AN EXPLORATION ON STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS COMMUNICATIVE AND NON COMMUNICATIVE CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
VINH UNIVERSITY

NGÔ THỊ HẠNH

AN EXPLORATION ON STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES
TOWARDS COMMUNICATIVE AND NONCOMMUNICATIVE CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES

MASTER’S THESIS IN EDUCATION

Nghệ An , 2017


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
VINH UNIVERSITY
-----------------

NGO THI HANH

AN EXPLORATION ON STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES
TOWARDS COMMUNICATIVE AND NONCOMMUNICATIVE CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES
Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
Code: 60 14 01 11

MASTER’ S THESIS IN EDUCATION
SUPERVISOR:
Assoc. Prof. Dr Le Van Canh

Nghệ An, 2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would first like to thank my thesis advisor Assoc. Prof., Dr. Le Van Canh at
University of Languages and International Studies – VNU for the continuous support
of my MA study and research, for his patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense
knowledge. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this
thesis. I could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor for my M.A study.
The door to Dr. Le Van Canh’s office was always open whenever I ran into a trouble
spot or had a question about my research or writing. He consistently allowed this paper
to be my own work, but steered me in the right the direction whenever he thought I
needed it.
Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Assoc. Prof.,
Dr. Ngo Đinh Phuong, Dr. Nguyen Quang Hai, Dr. Nguyen Thi Quyet and Dr. Tran Thi
Ngoc Yen, for their encouragement, insightful comments, and hard questions.
I would also like to thank my fellow teachers for giving me encouragement as the
second reader of this thesis, and I am gratefully indebted to his/her for his/her very
valuable comments on this thesis. And a very special gratitude goes out to all 75 grade
12 students at Nong cong Continuing Central of Education who agreed to participate in
the survey by signing the letter of consent.
Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents and to my husband
and our two children for providing me with unfailing support and continuous
encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching
and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without
them. Thank you.

3


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I hereby acknowledge that this study is my own work. The data and findings
discussed in the thesis are true, used with permission, and have not been published

elsewhere.

4


TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
ACKNOWLEDEGMENT …………………………………………………………..i
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP…..…………………………………………..….ii
TABLE OF CONTENT
…………………………………………………………iii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………...v
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………..vi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ……..……………………………………………1
1.1.Rationale of the study ………………………………………………………….1
1.2.Aims and objectives of the study………………………………………………..1
1.3. Research Question…………………………………………………………...….2
1.4. Organization of the study……………………………………………………….2
CHAPTER II.LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………….......3
2.1. Context of study...............................................................................................3
2.2. Attitude.............................................................................................................5
2.3. Why study learners’ attitudes?............................................................................5
2.3.1.Communicative language teaching.....................................................................7
2.3.2.Some major features of Communicative Language Teaching.........................8
2.3.3.Communicative activities ................................................................................12
2.3.4.Advantages of CLT..........................................................................................12
2.3.5.Disadvantages of CLT……………………………………....………………13
2.4. Studies on students’ attitudes towards communicative and non-communicative
activities………………………………………………………….............................15
CHAPTER III : METHODOLOGY .........................................................................20

3.1. Survey ……………………………………………………...………………….20
3.2. The questionnaire ………………………………………..……………………21
3.3. The content validity ………………………………………...…………………22
3.4. The reliability ……………………………………………..………………….23
3.5. Data analysis ...................................................................................................23
3.6.Procedure……………………………………………………..………………..24
3.6.1. Timeline………………………………………………………..……………24
3.6.2. Participants……………………………………………………..……………26
CHAPTER IV: THE RESULTS ...............................................................................27
4.1. Students' attitudes towards learning English.....................................................27
4.2. Students' attitudes towards the communicative and non-communicative
activities in their learning English …………………………………....…………. 31
4.3. Students’ attitudes towards error correction ……………………...…………...37
4.4. Students’ attitudes towards teacher’ language use in the classroom...………...41
5


4.5. The views of seventy-five high school students regarding the communicative
and non-communicative activities in the EFL classroom…….................................44
CHAPTER V:CONCLUSION………………………………….....……………….57
5.1. Conclusion………………………………………………………...……...……57
5.2. Suggestions for future studies ……………………………..……...…………..58
References…………………………………………………………………...……..59
Appendix A………………………………………………………………...……….66

6


LIST OF TABLES
Page

24
Table 0: The timeline of the study…………………………………………………..
Table 4.1. Students’ attitudes towards forms-focused (non-communicative)
activities…………………………………………………………………………… 27
Table 4.2 : Descriptive statistics (Mean and SD) of students’ attitudes towards
non-communicative activities……………………………………………………… 29
Table 4.3. Students’ attitudes towards meaning-focused activities…………...……. 31
Table 4.4 : Descriptive statistics (Mean and SD) of Students’ attitudes about
communicative……………………………………………………………………… 34
Table 4.5. Students’ attitudes towards error correction…………………………….. 37
Table 4.6. : Descriptive statistics and (Mean and SD) of Students’ attitudes towards
error correction…………………………………………………………….
Table 4.7. Students’ attitudes towards teacher’ language use in the classroom.........
Table 4.8. : Descriptive statistics and (Mean and SD) of Students’ attitudes
Table 4.9. Students’ attitudes towards learning English activities……………..…
Table 4.10 : Descriptive statistics and (Mean and SD) of Students’ attitudes….…

ABSTRACT

7

39
41
43
44
52


The present study explores the views of seventy-five high school students regarding
the communicative and non-communicative activities in the EFL classroom. Data were

collected by means of a questionnaire The results suggest that Vietnamese EFL
teachers need to find ways of understand their students in an attempt to make changes
that will take students’ previous educational habits into consideration. It is obvious,
from the study, that students in non-English speaking countries make better use of
communicative language teaching (CLT) if communicative activities and noncommunicative activities are combined in English classrooms. In other words, aligning
the communicative approach with traditional teaching structures is beneficial for EFL
students. Findings also suggest that oral activities which require student to make a
speech in front of students were seen as most anxiety provoking to the learners,
whereas group-oriented activities increased the possibility of producing less anxiety.

8


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Since the 1970s, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has become a dominant
approach to language teaching. The central characteristics of CLT is that “almost
everything that is done is done with communicative intent” (Larsen-Freeman cited in
Rao 2002, p. 81). The problem is how to make efficient use of the limited class time to
develop students’ communicative competence (Singh & Li, 2005).
Widdowson (1978) claimed that an over emphasis on grammar would prevent learners
from developing their communicative competence. Snow (1996) indicated that students
learn effectively about language when they take part actively in the communication
with language rather than on passively accepting what the teacher says.
1.1.

Rationale of the study

According to the review of literature, numerous studies have been carried out on the
issue of the communicative and non- communicative activities preferred by the learners

and their anxiety level related to each activity . However, in Vietnam, investigations on
the learners' attitudes to the communicative and non- communicative activities are
limited, especially in the context of high schools that are situated in the rural areas,
where exposure to the target language and opportunities to use the language are almost
non-existent. Therefore, this study aimed to fill the gap mentioned above.
1.2.

Aims and objectives of the study

The purpose of this study is to explore the attitudes of Vietnamese high school students
in order to better understand the appropriateness and effectiveness of communicative
and non-communicative activities in their EFL classes.

9


1.3.

Research Question

This survey research is conducted to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the students’ attitudes towards the role of English in their future life?
2.

What are the students’ attitudes towards forms-focused and meaning-focused
activities in the EFL classroom?

3. Which type of error correction: teacher correction, peer-correction or selfcorrection would the students prefer?
4. Which language would they prefer the teacher to use in teaching: Vietnamese or
English?

1.4.

Organization of the study

In order to answer the questions, I first contextualize this study with relevant literature
in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 specifies about the study, the questionnaire, the content validity
and the reliability of this survey. Furthermore, the chapter outlines the analysis
methods used. In chapter 4, I detail the findings for each research question and discuss
them with the data in each table. Finally, Chapter 5 offers the conclusion and
suggestion for future studies

10


CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the relevant literature. It begins with the information about the
context of the study, which is followed by the definition of major terminology related
to this study, attitudes, and the review of the communicative approach to language
teaching. The chapter concludes with a review of the previous studies by various
scholars and researchers on the same topic.
2.1.

Context of study

English is formally taught as a foreign language to Vietnamese students from grade 6
(although this is changing and the starting age is lowered to grade 3). The students
have 4 hours of formal instruction in English every week. The curriculum in high
schools is a top-down curriculum; the Ministry of Education and Training dictates all
the decisions regarding the textbook selection and the exams. While the textbook

writers claim that the textbook is based on the communicative, task-based approach, a
careful examination reveals that it is grammar-based and examination-oriented. The
culture of teaching in Vietnam is basically a teacher-centered one. Students, especially
those are from rural areas have little or no exposure to English outside the classroom.
While access to English-speaking television programs is quite easy, most of the
students are too busy taking private lessons for their university entrance exams to
benefit those programs for improving their English. Therefore, the motivation towards
learning English is low to a great number of students who do not find it necessary to be
able to use English.
Many studies (Le, 2007; Pham, 2007; Sullivan, 1996) have reported the challenges of
using the CLT in Vietnamese settings. Among the factors that hinder the use of CLT in

11


Vietnam are the top-down curriculum, and grammar-based examinations, students’
motivation, large class sizes and teachers’ low proficiency.
2.2.

Attitude

According to Baker (1992, p. 10), attitude is a hypothetical construct utilized to
expound the orientation and persistence of human behavior. Attitude can be used to
predict behavior but it is hidden and potential and cannot be measured directly.
Therefore, attitude is a relatively constant system of evaluative processes toward an
object based on what individuals have learned in previous settings. Even though
attitudes are relatively constant in individuals, attitudes have been learned. Since they
are learned, they may be changed by further learning. Baker (1988) discusses the main
characteristics of attitudes:
1. Attitudes are cognitive (i.e. are capable of being thought about) and affective

(i.e. have feelings and emotions attached to them).
2. Attitudes are dimensional rather than bipolar – they vary in degree of
favourability/ unfavourability.
3. Attitudes predispose a person to act in a certain way, but the relationship
between attitudes and actions is not a strong one.
4. Attitudes are learnt, not inherited or genetically endowed.
5. Attitudes tend to persist but they can be modified by experience.
Ellis (1994, p. 198) states:
Learners manifest different attitudes toward (1) the target language, (2) targetlanguage speakers, (3) the target-language culture, (4) the social value of
learning the L2, (50 particular uses of the target language, and (6) themselves
12


as members of their own culture. These attitudes are likely to reflect the
particular social settings in which learners find themselves. Learner attitudes
have an impact on the level of L2 proficiency achieved by individual learners
and are themselves influenced by this success. Thus, learners with positive
attitudes, who experience success, will have these attitudes reinforced.
Similarly, learners’ negative attitudes may be strengthened by lack of success.
We will also find cases of learners who begin with positive attitudes but who,
for one reason or another, experience inadequate learning opportunities, fail to
progress as they expected, and consequently, become more negative in their
outlook.
In this thesis, both Baker’s and Ellis’ attitudinal theories are adopted to explore
the attitudes of the students towards language learning activities.
2.3.

Why study learners’ attitudes?

Insights gained from nearly two decades of research in second and foreign language

(L2) development in natural as well as formal settings have made us aware that
language learning is primarily a learner-and learning-oriented activity (Brown, 2001;
Nunan, 1988a; Wright, 1990). Consequently, in recent years there have been more
emphases on the role of the learner in the language learning process. Learners’ attitudes
to, and beliefs about, language learning are one of the more recently discussed learner
variables in the field.
In curricula based on a learner-centered approach, learners have greater roles in
teaching/learning processes, and this can result in the promotion of their interests and
preferences toward language learning (Makarova, 1997). Moreover, Rifkin (2000)
asserts that learners’ attitudes (including their preferences) towards the learning process
are “of critical importance to the success or failure of any student’s efforts to master a

13


foreign language” (p. 394). According to Nunan (1988a, p. 177), “no curriculum can
claim to be truly learner-centered unless the learner’s subjective needs and perceptions
relating to the processes of learning are taken into account.” Unfortunately, as
Allwright (1984) says, “very many teachers seem to find it difficult to accept their
learners as people with a positive contribution to make to the instructional process” (p.
167). Based on Bada and Okan (2000), many teachers acknowledge the need to
understand learners’ preferences, but they may not actually consult learners in
conducting language activities. Teachers may believe that learners are not capable of
expressing what they want or need to learn and how they want to learn. However
researchers like Block (1994, 1996) claim that learners do have an awareness of what
goes on in classes and that teachers should therefore make an attempt to align their task
orientation to that of learners.
Cray and Currie (1996) suggest that the important point is that teachers do not have to
act on behalf of their learners but with their learners. Attention needs to be given to
students’ ways of learning and their preferences and unless teachers are aware of those

preferences they cannot consider them in their teaching activities and classroom
practices. However, it should be noted that the terms likes or Preferences, following
Spratt (1999), has been used in its simplest form. Thus, when students prefer an
activity, it means that they either enjoy it or find it useful.
In considering students’ attitudes towards instructional activities, sociocultural norms
of different societies may play an important role. In some society with a top-down
curriculum, social roles of teachers and students are so rigidly drawn that expecting
students to participate in decision-making in the classroom may not be viewed as
realistic even appropriate. The traditional styles and habits of the students may
influence their perceived self-confidence and their opinions of the classroom activities.
As Cortazzi and Jin (1999) assert, the culture of learning that students bring to the

14


classroom becomes an invisible yardstick for judgment about how to learn. They
illustrate through examples that mismatches in cultures of learning can affect
participants’ interpretation of instructional activities and sometimes lead to
misunderstanding.
2.3.1. Communicative language teaching
The communicative approach is based on the idea that learning language successfully
comes through having to communicate real meaning. When learners are involved in
real communication, their natural strategies for language acquisition will be used, and
this will allow them to learn to use the language. Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) has its roots in England, which is a primarily English as a Second Language
(ESL) environment. Richards and Rodgers (1986), on the other hand, claim that the
origins of communicative language teaching are to be found in the changes of
situational language teaching approaches, which influenced the British language
teaching tradition till the late 1960s. Meanwhile, Savignon (1991) asserts that the
emergence of CLT can be traced to concurrent developments on both sides of the

Atlantic, i.e. in Europe and the United States.
Educators and linguistics such as Candlin (1981) and Widdowson (1978) saw the need
to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency rather than on mere
mastery of structures. They felt that students were not learning enough realistic, whole
language in those methods, i.e., Situational Language Teaching, Audio-lingual or
Grammar Translation method (Richards and Rodgers 1986; Savignon 1987, 1991;
Galloway 1993). Students did not know how to communicate in the cultures of the
language studies. According to Galloway (1993: 1):
The communicative approach could be said to be the product of educators and
linguists who had grown dissatisfied with the audiolingual and grammar-

15


translation methods of foreign language instruction. They felt that students
were not learning enough realistic, whole language. They did not know how to
communicate using appropriate social language, gestures, or expressions; in
brief, they were at a loss to communicate in the culture of language studied.
2.3.2. Some major features of Communicative Language Teaching
The communicative approach to language teaching is, relatively, a newly adapted
approach in the area of foreign / second language teaching. Communicative Language
Teaching is a “hybrid approach to language teaching, essentially ‘progressive’ rather
than ‘traditional’…” (Wright,2000). CLT can be seen to derive from a multidisciplinary
perspective that includes, at least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology and
educational research (Savignon, 1991). It is generally accepted that proponents of CLT
see it as an approach, not a method (Richards and Rodgers 1986; Savignon 1991;
Brown 1994). For Brown, for instance, “Communicative Language Teaching is a
unified but broadly – based theoretical position about the nature of language and
language learning and teaching” (1994: 244-245).
Although we have different versions and various ways in which CLT is interpreted and

applied, educators in the area, Littlewood (1981); Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983);
Brumfit (1984); Widdowson (1978, 1979); Johnson and Morrow (1981); Richards and
Rodgers (1986); Larsen-Freeman (1986); Celce-Murcia (1991) and Johnson (1982) put
some of the major characteristics of CLT as follows:
(a) It is felt that students need knowledge of the linguistic form, meaning and
functions. However, CLT gives primary importance to the use or function of the
language and secondary importance to its structure or form (Larsen-Freeman 1986;
Johnson 1982). This does not mean that knowledge of grammar is not essential for
effective communication, rather systematic treatment of both functions and forms is

16


vital. Stressing on this, Littlewood says “one of the most characteristic features of
communicative language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as
well as structural aspects of language” (1981: 1). “CLT suggests that grammatical
structure might better be subsumed under various functional categories… we pay
considerably less attention to the overt presentation and discussion of grammatical
rules than we traditionally did” (Brown 1994: 245). Emphasis is also given to meaning
(messages they are creating or task them are completing) rather than form (correctness
of language and language structure). For Finocchiaro and Brumfit “meaning is
paramount” (1983:91) since it helps the learners to manage the message they engage
with the interlocutors.
(b) "Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying
communicative techniques” (Brown1994:245). However, at times fluency may have to
take on more importance than accuracy because "fluency and acceptable language is
the primary goal" (Finocchiaro and Brumfit1983:93) and accuracy is judged not in the
abstract butin contexts. Fluency is emphasized over accuracy in order to keep learners
meaningfully engaged in language use. It is important, however, that fluency should
never be encouraged at the expense of clear, unambiguous, direct communication. And

much more spontaneity is present in communicative classrooms (Brown, 1994).
(c) Language teaching techniques are designed to engage learners in the
pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Classrooms
should provide opportunities for rehearsal of real-life situations and provide
opportunity for real communication. Emphasis on creative role plays, simulations,
dramas, games, projects, etc., is the major activities which can help the learner provide
spontaneity and improvisation, not just repetition and drills. Another characteristic of
the classroom process is the use of authentic materials because it is felt desirable to
give students the opportunity to develop the strategies for understanding language as it

17


is actually used by native speakers. In the classroom, everything is done with a
communicative intent. Information gap, choice and feedback are thought to be truly
communicative activities (Johnson and Morrow 1981).
(d) Grammar can still be taught, but less systematically, in traditional ways
alongside more innovative approaches. Savignon (2002:7) says "... for the development
of communicative ability research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of
form-focused exercises with meaning - focused experience". Grammar is important;
and learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative
needs and experiences. Disregard of grammar will virtually guarantee breakdown in
communication (Savignon 1991, 2001; Thompson 1996). These writers also say there
are some misconceptions about CLT that makes difficult for many teachers to see
clearly what is happening and to identify the useful innovations that CLT has brought.
One of the persistent misconceptions is that CLT means not teaching grammar although
“the exclusion of explicit attention to grammar was never necessary part of CLT"
(Thompson 1996:10). In CLT involvement in communicative event is seen as central to
language development and this involvement necessarily requires attention to form
(structure).

(e) Communicative approach is not limited to oral skills. Reading and writing
skills need to be developed to promote pupils' confidence in all four skills areas.
Students work on all four skills from the beginning, i.e. a given activity might involve
reading, speaking, listening and perhaps also writing (Celce-Murcia1991). The idea of
emphasising the oral skills creates uncertainty among teachers. They misconceived
CLT as if it were devoted to teaching only speaking. But, "CLT is not exclusively
concerned with face to face oral communication" (Savignon 2002:7). The principles of
CLT apply equally to reading and writing activities that engage readers and writers in
the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning. In other words, it is

18


important to recognize that it is not only the speaker (or writer) who is communicating.
Instead, communication through language happens in both the written and spoken
medium and involves at least two people. Thompson (1996) further states that, though
there is a complaint that CLT ignores written language, a glance at recent mainstream
text books shows that reading and writing materials have been given attention too.
Students regularly work in groups or pairs to transfer (and if necessary to negotiate)
meaning in situations where one person has information that others lack (Celce Murcia 1991). More emphasis should be given to active modes of learning such as pair
or group work in problem-solving tasks in order to maximize the time allotted to each
student for learning to negotiate meaning. Many people assume group/pair work is
applicable in all contexts. However, classroom group and/or pair work should not be
considered an essential feature used all the time, and may well be inappropriate in
some contexts. Thompson (1996) and Savignon (2002) claim that group and/or pair
work are flexible and useful techniques than that suggests and they are active modes of
learning which can help the learners to negotiate meaning and engage in problemsolving activities. The use of pair/group work is a physical signal of some degree of
control and choice passing to the learners; but that needs to be complemented by real
choice (learners need to be given some degree of control over their learning).
Therefore, the use of pair/group work needs to be complemented by real choice for the

following reasons: (1) they can provide the learners with a relatively safe opportunity
to try out ideas before launching them in public; (2) they can lead to more developed
ideas and therefore greater confidence and more effective communication; (3) they can
also provide knowledge and skills which may complement those of their partners
which in turn lead to greater success in undertaking tasks (Thompson 1996). Errors are
seen as a natural outcome of the development of the communication skills and are
therefore tolerated. Learners trying their best to use the language creatively and
spontaneously are bound to make errors. Constant correction is unnecessary and even

19


counterproductive. Correction noted by the teacher should be discreet. Let the students
talk and express themselves and the form of the language becomes secondary. If errors
of form are tolerated and are seen as a natural outcome of the development of
communication skills, students can have limited linguistic knowledge and still be
successful communicators (Larsen-Freeman 1986).
2.3.3. Communicative activities
Communicative activities include any activities that have real purposes: to find
information, to talk about self, to learn about culture, to exchange information, etc.
Learners’ preferences are one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is teachers’
awareness of those preferences, which plays a considerable role in influencing their
decision-making processes and classroom behaviors (Spratt, 1999). Some studies
indicate that there are considerable discrepancies of opinions between learners and
their teachers or syllabus experts. A divergence of opinions between these two groups
has been noted in relation to what they prefer, what learners need, and the nature of
language and language learning (Kern, 1995; Kumaravadivelu, 1991; Nunan, 1988a,
1988b). Block (1994, p. 473) found that “teachers and learners operate according to
quite different systems for describing and attributing purpose to tasks.” According to
Kumaravadivelu (1991) both teachers and learners bring with them their own

perceptions of what constitutes language teaching and learning. In other words,
learners and teachers interpret classroom activities from their own perspectives, which
may not always match.
2.3.3. Advantages of CLT
The implementation of CLT has brought a lot of advantages for Teaching English as a
foreign/second language. Unlike audio lingual and grammar-translation methods,
Communicative teaching emphasis on “task-oriented, student-centered” language
20


teaching practice and it provides students with comprehensive use of English language,
for communication of opportunities (Richards, 2006). Other scholars also suggested
some of the major advantages of CLT as follows:
(a) It motivates students to improve their ability of using English by themselves
since it emphasizes on fluency in the target language. Meaning that, it provides
students with assignments that allow them to improve their own ideas about what they
are going to talk and how they are going to express. This enables the learners to be
more confident when interacting with other people and they also enjoy talking more
(Brown, 2001).
A prominent example of the divergence of opinion between learners’ preferences and
teachers’ perception of those predispositions is the study performed by Spratt (1999)
involving EFL learners in Hong Kong. The results of this study showed that “teachers
were able to gauge their learners’ preferences with accuracy for 54% of activities” (p.
141), which is a considerable degree of discrepancy. In another study by Barkhuizen
(1998), ESL teachers in South Africa frequently became surprised when they found out
their students’ thoughts, feelings and indications.
(b) CLT focuses on and aims at communicative competence. Thus, enabling the
learners to use the language in a communicative situation to satisfy their needs in reallife communication is a priority in CLT. In other words, it brings the real life situation
of the native English in to classroom activities such as role-play and simulation
(Harmer, 2007).

2.3.5. Disadvantages of CLT
There have been various criticisms on the principles of the communicative approach to
teaching and learning language: (a) The approach gives priority to meanings and rules
of use rather than to grammar and rules of structure. In other words, it is felt that there
21


is not enough emphasis on the correction of pronunciation and grammar error. It is
because too much focus on meaning at the expense of form. It is believed that with
CLT there is a danger of focusing too much on oral skills and less emphasis is given to
reading and writing skills.
(b) The CLT approach focuses on fluency but not accuracy in grammar and
pronunciation. Communicative language teaching is assumed to lead to the production
of “fluent but inaccurate" learners. What is predicted to happen here is the danger of
giving priority to fluency over accuracy in CLT classes.
(c) The CLT approach is great for intermediate student and advanced students, but for
beginners some controlled practice is needed Students with low levels of proficiency in
the target language may find it difficult to participate in oral communicative activities
and, if the exams used by any institution are grammar based, communicative fluency
may not be appropriate.
(d) The monitoring ability of the teacher must be very good. Despite teachers’ best
efforts, classroom activities are not actually real-life and it can be difficult to reproduce
truly authentic language use and to facilitate genuine interaction. Moreover, a major
principle underlying this approach is its emphasis on learners' needs and interests. This
implies that much more effort is expected that every teacher should modify the syllabus
to correspond with the needs of the learners.
(e) CLT is sometimes difficult to be implemented in an EFL classroom due to the lack
of sources and equipments like authentic materials and native speaker teachers as well
as large size of the classes. In addition, suitable classrooms are not available that can
allow for group work activities and for teaching aids and materials (Burnaby and Sun,

1989).

22


2.4.

Studies on students’ attitudes towards communicative and noncommunicative activities

Many researchers and educators pay more attention to the field of investigating
learners’ views on learner-centered classroom activities. For instance, Green (1993)
showed that the communicative activities were rated more enjoyable than the noncommunicative ones, except for the activities of interviewing English speakers outside
of the class. Garrett and Shortall (2002) also stated that there were different preferences
for classroom activities among learner groups of different proficiency. First, Beginners
saw the teacher-fronted grammar activities as better for leaning than the studentcentered grammar activities because they focused mainly on the teacher’s modeling,
feedback, and the opportunities for repetition and drilling. Second, both the beginners
and intermediates viewed the student-centered fluency activities as more fun and
relaxing than the teacher-fronted fluency works because they were full of creativity,
freedom, and classroom companionship. Moreover, Feng’s (2000) study showed that
the effective listeners revealed higher interest in high-level activities, like
presentations, word games, film follow-up discussions, and ABC news, than did less
effective listeners. In addition, both effective and less effective learners had great
interest in film watching, watching skits on video and singing. Furthermore, empirical
evidences showed that learners generally had weak preferences for individual work;
instead they preferred to take part in activities in groups. Regarding students’
perceptions, we can note that not all learners have unified feelings towards CLT. For
instance, Hung (1997) found that the students expressed more negative feelings
towards their English learning experiences, which were based on the Chinese
traditional approach, because they thought that it focused more on reading and writing,
resulting in their incompetence in communication. Hung (1997) also stated that

Chinese college students liked the Chinese traditional approach because they felt safe
in this kind of class. In the traditional English class, the most commonly used activity
23


is a repetition in chorus, so individual students may hide themselves when they make
mistakes or lag behind the class. Particularly, they thought that traditional classroom
activities such as drills and teacher’s explanation of grammar rules were effective in
facilitating their English learning because they needed to take grammar-based tests.
Similarly, Rao (2002) found that most of the students favour a combination of
communicative and non-communicative activities in their English classroom.
Nevertheless, there exists a conflict between what communicative activities demand
and what the EFL situation in China allows. In another study, Savignon and Wang
(2003) show that there is certain mismatch between learner needs and preferences and
their reported experiences of classroom instruction.
Nunun (1989) claimed that learners favored non-communicative activities more than
communicative ones, while others revealed the contrary results. Likewise, Barkhuisen
(1998) reported his learners’ resistance to participating in communicative activities and
their preferences for more traditional classroom practice. More positive results
addressing communicative activities could be found in the studies by Spratt (1999) and
Savignon and Wang (2003). The students in their studies generally rated
communicative activities higher than learners in other studies of the kind and that
teachers in the studies underestimated the learners’ preferences for the communicative
activities (p.143). More recently, Chung and Huang (2009) and Wang, Reu-Jan (2008)
in their studies indicated that most participants hold positive attitudes towards a more
communicative-based language teaching, which reflects the correct direction that the
Ministry of higher education is moving towards in its recent curricular change. There is
need to slightly shift the focus of English teaching in the classroom to achieve students’
long-term goal, which is to develop their English communicative competence.
Many studies were conducted regarding the students’ attitudes towards instructional

activities (Franklin, 1990; Macaro, 1997; Dickson, 1996; Swain & Lapkin, 2000).

24


Breen (cited in Block, 1996) showed that students were able to identify specific
techniques adopted by the teacher that they preferred and believed that it helped them
with understanding the new language. Hawkey (2006) presented language education
reform project, carried out in Italy, where he found differences between learners’ and
teachers’ perceptions on activities in foreign language classes. The study further
explored the target language teachers and learners both agreed on teaching methods
that varied from communicative approach to language teaching having differences in
them over grammar and pair work activities in the classroom. Nunan (1989) describes
two Australian studies that show learners favor traditional learning activities over more
communicative activity types. He argued about the ‘hidden agenda’ that is taken for
granted by learners to enhance their target language for their professional needs. He
further explained that learners liked teachers’ corrective feedback for their either
individual or pair work activities. Peacock’s (1998) study evidenced that students’
attitudes were detrimental to language learning. Comparing 64% of learners with 7% of
teachers, his study indicated that learning a foreign language in the class meant
learning grammar and its rules with a wide range of class activities initiated by the
teachers in order to enhance the students’ motivation and practice actively.
It should be noted that curriculum developers, syllabus designers, and teachers should
become aware of their students’ preferences. Once they come to know them, they can,
“if necessary,” take into consideration those preferences and plan and implement
alternative behaviors and activities in their classes (Barkhuizen, 1998). Even if
learners’ desires and those of teachers’ are in contrast with each other (e.g., teachers
emphasize communicative activities and learners tend toward traditional activities),
they can shift to a negotiated syllabus procedure and come to reasonable agreements
(Jordan, 1997).

25