A survey on urban high school teacher's and students' attitudes towards communicative language teaching = Khảo sát thái độ của giáo viên và học sinh trung học n20150227

4




LIST OF TABLE
Table 1……………………………………………………………………….27
Table 2……………………………………………………………………….28
Table 3……………………………………………………………………….29
Table 4……………………………………………………………………….30
Table 5……………………………………………………………………….31
Table 6……………………………………………………………………….33
Table 7……………………………………………………………………….34
Table 8……………………………………………………………………….35
Table 9……………………………………………………………………….36
Table 10…………………………………………………………………… 37
Table 11…………………………………………………………………… 38
Table 12…………………………………………………………………… 39
Table 13…………………………………………………………………… 41
Table 14………………………………………………………………………42
Table 15………………………………………………………………………43

5






TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Rationale 1
1.2. Aims 2
1.3. Objectives 2
1.4. Research questions 3
1.5. Scope 3
1.6. Research methodology 3
1.7. Significance of the study 4
1.8. Structure of the thesis 4
PART II: DEVELOPMENT 6
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW 6
1.1. The main characteristics of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)…… …6
1.2. Definition of communicative language teaching (CLT)………………………… 10
1.3. Defining communicative competence…………………………………………… 12
1.4. Techniques for CLT……………………………………………………………… 13
1.5. Benefits of CLT…………………………………………………………………….14
1.6. Challenges of CLT …….………………………………………………………… 15

1.7. Some misconceptions about CLT ……………………………………………… 16
1.8. Roles of Teachers in CLT ………………………………………………………….18
1.9. Teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards CLT………………………………… 19
1.10. Summary………………………………………………………………………….22
CHAPTER II:
STUDY…………………………………………………………………………… 23
2.1. The context of the study ……………………………………………………… ….23
2.2. Participants……………………………………………………………………… 24
2.3. Instruments for Data Collection ……………………………………………… ….24
6


2.4. Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………….26
2.5. Findings…………………………………………………………………………… 27
2.6. Teachers‟ Attitudes and Classroom Practices …………………………………… 45
CHAPTER III: DISCUSSION………………………………………………………….49
3.1. Teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards CLT…………………………………….49
3.2. The influence of teachers‟ attitudes on their classroom teaching………………… 50
PART III: THE CONCLUSION………………………………………………………. 51
1. Summary…… …………………………………………………………………………51
2. Implications for Teacher Education…………………………………………………….51
3. Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………………52
4. Suggestions for Further Studies ………………………………………………… … 52
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………… ……53
APPENDICES

7





PART I- THE INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
The field of second or foreign language teaching has undergone many paradigmatic shifts
and methodological trends over the last few decades. We have seen the Audiolingual
Method, Cognitive-based Approaches, the Total Physical Response (TPR), the Natural
Approach, and many others (for a detailed description of these methods and approaches,
see Richards and Rodgers 2001). All these methods and approaches have come and gone,
and now it is recognized that there is no one single best method that meets the goals and
needs of all learners and programs. Thus, scholars, methodologists and researchers are now
talking about the post-method area (Richards and Rodgers 2001).

However, many second or foreign language syllabi keep promoting Communicative
language Teaching (CLT) in an attempt to enable the students to use the target language
for communicative purposes instead of mastering its grammatical rules and structures. CLT
is, in fact, rooted in a range of language and language learning theories and is motivated by
Research findings in second language acquisition (SLA) as well as cognitive and
educational psychology. It is true that CLT is the goal of many recent curricula innovations
in several countries where English is taught as a Foreign Language (EFL), including Viet
Nam. Unfortunately, it is documented in the literature that CLT has remained rhetorical
rather than a reality in many language classrooms. One of the reasons for this is that
teachers seem to be resistant to those top-down changes, and continue teaching with the so-
called „traditional‟ methods, which emphasize more on the teaching of grammar. This
necessitates the research on teachers‟ attitudes towards the introduction of CLT as an
educational innovation. It has been well reported in the literature that teachers‟ and
students‟ attitudes towards language teaching and learning affect their teaching and
learning behaviors. It is this influence that accounts for the gap between theory and
practice in second/foreign language education. As a result, in order to narrow the gap
between theory and practice, attempts have been made to explore teachers‟ and students‟
8


attitudes to language learning and teaching. Understanding of these stakeholders‟ attitudes
will help to device measures to change their attitudes for the improvement of language
teaching and learning.
The case study reported in this paper is aimed to explore the attitudes of teachers and
students about CLT in the context of the high school in an urban area. In order to achieve
this aim, I interviewed and observed a number of teachers and students in urban high
schools in Hai Phong about CLT. The purpose of this exploration is to gain an
understanding of teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards CLT as well as how CLT was
implemented in the classroom. I believe that such an understanding would be useful to
curriculum designers, administrators and teacher educators to find more effective ways to

make CLT a reality in the classroom by helping teachers and students to change their
attitudes if this is necessary.
2. Aims

The study sets out to investigate urban high school teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes
towards CLT and why they hold such attitudes towards CLT. Also, the study attempts to
identify the gap between teachers‟ attitudes and their students‟ attitudes towards English
language teaching and learning. The findings of this study will inform teacher educators
and educational administrators of more effective ways to change teachers‟ and students‟
approaches to English language teaching and learning, thereby improving the quality of
English language education in the context of an urban high school.

3. Objectives

The purpose of this study is to seek empirical evidence regarding urban high school
teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards CLT. Specifically, it attempts to find out:
(a) the attitudes towards CLT of urban high school teachers and students in Hai Phong;
(b) the gap, if any, between teachers‟ attitudes and their classroom practice regarding
CLT, and
(c) the gap, if any, between teachers‟ attitudes and students‟ attitudes towards CLT.
9






4. Research Questions

4.1. What attitudes towards communicative language teaching do teachers and

students hold?
In seeking the answer to the above general research question.
a. What attitudes towards CLT do urban teachers in Hai Phong-based high schools
hold?
b. What attitudes towards CLT do urban students in Hai Phong-based high schools
hold?
c. Is there a gap between teachers‟ attitudes and students‟ attitudes towards CLT?
4.2. To what extent do their attitudes influence their teaching and learning behaviors
in the classroom?

5. Scope

The study limits itself to the investigation of teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards
communicative language teaching in the context of five urban high schools in Hai Phong to
understand how such attitudes influence the way they teach and the way they learn as well
as whether there is a gap between teachers‟ attitudes and students‟ attitudes.

6. Research Methodology

In order to achieve the above aims and objectives, a mixed method will be employed to
collect the data for the study. Specifically, a questionnaire will be administered to both
teachers and students in some high schools in Hai Phong first. As Canh and Barnard
(2009a) argue that “at best, eliciting teachers‟ attitudes through a questionnaire is barely
scratching the surface of much deeper cognitive processes, but one which – it may be
argued – is a necessary first step towards a more fully exploring cognitive processing (p.
10


250). In this study, in order to address the limitations of the questionnaire in exploring
teachers‟ attitudes, as pointed above, and in order to find out the convergence/divergence

between teachers‟ attitudes and classroom teaching, classroom observations were
conducted following the analysis of the questionnaire data.
Questionnaire data were analyzed quantitatively by means of descriptive statistics while
the observational data were processed qualitatively. Quantitative data were used to answer
the research question 1 whereas observational data helped to answer the research question
2, which was to illuminate the influence of attitudes on behaviors. The answers to both
research questions provided a picture of teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards CLT as
well as how those attitudes were reflected in their classroom behaviors.

7. Significance of the study

Although the study is intended to investigate teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards
communicative language teaching, which is not researched adequately in the context of
Hai Phong-based high schools. Although the survey was conducted in just five urban high
schools, and no generalization is intended, the outcome of the study can contribute
significantly to our understanding of the issue in high schools with a similar context.

8. Structure of the Thesis

Part I, the Introduction, introduces the rationale, the aims and objectives, the scope, and
the research methods of the study.
Part II, the Development, which is composed of three chapters:
Chapter I, the Literature Review, reviews the main characteristics of the
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), the role of teachers‟ and students‟
attitudes in language teaching pedagogy, and the previous studies published both
internationally and domestically on teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards
different aspects of English language teaching and learning in general and towards
CLT in particular.
Chapter II, the Study, presents the context of the study including the participant
profiles, the instruments of data collection and the rationale of employing those

11


instruments, how the instruments are developed, the procedures of data collection
and analysis as well as the findings
Chapter III, the Discussion, discusses the findings with reference to the literature
review.
Part III, the conclusion, summarizes the result of the study, the pedagogical implications,
the limitations of the study as well as the suggestions for further study.

12






PART II- DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the literature on CLT and teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards
CLT. First, it presents the main characteristics of the Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT), which is followed by a discussion of the role of teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes in
language teaching pedagogy. Then it reviews the previous studies published both
internationally and domestically on teachers‟ and students‟ attitudes towards different
aspects of English language teaching and learning in general and towards CLT in
particular. This literature reviews establishes the theoretical framework for the discussion
of the findings of the present study.

1.1. The main characteristics of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
The origin of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) dates back in late 1960s. Until
then Situational Language Teaching represented the major British Approach to teaching
English as a foreign language, while Audiolingualism was dominant in America. In
Situational Language Teaching, language was taught by practising basic structures in
meaningful situation-based activities. But just as the linguistic theory underlying
Audiolingualism was rejected in United States in the mid-1960s, British applied linguists

began to call into question the theoretical assumption underlying Situational Language
teaching. (Richards and Rodgers 1991:64)
American linguist Noam Chomsky (1957) criticises that the current standard structural
theories of language are incapable of accounting for the fundamental characteristics of
language, i.e. the creativity and uniqueness of individual sentences. Then, British applied
linguists emphasised another fundamental dimension of language that was inadequately
addressed in current approaches to language teaching at that time, i.e., the functional and
13


communicative potential of language. They saw the need to focus on communicative
proficiency rather than on mere mastery of structures.
Although the movement began as a largely British innovation, focusing on alternative
conceptions of a syllabus, since the mid-1970s the scope of CLT has expanded. This
expansion led to the view that CLT was an approach rather than a method, which aims to
make communicative competence the goal of language teaching, develop procedures for
the teaching of the four language skills and to acknowledge the interdependence of
language and communication (Richards and Rodgers 1986:66).
Another impetus for the rise of CLT from changing educational realities in Europe. With
the increasing interdependence of European countries came the need for greater efforts to
teach adults the major languages of the European Common Market and the Council of
Europe, a regional organization for cultural and educational cooperation. Education was
one of the Council of Europe's major areas of activity. It sponsored international
conferences on language teaching, published monographs and books about language
teaching. The need to articulate and develop alternative methods of language teaching was
considered a high priority.
In 1971 a group of experts began to investigate the possibility of developing language
courses on a unit-credit system, a system in which learning tasks are broken down into
"portions or units, each of which corresponds to a component of a learner's needs and is
systematically related to all the other portions" (van Ek and Alexander 1980: 6). The group

used studies of the needs of European language learners, and in particular a preliminary
document prepared by a British linguist, Wilkins (1972), which proposed a functional or
communicative definition of language that could serve as a basis for developing commu-
nicative syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkins's contribution was an analysis of the
communicative meanings that a language learner needs to understand and express. Rather
than describe the core of language through traditional concepts of grammar and
vocabulary, Wilkins attempts to demonstrate the systems of meanings that lay behind the
communicative uses of language.
14


According to Littlewood (1981) one of the most characteristics features of communicative
language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural
aspects of language, combining these into a more fully communicative view”. Put another
way, CLT is an approach that aims to make communicative competence the goal of
language teaching and develop procedures for the teaching of the four languages skills that
acknowledge the independence of language and communication. The aim of
communicative language teaching, according to Richards and Rodgers (2001), is the
acquisition of communicative competence via student engagement in meaningful use of
language at discourse level. To achieve this, the teacher facilitates communicative
activities by managing the classroom environment, providing resources and acting as
communicator. “Classroom activities are often designed to focus on completing tasks that
are mediated through language and involve negotiation of information and information
sharing (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, p. 165). According to Bygate, Skehan and Swain
(2004 cited in Canh & Barnard, 2009 b, p. 21), language is best learned through
meaningful and communicative interaction between learners engaged in purposeful tasks.
Such tasks provide both the input and the output processing, and the motivation, needed for
language acquisition.
According to Richards and Rodgers (1986), “at the level of language theory,
Communicative Language Teaching has a rich, if somewhat eclectic, theoretical base.

Some of the characteristics of this communicative view of language follow: language is a
system of the expression of meaning. The primary function of language is for interaction
and communication. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative
use. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features,
bur categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.
(Richards and Rodgers 1986:71)
In a CLT approach, the teacher functions as a facilitator or guide, supporting learners as
they try out new language and giving feedback on errors as a necessary step in the
language learning process (Nunan, 1991). Using an integrated skills approach, many CLT
activities are done in pairs or small groups, so learners have opportunities to use the target
15


language in a variety of roles and contexts that aim to approximate authentic situations to
develop learners‟ situationally appropriate use of the L2 (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
To summarise, CLT is characterised as:
 an emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target
language;
 the introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation;
 the provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also
on the learning process itself;
 an enhancement of the learner‟s own personal experiences as important
contributing elements to classroom learning;
 an attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside
the classroom. (Brown 1994a :78)
Thus, as an approach to second/foreign language teaching, CLT emphasizes the learners‟
communicative competence in the target language (Brown, 2001; Canale & Swain, 1980;
Hymes, 1972; Richards & Rodgers, 1986).
Howatt (1984) makes a distinction between a "strong" and a "weak" version of
Communicative Language Teaching. Howatt distinguishes the two versions as follows:

There is, in a sense, a 'strong' version of the communicative approach and a
'weak' version. The weak version which has become more or less standard
practice in the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners
with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes and,
characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a wider program
of language teaching The 'strong' version of communicative teaching, on
the other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired through com-
munication, so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing but
inert knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the development of the
language system itself. If the former could be described as 'learning to use'
English, the latter entails 'using English to learn it.' (p.279)
16


In the weak version, activities that promote communication are incorporated into a wider
language program that allows for the pre-selection of target language forms and functions.
In contrast, learners‟ use of the target language drives learning in the strong version of
CLT, and creates opportunities for incidental „noticing‟ of formal features in the target
language (Richards, 2006). CLT is a “learner-centered and experience-based view of
teaching” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 69), which promotes learner independence and
requires classroom cultures with more equal relationships between teachers and learners
than those in many EFL contexts (Canh, 1999; Chowdhury, 2003; Stapleton, 1995).
Communicative language teaching is so popular that “no self- respecting teacher, materials
designer, or applied linguist would think of teaching English as anything else.” (Harmer
1982: 164)

1.2. Definition of communicative language teaching (CLT)

Despite the widespread advocacy of CLT, there is a lack of agreement about what
communicative is. According to Harmer (1982: 165): “In the teaching and learning and

methodology of a foreign language, it is only activities within the syllabus and
methodology that can be classed as communicative” Clark and Hamilton (1984: 5) further
elaborate Harmer‟s (1982) view that:
Some people have thought that communication and the communicative
approach should now replace all the other things we have traditionally done
in the classroom. This is not our view. What we aim to do is to add the
communicative dimension to help other things that have proved successful
in classroom language learning.
Thus, CLT is generally regarded as an approach to language teaching (Richards and
Rodgers 2001). As such, CLT reflects a certain model or research paradigm, or a theory
(Celce- Murcia 2001). It is based on the theory that the primary function of language use is
communication. Its primary goal is for learners to develop communicative competence
(Hymes 1971), or simply put, communicative ability. In other words, its goal is to make
use of real-life situations that necessitate communication.

17


CLT is not a method per se, either. That is to say, it is not a method in the sense by which
content, a syllabus, and teaching routines are clearly identified (see Richards and Rodgers
2001). CLT has left its doors wide open for a great variety of methods and techniques.
There is no single text or authority on it, nor any single model that is universally accepted
as authoritative (Richards and Rodgers 2001). By and large, it uses materials and utilizes
methods that are appropriate to a given context of learning. CLT has spawned various
movements such as proficiency-based or standard-based instruction. While the early days
of CLT were concerned with finding best designs and practices, the proficiency-based
movement contributed to the field of language teaching by putting forward a set of
proficiency guidelines (Omaggio - Hadley 2001). In this sense, the proficiency-based
movement focused on measuring what learners can do in functional terms. By providing
evaluative descriptions, that is, by specifying what students should know and how they

should be able to use language within a variety of contexts and to various degrees of
accuracy at different stages, it provided a set of broadly stated goals and thus a sense of
direction for curriculum designers. The standard-based movement attempted to further
streamline descriptions of what students should know and be able to do after completing a
particular grade level or curriculum to meet national standards in foreign language
education from kindergarten to university. In this way, both movements positively
influenced and strengthened the development and implementation of communicative
oriented teaching practices. As far as theories of learning and effective strategies in
teaching are concerned, CLT does not adhere to one particular theory or method. It draws
its theories about learning and teaching from a wide range of areas such as cognitive
science, educational psychology, and second language acquisition (SLA). In this way, it
embraces and reconciles many different approaches and points of view about language
learning and teaching, which allows it to meet a wide range of proficiency-oriented goals
and also accommodate different learner needs and preferences. Despite the lack of
universally accepted models, from early on, there has been some degree of consensus
regarding the qualities required to justify the label “CLT,” which Wesche and Skehan
(2002) describe as:
• Activities that require frequent interaction among learners or with other interlocutors to
exchange information and solve problems.
18


• Use of authentic (non-pedagogic) texts and communication activities linked to “real-
world” contexts, often emphasizing links across written and spoken modes and channels.
• Approaches that are learner centered in that they take into account learners‟ backgrounds,
language needs, and goals and generally allow learners some creativity and role in
instructional decisions (p. 208). With no one particular method or theory that underlies
their practical and theoretical foundation, CLT methodologies are best described as a set of
macro-strategies (Kumaravadivelu 1994) or methodological principles (Doughty and Long
2003).

Since the core concept of CLT is communicative competence, this concept is discussed in
Section 1.3 below.

1.3. Defining communicative competence
The communicative approach in language teaching starts from a theory of language as
communication. The goal of language teaching is to develop what Hymes (1972) referred
to as "communicative competence." Hymes coined this term in order to contrast a
communicative view of language and Chomsky's (1965) theory of competence. Chomsky
held that linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener in a
completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is
unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitation, distractions,
shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his
knowledge of the language in actual performance. (Chomsky 1965: 3)
For Chomsky, the focus of linguistic theory was to characterize the abstract abilities
speakers possess that enable them to produce grammatically correct sentences in a
language. Hymes held that such a view of linguistic theory was sterile, that linguistic
theory needed to be seen as part of a more general theory incorporating communication
and culture. Hymes's theory of communicative competence was a definition of what a
speaker needs to know in order to be communicatively competent in a speech community.
In Hymes's view, a person who acquires communicative competence acquires both
knowledge and ability for language use with respect to: whether (and to what degree)
something is formally possible; whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in
19


virtue of the means of implementation available; whether (and to what degree) something
is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and
evaluated; whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed, and
what it‟s doing entails.
This theory of what knowing a language entails offers a much more comprehensive view

than Chomsky's view of competence, which deals primarily with abstract grammatical
knowledge.
Another linguistic theory of communication favoured in CLT is Halliday's functional
account of language use. "Linguistics is concerned with the description of speech acts
or texts, since only through the study of language in use are all the functions of language,
and therefore all components of meaning, brought into focus" (Halliday 1970: 145). In a
number of influential books and papers, Halliday has elaborated a powerful theory of the
functions of language, which complements Hymes's view of communicative competence
for many writers on CLT (e.g., Brumfit and Johnson 1979; Savignon 1983). He described
(1975: 11-17) seven basic functions that language performs for children learning their first
language: the instrumental function: using language to get things; the regulatory function:
using language to control the behaviour of others; the interactional function: using
language to create interaction with others; the personal function: using language to express
personal feelings and meanings; the heuristic function: using language to learn and to
discover; the imaginative function: using language to create a world of the imagination; the
representational function: using language to communicate information.
Thus, communicative competence is defined as the ability to interpret and enact
appropriate social behaviors, and it requires the active involvement of the learner in the
production of the target language (Canale and Swain 1980; Celce-Murcia et al. 1995;
Hymes 1972). Such a notion encompasses a wide range of abilities: the knowledge of
grammar and vocabulary (or the linguistic competence); the ability to say the appropriate
thing in a certain social situation (the sociolinguistic competence); the ability to start, enter,
contribute to, and end a conversation, and the ability to do this in a consistent and coherent
manner (discourse competence); the ability to communicate effectively and repair
problems caused by communication breakdowns (strategic competence).
20



1.4. Techniques for CLT

Since meaningful communication is considered to be the goal of English language
teaching, teachers are advised to organize classroom activities in such a way that students
can interact with each other as much as possible. Such interaction can be achieved through
pair work, group work, or information-gap activities. There are plenty of techniques for
CLT. Here are some of them: role play, interviews, information gap, games, language
exchange, surveys, pair work/group work.
Pair-work: Independent work by pairs of students working simultaneously on a task or a
practice activity. Often an extension of ordinary controlled practice or drilling, with more
opportunity for students to talk, hence higher students talking time.
Group- work: Independent worked carried out simultaneously by groups of three or more
students on a task or tasks.
Information gap: The principle that two or more students engaged in a practice activity do
not share exactly the same information. If the task is correctly set, the students must pool
their information and are thus forced to communicate through English. The information
gap is therefore an important element in many communicative practice tasks.
Role-play: A communicative activity in which students talk to each other in different
character roles.

1.5. Benefits of CLT

According to Littlewood (1981), CLT enables learners to understand and to express
functional and social meanings. With CLT teachers can adapt traditional techniques for
controlled practice in order to help learners to relate language forms to their potential
functional and/ or social meanings. The learner can be placed in situations where he must
use language as an instrument for satisfying immediate communicate needs, and where the
criterion for success is functional effective needs, and where the criterion for success is
functional effectiveness rather than structural accuracy. The learner can also be helped to
use language as an instrument for social interaction, for example through role-playing
21

activities, in which emphasis is on both the communicative effectiveness and the social
acceptability of the language used. A communicative approach opens up a wider
perspective on language. In particular, it makes us consider language not only in terms of
its structures (grammar and vocabulary), but also in terms of the communicative functions
that it performs. In other words, we begin to look not only at language forms, but also at
what people do with these forms when they want to communicate with each other. For
example, “Why don‟t you close the door?” might be used for a number of communicative
purposes, such as asking a question, making a suggestion or issuing an order. A
communicative approach opens up a wider perspective on language learning. In particular,
it makes us more strongly aware that it is not enough to teach learners how to manipulate
the structures of the foreign language. They must also develop strategies for relating these
structures to their communicative functions in real situations and real time. Therefore
provide learners with ample opportunities to use the language themselves for
communicative purposes. Teachers are ultimately concerned with developing the learners‟
ability to take part in the process of communicating through language, rather than with
their perfect mastery of individual structures.
1.6. Challenges of CLT
Although the above benefits of CLT are widely recognized at least at the theoretical level,
CLT is not a panacea to language teaching. There are numerous challenges to making
communicative language teaching happen. Researchers have identified common challenges
that teachers face when endeavouring to implement CLT in a range of Asian countries,
including Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, Japan, China, and South Korea (Canh, 1999;
Chowdhury, 2003; Li, 1998; Nishino, 2008; Stapleton, 1995; Wu & Fang, 2002). Reports
of challenges frequently refer to differences between what a CLT approach requires and
the transmission-style educational practices of many of these countries (Biggs, 1996;
Butler, 2005; Campbell & Zhao, 1993). Learners‟ traditional passivity in many Asian
cultures, and their reservations about the need for communicative competence, are
frequently reported to underpin students‟ unwillingness to do small-group and pair
activities, which are central to a communicative approach (Hu, 2002; Hui, 1997; Insull,

2001; Sun & Cheng, 2000). The wash-back effect of examinations is another widely
22


reported constraint on the implementation of CLT in EFL contexts, with many researchers
and teachers questioning the need to teach communicative competence in situations where
the main purpose for learning English is for competitive national examinations that
primarily test grammatical knowledge and reading comprehension (Li, 1998; Reed, 2002;
Wu & Fang, 2002). Teachers in a number of EFL countries also report challenges
developing and assessing their students‟ communicative skills in English, due to their own
lack of communicative competence, large classes, and the lack of effective and efficient
oral testing tools (Canagarajah, 1999; Dash, 2002; Hasegawa, 2003; Kim, 2003; Reed,
2002).
Further challenges are reported to derive from a lack of institutional support for
communicative approaches, and from evaluating teachers according to their students'
examination pass rates, with the latter in particular seen as disadvantaging teachers who
implement CLT and discouraging others from trying it (Canh, 1999; Hui, 1997). Lack of
support is also described in terms of insufficient resourcing, and classroom conditions that
make it more challenging to implement interactive activities (Deckert, 2004; Hu, 2002;
Hui, 1997; Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Pham, 2005; Sun & Cheng, 2000).
In addition to cultural and contextual constraints, researchers note that challenges
associated with implementing communicative strategies can also result from teachers‟ lack
of understanding of CLT (Li, 1998; Sun & Cheng, 2000; Wu & Fang, 2002). Other
researchers, including Kumaravadivelu (1993) and Canh (1999), suggest that this problem
may stem from teacher training programs that do not provide sufficient grounding in
second language acquisition theories, or the necessary skills and practical experience that
teachers need in order to confidently and competently implement communicative
approaches. According to Evdokia Karavas-Doukas (2010:188): “Why does this disparity
between prescribed theory and actual classroom practice exist? An answer for this question
can be found in the curriculum innovation literature, where teacher attitudes are seen to

play a crucial role in determining the implementation of an approach. What decision-
makers often seem to forget is that teachers are not atheoretical beings.” Another
challenges of CLT is the language teacher- teacher‟s perceptions of what they do and why
they do it, holds promised for understanding the frequently noted discrepancies between
theoretical understanding of second/foreign language acquisition and classroom practice.
(Evdokia Karavas-Doukas 2010:188)
23


1.7. Some misconceptions about CLT
According to Thompson (1996) communicative language teaching is accepted by many
linguists and language teachers as an effective approach and is hailed as the dominant
theoretical model in ELT, no matter what teaching situation may be. Attempts have been
made to pay attention to CLT and to identify its characteristic features (Richards and
Rodgers, 1986). Harmer (1991) shows that teacher education and the principles of CLT are
largely treated as clearly understood and accepted. However, many teachers are not clear
about CLT. In general, CLT puts stress on communication with the language. In
classrooms, CLT is strongly involved in special activities, e.g. pair work, group discussion,
role play and so on. However, certain misconceptions about CLT still exist. Thompson
(1996) summarizes the following four misconceptions that are frequently voiced.
One of these misconceptions is about grammar. Some applied linguists have argued
strongly that CLT de-emphasizes the role of grammar and the explicit teaching of
grammar. One line of argument is that grammar teaching is impossible for the knowledge
used in a language by a speaker is too complex (Prabhu 1987). Another line is that
grammar teaching is unnecessary as knowledge is a kind that can‟t be passed on with rules,
but can only be acquired unconsciously through exposure to the comprehensible input of
the target language (Krashen 1988). Perhaps the view that the teaching of grammar is
unnecessary in CLT because grammar is too complex to teach is over-simplistic
(Thompson, 1996). In fact CLT never downplays the role of grammar and grammar
teaching. This is evidenced in the construct of communicative competence, which is

discussed in Section 1.3 above. Some linguists and teachers always stress that grammar is
necessary for communication. Evidently, grammatical competence is one of the
components of communicative competence. The question is grammar should not be taught
in the traditional manner but through communicative tasks (Nunan 1987, Ellis, 1992). In
CLT, the focus is on the learners discovering grammar not on teachers covering or talking
about grammar (Thompson, 1996). According to Ellis (1992), while looking explicitly at
grammar may not lead immediately to learning, it will facilitate learning at a later stage
when the learner is ready (in some way that is not yet understood) to internalize the new
information about the language.
24


Another misconception, according to Thompson (1996) is the view that a focus on
communicate activities means teaching only speaking. For many teachers and students, the
main purpose of learning a foreign language is to speak the language. So they put the stress
on speaking and listening skills. This misconception leads to the view that teacher talking
time (TTT) is to be reduced in order for the student talking time (STT) to be maximized. In
addition, there is a complaint that CLT often ignores written language.
In fact CLT expects that teachers organize different activities according to students‟ variety
of language learning needs at different stage of learning English. In class students can not
only speak English, think in English and also read and write English. Learners talk at most
of time under the condition that teachers give them guidance about the language
knowledge. If students have no idea of the new knowledge, they won‟t be able to put them
in words. Students will learn more effectively if they participate in communicative
activities actively about what they are learning.
Pair work or group work is also misunderstood. It is misbelieved that CLT is synonymous
with pair work or group work, or pair work means role-play (Thompson, 1996).
In fact role play is only one of many useful techniques for teachers to employ in
developing students‟ communicative competence and one way to practice meaningful
language in an authentic context. However, pair work and group work are more flexible

and useful techniques than role play. Role play especially at very simple level, such as
conversation between a doctor and a patient; a teacher and a student or a customer and
shopkeeper, may not be used as much as pair work or group work. Through pair work and
group work, students can work together and help each other to solve a problem, analyze a
passage, prepare a presentation, make up a story, design a questionnaire and do exercises.
They can also learn knowledge and skills from each other, which will lead them to greater
success by undertaking tasks.
1.8. Roles of Teachers in CLT
CLT expects teachers to play the roles as „facilitator‟, and „guide‟ to the language learning
process rather than transmitter of knowledge and authority (Karavas-Doukas, 1996). Breen
25


and Candlin (1980) describe the two main roles of teachers: as facilitators of the
communication process between all participants in the classroom and/or between these
participants and the various activities and texts, and as an independent participant within
the learning-teaching group. The latter role is closely related to the objectives of the first
role and arises from it. These roles imply a set of secondary roles for the teacher; first, as
an organizer of resources and as a resource himself, second as a guide within the classroom
procedures and activities A third role for the teacher is that of researcher and learner,
with much to contribute in terms of appropriate knowledge and abilities, actual and
observed experience of the nature of learning and organizational capacities. (p. 99) Other
roles assumed for teachers are needs analyst, counselor, and group process manager. Thus,
teachers in communicative classrooms will find themselves talking less and listening
more– becoming active facilitators of their students‟ learning (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). The
teacher sets up the exercise, but because the students‟ performance is the goal, the teacher
must step back and observe, sometimes acting as referee or monitor. A classroom during a
communicative activity is far from quiet, however. The students do most of the speaking,
and frequently the scene of a classroom during a communicative exercise is active, with
students leaving their seats to complete a task.

Medgyes (1986) argues that CLT demands too much on teachers, more so than grammar-
translation approaches and lessons tend to be less predictable; teachers have to interact
with students in as 'natural' a way as possible; they have to be skilful with wider range of
management than in the traditional teacher-centred classroom. There are a lot
unpredictable in class which is an encouragement and also a challenge for them.
1.9. Teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards CLT
1.9.1. Attitudes
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 towards an object based on what
individuals have learned in previous settings. Even though attitudes are relatively constant
26


in individuals, attitudes have been learned. Since they are learned, they must be changed
by further learning. It is strongly likely that attitudes towards an object are not openly
manifested but still measurable (Lemon, 1973, p. 75, cited in Setiyadi, 1999, p.41).
Canh and Barnard (2009a) define attitudes as “the surface expression of underlying values,
beliefs, and knowledge” (p. 250). Brown (1981) uses the term “attitudes” to refer to the set
of beliefs that the learner holds towards the members of the target language group and also
towards his own culture. The equation of „attitudes‟ with a set of beliefs is also accepted by
Canh and Barnard (2009a). This view of „attitude‟ is adopted in the present study.
Attitude has the following characteristics:
 it is cognitive (i.e. is capable of being thought about) and affective (i.e. has feelings
and emotions attached to it;
 it is dimensional rather than bipolar, i.e., it varies in degree of favorability/
unfavorability;
 it predisposes a person to act in a certain way, i.e., it influences action;
 it is learnt, not inherited or genetically endowed;

 it tends to persist but they can be modified be experience.
(Baker, 1988)
Because of these characteristics, teachers‟ attitudes play an important role in shaping
their classroom behavior. Some scholars have noted that teachers‟ attitudes have been
neglected in second language classroom research (Grotjahn, 1991; Kleinsasser &
Savignon, 1991; Nunan, 1991). The issue of teachers‟ attitudes remains under-researched
in the context of Vietnamese high schools, and this study is an attempt to occupy this
research gap.
1.9.2. Why Investigate Teachers’ and Students’ Attitudes?

As mentioned earlier, students and teacher‟s attitudes play an important role in learning
and teaching the second/foreign language. Understanding of their attitudes towards
27


language and language learning helps to gain insights into what they do in the classroom
and why they do it. As Kleinsasser and Savignon (1991) have argued
In our quest for the improvement of language teaching, we have overlooked
the language teacher. Exploration … of teachers‟ perceptions of what they
do and why they do it, holds promise for understanding the frequently noted
discrepancies between theoretical understanding of second/foreign language
acquisition and classroom practice. (p. 299)
Karavas-Doukas (1996) makes a similar comment that
When introducing a new approach in the classroom it may be necessary for
the teacher to revise, refine, or change attitudes which may not be
compatible with the principles of that approach. (p. 188)

Karavas-Doukas (1996) used the questionnaire, which was also used for the present study,
to explore the attitudes of 101 Greek secondary school teachers to CLT. Fourteen of them
were observed. The results showed that there was discrepancy between teachers expressed

attitudes and their classroom practices. These Greek teachers supported CLT in their
responses to the questionnaire, but what they did in the classroom did not align their
attitudes. Christ and Makarani (2009) surveyed 31 Indian teachers‟ attitudes towards
communicative language teaching and how they implemented CLT in their teaching
English in two schools in India. Their two-phased embedded mixed methods study
indicated that the teachers, generally, had positive attitudes about policy-mandated CLT
practices and that they understood the common properties and approaches of CLT.
However, challenges pertaining to implementation were identified and these challenges
include: classroom size, available resources, and the verbal English proficiency of teachers
and students. In Bangladesh, Karim (2004) investigated 36 EFL teachers‟ perceptions,
attitudes, and expectations regarding CLT in post secondary education in Bangladesh.
Results showed that teachers‟ perceptions of communicative activities and CLT approach
corresponded with their reported classroom practices. There were positive indications that
these teachers were aware of the basic principles of CLT and they practiced major
communicative activities in the classroom. However, there were some discrepancies
between their attitudes and practices due to contextual factors such as lack of resources,
traditional exams, unequipped and large classes, and lack of support from administration.
28



Savignon and Wang (2006) investigated Taiwanese EFL students‟ attitudes and
perceptions regarding communicative language teaching and found a mismatch between
learner needs and preferences and their reported experience of classroom instruction.
Interest in communicative language teaching particularly among those learners who began
learning English at an early age, offerred support for curriculum changes. They concluded
that careful exploration of the concordance of classroom practice with the attitudes and
perceptions of learners was seen to be crucial in determining the success of curricular
changes. Sato and Kleinsasser (2009) studied how Japanese teachers defined and
implemented CLT in their classrooms. As it revealed from this study that teachers‟ views

and actions dealt little with the academic literature pertaining to CLT or their education in
learning about CLT. Instead, teachers resorted to their personal ideas and experiences.

1.10. Summary

This chapter reviews the literature on CLT as well as on teachers‟ attitudes towards CLT.
As reported in the literature, CLT, despite its many theoretical benefits to language
learners, is a challenge to teachers who are more familiar with traditional grammar-based
approaches to language teaching. It is likely that the challenges imposed on teachers make
them resistant to the implementation of CLT in their classroom though they may have
positive attitudes to or are aware of the principles of CLT. The chapter also shows the
importance of teachers‟ attitudes in determining the successful implementation of
innovatory ideas and in understanding teachers‟ classroom behaviors. The next chapter
presents the study.