curriculum Page 40

Scholars then argue whether explicit explanation on form would be necessary for teachers to explain. Long and Robinson (1998) claim a focus on form should be performed in terms of incidental activities in the communicative classroom. Similarly, Celce-Murcia (1991, p. 462) noted that ‘no one should dismiss grammar instruction’ in the teaching of English. She suggested teachers to consider some aspects in teaching grammar, learner and instructional variables. Learner variables deal with learning style, age, proficiency level and ‘educational background’ whereas instructional variables refer to ‘educational objectives’ (Celce-Murcia, 1991, p. 464). Additionally, Jarvis and Atsilarat (2004) point out the failure of the communicative competence in Bangladesh:

“The most problematic issue is a clear understanding and widespread endorsement of CLT and its effectiveness and on the other hand, a universal recognition of problems with implementation.” CLT was born and first implemented in the context as the first language or inner and outer circles Based on the researcher’s anecdotal notes and observation, CLT is not successfully taught in the context of foreign language teaching in Indonesia. Such failures might be due to the language context itself, the insufficient knowledge of teachers themselves, big classes, limited time allocations and inadequate learning materials. When teachers do not comprehend the philosophy of communicative language teaching, a complex sociolinguistic context (trilingual context) as well as the students’ need for the language might be problematic complications in the implementation. This is in line with the finding from Tipka (2004) summarizing that in the context of English as a foreign language in Indonesia, the hindrances are from various factors such as a lack of quality materials, no need to speak English outside the classroom and lack of parents’ involvement in students’ learning.

In terms of evaluative studies on CLT conducted in other EFL contexts, a curriculum evaluation was conducted in Oman done by a PhD student in Malaysia. Al-Jardani (2012), however, discusses issues on curriculum development and processes of curriculum evaluation in Oman. It does not talk about the implementation of CLT in Oman. In China, Wu (2001) noted that current challenges for English language teaching were English language planning, teacher education, materials, and assessment. She advised that China would need to ‘organize nationwide research teams in each of the sub-areas of study and to draw on international expertise’ (p. 194). Hu (2004, p. 43) contended, ‘the intensive top-down promotion of CLT notwithstanding, pedagogical practices in many Chinese classrooms have not changed fundamentally’. In Bangladesh, Hamid and Baldauf Jr (2008) concluded that teachers particularly in rural areas covered reading, writing and grammar in their teaching. They said, “Classroom practice was guided by their own beliefs and experiences of teaching and learning; CLT training had hardly had any impact on their classroom practice” (p. 18).

Ch. 2: Communicative English Language Teaching and the Curriculum Page 41

To conclude, the communicative approach was still argued by scholars particularly regarding the ‘status’ of the language – second or foreign language. Richards and Rogers (2001) suggest the end of twentieth century ‘post-methods era’ is used as the key factor for success or failure in language teaching. Teachers need to be able to select ‘approaches and methods flexibly and creatively based on their own judgment and experience’ and adapt the methods they use to make them their own (Richards and Rogers, 2001, p. 250). According to them, approaches and methods can be useful in the light of: (1) learning how to use different approaches and methods and understanding when they might be useful, (2) understanding some of the issues and controversies that characterize the history of language teaching, (3) participating in language learning experiences based on different approaches and methods as a basis for reflection and comparison, (4) being aware of the rich set of activity resources available to the imaginative teacher, and (5) appreciating how theory and practice can be linked from a variety of different perspectives. Teachers are motivators for students to learn and studies have shown the relationship between motivation and academic achievement.