Examining the role of context in the implementation of CLT in Turkey

Year 2015, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 43 - 55, 23.01.2016

Gizem Mutlu Özlem Kaşlıoğlu

Abstract

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been a major source of influence on foreign/second language teaching since 1970s (Richards, 2006). Despite the popularity of CLT, there have been opposing views on the appropriateness and feasibility of implementing it worldwide due to the particularity of each language-teaching context. The present study aimed to find out the current factors that may promote and/or hinder the effective implementation of CLT by Turkish EFL teachers working in state and private schools. Data collected through interviews with 6 EFL teachers indicated that while teachers’ understanding of CLT and students’ willingness to communicate in English were positive aspects in the implementation of CLT, factors such as assessment focusing on students’ knowledge of English rather than use of English, crowded classes and insufficient teaching resources had a negative effect on the implementation of CLT in Turkey.

Keywords: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), EFL, Teacher views, Turkish context 

Keywords

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), EFL, Teacher views, Turkish context

References

• Bataineh, R. F., Bataineh, R. F., & Thabet S. S. (2011). Communicative Language Teaching in the Yemeni EFL classroom: embraced or merely lip-serviced. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 859-866.
• Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278-287.
• Chang, M. (2011). Factors affecting the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching in Taiwanese College English classes. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 3- 12.
• Cimen, C. (2008). The comparison of senior and junior language teachers’ awareness of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) background theory, in Turkey. (Unpublished Master’s Dissertation). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Turkey.
• Hiep, P. H. ( 2007 ). CLT: unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201.
• Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of CLT in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.
• Hunutlu, S. (2011). Communicative Language Teaching in Turkey: Teachers’ views and classroom practices. (Unpublished Master’s Dissertation). Atatürk University, Turkey.
• Hymes, D.H. (1972). "On communicative competence". In Pride, J.B.; Holmes, J. Sociolinguistics: selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 269–293.
• Kirkgoz, Y. (2008). Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 309-322.
• Kirkgoz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: policy changes and their implementations. RELC Journal, 38, 216-228.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The use of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
• Mowlaie, B., & Rahimi, A. M. (2010). The effect of teachers’ attitudes about communicative language teaching on their practice: do they practice what they preach. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1524-1528.
• Razmjoo, S. A., & Riazi A. M (2006). Is Communicative Language Teaching practical in the expanding circle. Journal of Language and Learning, 4(2), 144-171.
• Richards, J. C., & Rogers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. (2nd ed.) NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Ny: Cambridge University Press.
• Shawer, S. (2013). Preparing adult educators: the need to develop communicative language teaching skills in college-level instructors. Journal of Literacy Research, 1-34.
• Sato, K. (2002). Practical understandings of communicative language teaching and teacher development. In S. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching:Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 41–81). New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Savignon, S. (2002). Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practices. In S. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1–28). New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Wong, C. (2012). A case study of college level second language teachers’ perceptions and implementations communicative language teaching. The Professional Educator, 36(2).