EBO-047-10

Available online at www.buuconference.buu.ac.th

The 6th Burapha University International Conference 2017

“Creativity, Innovation, and Smart Culture for the Better Society”

A revisit of communicative teaching in a non-western environment

Ms. Nicola Prin

Burapha International College, 169 Longhardbang rd., Saen Mueang Chon Buri 20131, Saen Suk, Chon Buri District, Chon Buri

Abstract

Emerging literature on English language teaching has criticized the transference of a communicative teaching
approach into non-western contexts, where it has failed to take root due to numerous reasons, including
misconceptions of what it entails; social and cultural constraints; and the real teaching and learning environment.
This study examines the role of communicative teaching in ‘English as a foreign language' classrooms in Thailand.
The focus of this study is on teacher perception and use of a communicative approach. This study highlights issues
that arise when transferring the theory into practice within a non-western setting. Using multiple data an exploration
of the understanding, and views of a group of English language teachers is documented. The results indicate that the
degree and success of implementation, of a communicative teaching approach, depends greatly on how the teachers'
view the appropriateness of communicative teaching in their environment. The study also indicates that many
teachers prefer to use a more traditional practice, such as a grammar-translation method, due to problems they face
with implementation and curriculum expectations. From these findings, this study suggests an integration of a
modified communicative teaching approach, is more appropriate and adaptable for such non-western teaching
contexts. Furthermore, ongoing teacher training and reflection practices are needed to meet the expectations and
need of all stakeholders.

© 2017 Published by Burapha University.

Keywords: Communicative, adaptable, expectations, retraints, environment

172
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

1. Introduction

Over the past millennia teaching approaches towards ‘English as a second language’ and ‘English as
a foreign language’ has seen many changes and developments. With such a choice of approaches, how best to
execute one's teaching to be productive and beneficial to the learner has been of concern. However, for the
past 25 years, an approach that has seen a growing appreciation and which has become widely successful is
the ‘communicative teaching approach.' Numerous literature promotes and highlights its merits for language
teaching around the world. See (Breen & Candlin, 1980; Brumfit, 1984). In contrast to a traditional teaching
approach, where the focus on learning is premised on grammatical competence through drill work and rote
memorization on language forms, a communicative teaching approach concentrates on the concept of
communicative competence. Based upon the work of (Hymes,1972) communicative teaching focuses on the
learners' ability to use their second language correctly and appropriately in any verbal communicative
exchange which may take place in a variety of social contexts. The communicative teaching approach has
been defined and interpreted in a variety of ways by researchers, educators, and practitioners, but the central
tenets of its aims are identifiable by the work of leading scholars in the field. (Widdowson, 1978; Canale &
Swain, 1980; Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Nunan, 1989).

Despite the overriding popularity of communicative teaching, there are questions about its
effectiveness and appropriateness outside of a western environment. With the transference of pedagogy from
one cultural, social and physical context to another, which contain different sets of parameters, the success of
implementation can be limited. Recent research has highlighted these concerns and criticisms raised of the
transference of communicative teaching into non-western settings. See (Oka, 2004; Ellis, 1996; Li, 1998; Bax,
2003). This criticism has not been unfounded especially when focusing in Asia, where communicative
teaching has been highly problematic to implement in the specific local environment. Larsen-Freeman
(1999:1) found "the concern is that since a language teaching method is socially constructed, it is a product of
particular social, cultural, economic, and political forces, which might not transfer well from one context to
another.” Bearing this in mind, what may be deemed linguistically appropriate in one context may not be in
another. Moreover, some of the basic tenets of a communicative teaching approach contradict with non-
western learning environments such as, no immediate need to use English either in the classroom or everyday
interactions. Further factors to consider in non-western settings are the physical teaching conditions which
often do not lend to a communicative teaching classroom: large class sizes; lack of facilities and materials;
access to training and development in communicative teaching practices. All these factors have played a part
in the degree of success or failure to implement a communicative teaching approach. Sullivan (2000:7)
suggests “under these conditions a broader notion of communicative teaching needs to be used, allowing for
adaptation and modification to suit the social and cultural sensitivities of the country."

1.1. Focus and relevance of study

This study focuses on issues that are evident in Thailand in the use of a communicative teaching
approach, and to evaluate the overall effectiveness of communicative teaching. This research concentrates on
the teachers' attitudes and views towards this approach. Studies by (Sato & Kleinsasser; 1999; Richards; Gallo
& Renandya, 2001; Lightbrown, 2000) have all indicated that the views and actions of teachers have little to
do with the theoretical knowledge of a methodology but instead rely on personal ideologies and experiences.
This study examines the major areas where the introduction of communicative teaching has been most
problematic and ascertains the extent of which these issues play a role in the effectiveness of communicative
teaching practices.

173
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

This research will contribute to the development of English language education in Thailand, firstly by
obtaining the views and concerns of teachers on existing teaching practices. Also, it will provide an
opportunity for reflection and evaluation to take place amongst all stakeholders. Also, this study hopes to act
as a driving force to encourage and promote directives implementing a communicative teaching approach.
Furthermore, this study will highlight any concerns that teachers have on using communicative teaching and
assist in resolving issues surrounding misconceptions of the approach as well as specific problems. The
findings of this research can be used to reinforce and motivate all stakeholders in the use of communicative
teaching and help to formulate a structured foundation on which development and advancement can take
place in the implementation of a communicative teaching approach within Thailand.

1.2. Research objectives

Numerous research is conducted in exporting teaching methodology into non-western

environments. The attention often concentrates on the issues surrounding its success or failure to students’
experiences. However, there is limited exposure to the teachers themselves, especially in a social and cultural
environment of South-East Asia. This research addresses this balance by concentrating the study in Thailand,
which has its unique salient aspects. The overall aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of
communicative language teaching in Thailand used by EFL teachers. This study will focus attention on
teachers' attitudes and view of a communicative teaching approach and examine the basic knowledge held on
communicative teaching theory. Further to this, issues about the use of communicative teaching methods in
local education environments, within Thailand, will be explored to expose both positive and negative aspects
from the teachers’ viewpoint.

The objectives of this research are to:

1. Identify the degree which a communicative teaching approach is adopted by EFL teachers.
2. Evaluate the teacher's attitude and views towards a communicative approach.
3. Explore any concerns and issues of using a communicative teaching approach.

Hypothesis: Teachers of English as a second or other language will use the approach of instruction that is best
suited to the educational environment in relation to student expectations and familiarity.

2. Literature review

2.1. Defining and representations of communicative teaching approach

In the first instance, a definition of communicative teaching approach needs to be established to base
all subsequent discussion within this study. Sullivan (1996) notes “although there is no single definition set out
as the principle model, it is collectively agreed upon that the primary purpose of a communicative approach is
to develop learners' communicative competence by using language that is meaningful to them in an efficient
manner." The dynamics of the classroom and relationship between teacher and students drastically differ from
that of a traditional one by the teacher becoming a ‘facilitator' guiding the students to take on responsibility and
autonomy of their learning. Moreover, the contexts of lessons are presented with authentic material, using real-
life experiences and situations that are relevant to the students within their cultural and social environment.
Students have ample opportunity to work in small groups or pairs to engage in communication using their
target language. However, this does not dismiss the need for grammatical competence, and a certain level of
grammatical knowledge of a language for the learner to become proficient in the target language. Tarone &

174
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

Yule (1989:18) argue this point, "It has never really been seriously suggested that any language learner can
become proficient in a language without developing a certain level of grammatical competence."

Even though the main aims and objectives, are agreed upon, of a communicative teaching approach,
there is a broad interpretation on how to apply syllabi and activities within its sphere. Communicative teaching
is adapted and integrated into teaching practices in a variety of ways. In early versions, a functional definition
of language was adopted. Scholars such as, (Krashen,1982) who rejects the use of explicit instruction in
teaching, suggesting that grammar instruction is not needed in language teaching at all. This theory is criticized
by recent scholars (Lightbrown & Spada. 1999; Long & Crookes, 1992; Thompson, 1996) who now suggest
that some focus on language structures is of benefit, implemented through corrective feedback. (Long &
Crookes (1992) propose an analytic syllabus, presented through tasks. Further supporting this, Nunan (1989)
recommends that by employing tasks in the classroom learners can carry out meaningful real world activities.
Moreover, they have freedom to explore the target language by negotiating for meaning. In short,
Communicative teaching approach focuses on meaning and linguistic forms in context, which carries with it
more tolerance of grammatical errors, for example, Pica (2000:1-18) states "correction is reserved only for
errors in the communication of message meaning." This approach encourages risk-taking, confidence building,
and language learning.

2.2. Drive for communicative teaching approach in Asia

English is recognized as an international language, the lingua franca of the world, spoken by
approximately 700 million people. English has fast become the dominant language in many areas of commerce.
It is evident why the acquisition of English is deemed high priority especially in Asia where a growing
economy is positioning itself to compete on the world stage. When focussing on Thailand, this factor was
raised by (Masavisut, et al. 1986) "English is a powerful tool to bring the world to Thailand and Thailand to the
world." This statement reflects the commitment Thailand has in raising the standard of English proficiency.
"Knowledge in almost every field is available in English, many well-paid jobs in both public and private
sectors in Thailand look for recruits who have a reasonably good command of English." (Raksaphet, 1991,
cited by Dr. Saengboon, 2006: 143) It is important that English is taught in a manner that allows
communication to occur. Thailand has been unsuccessful in the past to achieve this, as the focus has been on
reading and writing skills through a grammar-translation approach. Although these skills are valuable, speaking
and listening skills should also be addressed on an equal basis. To achieve this, students need to be in a position
where they can practice their communication skills. Ultimately the goal is the learner will be competent in all
skill areas.

As in most Asian countries, there is a lack of exposure to purposeful communication in the English
medium. In such cases, the need for classroom guidance in communicative practice is essential. Furthermore,
all sharing the same mother tongue makes any communication in the target language staged and not authentic
in nature. Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996: 199) suggest "what is authentic in London might not be authentic in
Hanoi." In Thailand, a balance needs to be met between communicative and grammatical competency to meet
the requirement of the curriculum which in most part focuses on grammatical structures preparing students to
pass national exams with a grammar-based format. This balance supports the work by (Rao, 2002:85-91) On
studying Chinese college students’ attitudes towards communicative teaching approach found that they
preferred non-communicative activities to those of communicative ones. Rao considered activities such as drill
work and grammar focus highly relevant to their success of English acquisition to meet the requirements of the
curriculum. Rao further suggests that “only by reconciling communicative activities with non-communicative
activities in English classrooms can students in non-English speaking countries benefit from communicative

175
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

teaching approach." This statement bolsters the evidence shown within this present study by expressing the
concerns of the Thai teachers who reported that a combination of methods needs to be deployed to meet all
requirements of both the curriculum that they work within and to meet the needs and demands of the students.

2.3. Cultural and social climate

Many researchers have contributed the failure of communicative teaching in non-western

environments to the vast differences that exist between western and eastern norms, values and expectations
placed on the educational systems. See work by (Brumfit, 1985; Swan, 1985; Pennycook, 1989; Richards,
1990; Damen, 1987; Sullivan, 1996). The central argument is in the transference of a methodology that has
been socially constructed in one context to use within a context which has a distinct set of rules, will not be
effective. As discussed by (Ellis, 1996:213) “different constructions of meaning or ‘meaning systems’ exist
across cultures which inhibit the transferability of particular pedagogical practices between them." This theory
is evident in (Li, 1998) case study in South Korea, focussing on teachers he discovered that in the initial
communicative teaching approach was not received well due to the differences between the underlying
educational theories of South Korea and those of Western countries. Moreover, in research by (Lamb, 1995:78)
in Indonesia, he discovered after an in-service course in communicative teaching approach practices one year
later the teachers still rejected the use of communicative teaching approach in their teaching practices due to the
confusion of its intent. Lamb explains this as a "clash between the new and the traditional." Reinforced by
(Hird, 1995) who taught a course to a group of Chinese school teachers and only saw a limited opportunity to
use a Western methodology within this context.

Another prominent factor is the underpinnings in the activities themselves. Communicative teaching
approach activities have expectations and assumptions about the norms of using English which in a non-
western environment may not promote appropriate behavior for that specific society and culture. Ellis (1994)
suggests that communicative teaching approach is constructed with western values such as ‘individualism.' In
contrast, many Asian countries the social environment supports ‘collectivism.' When presented with activities
such as pair and small group work both teacher and learners will benefit and endorse this independence and
autonomy of learning. These assumptions, in behavioral norms, can cause problems in the classroom between
learners and teacher. In Thailand, a communicative teaching approach does not complement the relationship
status between teacher and learners. This relationship is based heavily on a hierarchy status, founded upon the
social belief system. This traditional outlook permeates within the education sector and thus is in direct conflict
with communicative teaching approach tenets. Pennycook, (1989: 611) argues that to think that what works in
one educational system will do so within another constitutes ‘cultural imperialism' in English language
education. However, there are some who disagree with the notion that a methodology has a cultural attachment
to it and instead view the problems lie with not the method but how it is interpreted see (Harmer, 2003: 292).
Sullivan (2000: 115-32) found that "communicative teaching approach should leave room for adaptation to the
social and cultural sensitivities of the region." In this instance, communicative activities can be made more
appropriate for each setting. For example, Sullivan further suggests "whole class rhythmically tuned responses
to teacher elicitations, playful narratives, and oral symphonic performances might be particularly appropriate in
Vietnam." Supporting this, (Holliday, 1997: 212-38) discovered in China and India, teacher-led activities led to
a successful communicative involvement in English. Suggesting executing communicative activities depends
on the cultural, social and physical context of the teaching environment. This theory allows the teacher to use a
format that is more conducive to a situation and not necessarily has to implement pair work and small group
tasks.

176
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

2.4. Teaching ideologies

Studies have shown that much of what teachers do within their day to day teaching practice is governed
by their personal views and beliefs about teaching. Pajares, (1992:311) points out, “It is the beliefs more than
awareness or knowledge about teaching that dictates classroom conduct." As suggested by (Hampton, 1994:120-
140) "teachers’' beliefs or "personal constructs" determine how they approach their teaching." A study by (Sato, K,
and Kleinsasser, 1999:494-517) examines this point in a Japanese context and concludes the views and actions of
the teachers had little to do with the academic literature about communicative teaching approach but instead relied
on their personal ideas and experiences. Further research in this area by (Richards, et al. 1990) showed the
importance of understanding teachers’ beliefs and principles towards language teaching for change to occur. He
discovered that core beliefs are based on personal theories, which in most part are resistant to change. The findings
indicate that the core beliefs behind teaching practices center on the importance of grammar in language teaching.
These teaching theories have developed from past learning experiences. This view of personal past experiences is
highlighted by (Bailey in Freeman & Richards, 1996). The findings indicated that in most part teachers take these
past experiences into the classroom with them, and use an approach to teaching which is familiar to them not what
they learned in teacher training programs. Supported by the work of (Freeman, 1992) "The urge to change and pull
to do what is familiar create a central tension in teachers thinking about their practice." To change these beliefs
Bartlett (1990:212) suggests by “becoming reflective forces us to adopt a critical attitude to ourselves as individual
second language teachers - to challenge our espoused personal views about teaching.” (Iemjinda, 2005)
investigated a model for bringing about changes in teacher pedagogical behaviors in EFL primary school teachers
in Thailand. Iemjinda discovered a professional development program adapted to a context, involving preparatory
workshop training followed up by support, can make a notable change in the understanding and use of
communicative teaching approach.

Using reflection can alleviate many misconceptions concerning communicative teaching approach. These
misconceptions have been highlighted within this study and with previous research. In (Thompson’s 1996) study he
discovered that a large number of teachers invoke invalid reasoning for rejecting communicative teaching approach.
When (Karvas-Doukas, 1996), researched 101 local secondary school teachers in Greece, she concluded that part of
the problem stems from the teachers' misunderstanding of the very nature of communicative language teaching. A
different outlook. Dr. Saengboon (2006) discusses that it is the interpretation of communicative teaching approach
within a different context that is present, not misinterpretation. A re-examination and evaluation on how
communicative teaching approach can be introduced into non-western settings would be of benefit.

3. Methodology and data collection

Mixed method studies described by (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) as “combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches into the research methodology of a single study or multiphase study." "the use of any
single method, just like the view of any single individual, will necessarily be subjective and therefore biased."
(Mathison, 1988:14). By using multi data collection in the study a comprehensive and reliable source of data can
be obtained which balances any difference in weakness and strength between all data collection sources. For
example, although the use of a questionnaire on its own could provide general feedback from the teachers on their
views and beliefs, there is no way to assess if they are telling the truth or just answering the questions in a manner
that they think the researcher wants to hear. By deploying semi-structured interviews, the researcher can ask and
obtain both closed and open questions through a variety of data sources to gauge a more realistic and accurate
account of all issues under investigation. Based on this evidence, a questionnaire was used for a general overview
and subsequently backed-up by semi-structured interviews. For this study, a 5-point linker scale was used
containing 14 questions on teacher attitude towards a communicative teaching approach. Also, a second Yes/No

177
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

response questionnaire was given, about concerns and barriers to integrating a communicative teaching approach.
To support the quantitative findings from the two surveys three open-ended questions were administered for
interview purposes, which focused on more general teaching ideologies.

3.1. Sampling

A stratified random sample procedure is used for this study, which entailed a proportion of the sub-
group (strata) known in the population, to be selected randomly but from within each of these strata. For example,
the research focusses on five schools within Thailand. Each participating teacher from all schools received a
questionnaire. For follow-up analysis, in-depth interviews were administered. The researcher deemed it more
appropriate to use a stratified random sample approach, selecting at random equal numbers of teachers from within
each school. This approach allowed the researcher to obtain feedback from all schools to permit a comparison and
evaluation of views and attitudes of teachers towards communicative teaching approach within different teaching
contexts and giving each school (teaching background) equal selection probability. By using a simple random
procedure, this would not be the case, and a different proportion of samples may be collected. For example, with a
sample of 100 participating teachers, a simple random selection may select 60% from just one school, while the
remaining 40% chosen from the four remaining schools, which would not allow for absolute reliability and
validity.

3.2. Target population

The purpose of this inquiry is to determine the degree communicative teaching approach is adopted by
EFL teachers. Moreover, to ascertain their views and attitudes towards the approach. To carry out this
investigation, the researcher selected a target population from five schools within Thailand. The five schools came
under categories, which are shown in the table below.

Table 1. Participating schools

School Level Contacted teachers Responded teachers

A Secondary 15 10
B Secondary 22 20
C Primary 20 14
D Primary 11 11
E Primary 12 07
80 62

3.2.1. Participants and procedure

The participants for this study are all EFL teachers who have been in-service teachers and had between
1-30 years of EFL teaching experience. Eighty teachers were initially contacted to participate in this inquiry. A
return rate of 62 was acquired. All have the knowledge and some degree of training in communicative teaching
approach. All participants are university educated, although not all have trained specifically in EFL teaching but
have training in specific subject areas. This study was carried out over a three-month period Initial questionnaires
were handed out in February with a 55% return rate before the summer break. The remaining questionnaires were
collected in the first week of the new term in May. Subsequently, all interviews were conducted within the later
months. The procedure for this study is based upon the initial questionnaire, which allows for familiarity and
reflection before the interviews take place. Moreover, the researcher can use the data from the questionnaires to
expand and probe in more detail specific questions of interest. The interview hopes to gain a more personal

178
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

perspective from the teachers in attitudes they hold towards communicative teaching approach and the problems
entailed in its implementation in a local context.

4. Findings

4.1. Questionnaire findings

Section A. Background information. Table 2 shows the level of academic qualifications that all
participating teachers reached. As the data indicates, only 12 teachers graduated in English studies. Many teachers
have a degree in education at a B.A. level, although this does not include English instruction. This data alone
highlights the shortage of specialized EFL teachers working within the Thai school system. However, the table
does show many graduates are entering the teaching profession with degrees in Education, which provides them
with theoretical knowledge and practical training on methodologies.

Table 2:
Qualification Response Number of years teaching English Response
B.A. English 7 Under one year 0
B.A. Education (Non-English) 23 1-4 years 20
B.A. Specific (Math, Chemistry, etc.) 11 5-10 years 14
M.A. English 5 11-19 years 9
M.A. Non-specified 8 20+ years 19
Not given 8 Not given 0

Table 3 shows that there is a range of class sizes with the majority having class sizes between 26-35 students. The
teaching hours indicate that most teachers teach a maximum of between 17-21 hours per week. However, this does
not include office hours or extra duties that teachers may be required to do.

Table 3:
Level No. Class size No. Teaching hrs. Per week No.

Primary 34 20-25 15 12-16 3

Secondary 28 26-35 22 17-21 34
36-45 16 22-26 23
45+ 9 26+ 2

4.2.1. Summary of Linker scale attitude survey

1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral rating; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree
Section 1 2 3 4 5

A Grammatical correctness is the most important criterion 3 7 32 15 5

by which language performance should be judged.
B The students should be the center of the knowledge 13 22 17 8 2
transmission.
C The teacher should correct all grammatical errors. If 7 25 5 20 5
errors are ignored, this will result in imperfect learning.
D It is impossible in a class of 30+ students to organize 12 24 6 8 12
your teaching to suit everybody's needs.

179
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

E Students should have some control and input over their 19 19 20 4 0

learning
F Students do best when taught as a whole class by the 11 20 25 5 1
teacher.
G The teacher should not correct the students’ mistakes 20 20 2 6 14
unless they cause communication breakdown
H The student should be exposed to authentic language and 26 22 14 0 0
materials.
I Language tasks should be meaningful and purposeful. 18 20 18 5 1

J Small group/pair work activities should only be included 10 16 18 18 0

occasionally, as they can never replace sound formal
instruction by a competent teacher.
K Direct instruction in the rules and terminology of 40 12 8 2 0
grammar is essential if students are to learn to
communicate effectively.
L Tasks and activities should be negotiated and adapted to 18 24 12 8 0
suit students’ needs rather than imposed on them.
M Students learn best when with direct instruction from the 5 14 18 22 3
teacher.
N Students become loud and rowdy when left to work on 26 30 4 2 0
projects by themselves.

From this Linker Scale Survey, we can accumulate much information on the views and attitudes of
the EFL teachers towards teaching practices. This study discusses the most relevant points will be highlighted.
In the first instance, there are mixed views with 51% of all teachers indicated a neutral rating towards using
either a traditional or communicative approach. This shows that teachers are not yet entirely comfortable in
moving away from the traditional grammar-based format.

Confirming this, when looking at Section K, a staggering 65% teachers still feel that direct
instruction of grammar rules and terminology is still an essential component to learning communication.
However, there is a willingness to adopt some form of communicative teaching, as in section B. shows a
growing acknowledgment that classrooms should move towards student focussed. This finding supports section
E. Teachers indicate that students should be involved in their learning to a degree. However, in section N, most
of the teachers’ state, that when left on their own, students become loud and rowdy, making teachers feel that
they cannot give full control of the learning process to the students. Many teachers in the interviews expressed,
‘the students are not responsible enough.' This evidence suggests that with such a drastic change expected by
the teachers in their pedagogy practices, there is also needs to be a consideration of the impact on students
learning behavior.

Section F supports the evidence that most classes are still teacher-fronted with most teachers
agreeing that students learn best when taught as a whole class. In contrast, when asked about small group work
and pair work there was a mixed response, with only 16% stating this should only occasionally be done. While
25% agreed; 29% had a neutral rating; 25% disagreed. In follow-up interviews, the responses showed
willingness and appreciation for small group and pair work activities, but due to the contextual restraints, it was
impossible to implement. Sections H and I show an explicit recognition that the use of authentic material which
is both meaningful and purposeful to the students is beneficial, although, in subsequent interviews, there was
little evidence that such material is used.

180
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

4.2.2. Yes/No questionnaire

Problem Response
The students’ English proficiency level is too low. 71%
Class size is too big. 83%
Time is limited. 69%
The students’ responsibility is low. 56%
Material does not facilitate CLT 22%

All problems are different degrees from teacher to teacher, but there is a definite pattern, where the key
issues lie. An overwhelming 82% indicated large classes hinder successful implementation of communicative
teaching approach, supporting the findings by (Jarvis & Atsilarat, 2004) showing 83% of the teachers in their study
reporting large class size as a hindrance for implementing. Teaching time allocated to each class is deemed not
enough for successful English acquisition. Investigating further into the responses one can see that the central
issues are about the students' abilities, 71% conveying students’ English proficiency as too low for communicative
teaching approach instruction.

4.3. Interview feedback

In this section, a selection of participants responded to a series of questions using open-ended

questions based upon the 5-point Linker attitude survey scale. The questions focused on what beliefs teachers
held and implemented into their classroom.

Question: What do you consider the main aims/objectives for teaching English as a foreign language?
The responses overwhelmingly showed that 96% of all teachers interviewed feel that the main purpose for EFL is
for communication with English speaking people and to be used as a lingua franca on a global platform. This
shows that the teachers are aware of the importance and need for communicative practice and development in the
EFL classroom.
Question: What main approach do you apply in your teaching practices? The response showed that some of the
selected participants indicated that they use a communicative teaching approach, with replying that they still use a
more traditional, grammar-translation model. However, the majority responded that they combine methodologies
and use a mixed approach due to meeting institutional requirements and for students’ readiness for written
examination and communicative oral testing.
Question: Briefly define communicative teaching approach in one or two sentences. A highly surprising response
of participating teachers replied that they could not explain communicative teaching approach. This raises an
interesting point, as even though most of the teachers reported that they had received communicative teaching
training, this apparently has not reflected in their understanding of the approach. With the remaining responses, the
majority responded that communicative teaching approach was to encourage the students to communicate with
others using English as the communicative language. Other replies included teaching speaking skills first; teaching
four skills to a higher level; fun and interesting for the students. This evaluation shows that an overwhelmingly
considerable number of teachers have not clearly grasped the concept of communicative teaching approach.
Studies by (Sato and Kleinsasser, 1999) and among other researchers, have argued that if teachers do not acquire a
thorough theoretical as well as practical understanding of communicative teaching approach, they are not able to
develop and implement practices appropriate to their teaching context. In this situation, they return to their more
familiar traditional teaching.
Question: When you were a student in school, what approach did your English teacher use? Most of the teachers'
learning experiences followed a grammar-translation model. This information strongly supports the claim by some

181
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

that teaching ideologies are based on past learning experiences.

4. Discussion

Overall, there is a real consensus for the introduction of a modified version of communicative teaching
approach to be considered. The main advantages would be to assist the teachers in meeting the goals of the
curriculum and stakeholder needs. Research by (Bottomley, Y. et al., 1994) amongst others, suggest three major
factors for consideration for successful implementation. "One is that the teacher must perceive a need for change in
the broader curriculum as well as in their personal pedagogy views and so should be open to professional
development. A second factor is that the teacher must have an understanding, of the innovation. And thirdly is that
the teacher must be able to achieve the pedagogical changes expected of them". Teachers need to be able to adapt
the new proposed curriculum and pedagogy changes to fit into their teaching situations. Concerns have to some
degree determined the effectiveness of communicative teaching approach within the day to day practices. As this
study has shown in most part teachers are willing to attempt to integrate communicative teaching approach
activities in some part into their teaching practices. But certain criteria need to be met which involves a more
adaptable teaching approach. As discussed within this study, many teachers and students still consider a focus on
grammar structure an important and necessary component of language acquisition.

To adopt communicative teaching approach requires rethinking and adjustment of some long-held
beliefs and values. Pennycook (1989) believes "teachers should make a whole series of decisions about teaching
based on their educational experiences, their personalities, their particular institutional, social, cultural, and political
circumstances, their understanding of their particular students' collective and individual needs, and so on." Taking
this example, unless teachers themselves understand and agree upon the objectives and goals, achievement in EFL
any teaching approach or methodology will fail to reach the desired results. (Savignon, 2007) although being one of
the first pioneers of communicative teaching approach now is calling for a revisit to communicative teaching
approach, taking a closer look at ‘what it is not meant to be.' Further suggesting "a broader notion of
communicative teaching approach needs to be adopted throughout the world" This more widespread notion needs to
take into consideration all the factors and concerns highlighted in this study.

5.1. Modified approach

In recent research, a call for a modified version of communicative teaching approach has been
highlighted. See (Lewis, 1996; Fotos, 1998; Sullivan, 2000; Kumaravadivelu, 2001). As discussed by (Sano, et
al., 1984) “communicative language teaching should meet the local needs, and the methodology of teaching
should vary significantly according to the environment in which teachers find themselves working." Supporting
this statement Hiep (2005:7) states that even though the goal for communicative competence in both western
and non-western environments is equally applicable, a separate set of actions should be deployed to meet the
common goal. In addition to this, Hiep asserts that “for more success of the communicative approach in the
EFL context, a new way of defining communicative teaching approach and an adequate theory of action for
local teachers must be found.” Kramsch & Sullivan (1996) propose that if communicative teaching approach is
to offer students real communication which is meaningful to them, then it must not only be prescribed in a
western format which is appropriate for only western learning styles, characterized by specific modes of
information exchange, such as negotiation of meaning. Instead, instruction should include a multifaceted view
of communication and language use which exists in diverse cultural and social environments, especially non-
western settings. A modified version of communicative teaching approach provides learners with opportunities
to use their English for communication through integrating communicative teaching approach activities related
to the purpose of the course as specified in the syllabus, or by the teacher into a wider program of language
teaching. The main purpose is to integrate a communicative component into a traditional language program.

182
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

The teacher and students can then maintain the value of grammatical explanation, error correction, and drills
which they have reported as being more appropriate for their learning styles. Students can engage in genuine
communicative interaction. Researchers are now looking at various approaches based upon communicative
teaching approach that can be adapted and combined with existing practices to introduce into the EFL
classroom. Such studies include (Fotos, 1998) where EFL activities are based upon a focus on form approach.
This refers to implicit grammar instruction being incorporated into a communicative lesson. Jarvis, & Atsilarate
(2004) focused on a group of Thai university practitioners and their students, suggest now is the time to look
for an alternative. Thomson (1996) acknowledges that the approach is not the definitive answer, “the next
revolution in language teaching is already underway." Thomson also recognizes an alternative approach based
and built upon the CA, "whatever innovations emerge, they will do so against a background of changes brought
about by communicative teaching approach, and will need to accommodate or explicitly reject those changes.

References

Bax, S. (2003). The end of communicative teaching approach. A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal 57 (3): 278–86.
Breen, M. and Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1 (2): 89–
112.
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge Language Teaching Library, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Damen, L. (1987) Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension in the Language Classroom. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach? ELT Journal 50 (3): 213–218. Retrieved from
http://people.exeter.ac.uk/msp203/MEd%20Formative%20Assignment/How%20Culturally%20Appropriate%20is%20the%20Communic
ative%20Approach.pdf.
Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, Volume 52/4: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/208877665/Shifting-the-Focus-From-Forms-to-Form-in-the-EFL-Classroom.
Freeman, D. & Richards, J. C. (1996). Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Hampton, S. (1994). Teacher change: Overthrowing the myth of one teacher, one classroom. In Harmer, J., 2001. The Practice of English
Language Teaching. 3rd Eds. UK: Longman Press.
Harmer, J. (2003). Popular culture, methods, and context. ELT Journal 57 (3): 287-94.
Hiep, P. H. (2005). “Imported” communicative language teaching: implications for local teachers. English Teaching Forum, 43(4), 2-9.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1112915.pdf.
Hiep, P.H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201. Retrieved from
https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/61/3/193/398806/Communicative-language-teaching-unity-within?redirectedFrom=PDF.
Hird, B. (1995). How communicative can language teaching be in China? Prospect 10/3: 21-7 Sydney: NCELTR.
Holliday, A. (1997). Six lessons: Cultural continuity in communicative language teaching. Language Teaching Research (1).
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative competence. In J.B. Pride, and J. Holmes. Eds. Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Iemjinda, M. (2005). Teachers and Changes: A school-based Professional Development Programme for Thai Teachers. Thailand.
Retrieved from http://www.journal.su.ac Vol 5. No. 1-2.
Jarvis, J. and Atsilarat, S. (2004). Shifting paradigms: From a communicative to a context-based approach. Asian EFL Journal. Retrieved
from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Dec_04_HJ&SA.pdf.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach.
ELT Journal 50 (3): 187-98.
Kramsch, C.and Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal 50 (3): 199-212.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a post-method pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537-559.
Lamb, M. (1995). The consequences of INSET. ELT Journal 49/1: 72-80. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-
abstract/49/1/72/2924358/The-consequences-of-INSET?redirectedFrom=PDF.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). On the appropriateness of language methods in language and development. The Fourth International Conference
on Language and Development. October 13-15. 1999. Retrieved from http://www.languages.ait.ac.th/hanoi_proceedings/Larsen-freeman
Lewis, M. (1997). Teaching English in Vietnam. Occasional Papers: 1 Institute of Language Teaching and Learning. The University of
Auckland.
Li, D. (1998). It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative
approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly 32 (4): 677–703.
Lightbown, P. M & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbrown, P.M. (2000). Anniversary Article Classroom SLA Research and Second Language Teaching. Concordia University, Montreal:
Oxford University Press. Applied Linguistics 21/4:431-462.

183
 Proceedings of the Burapha University International Conference 2017, 3-4 August 2017, Bangsaen, Chonburi, Thailand

Long, M. H.and G. Crookes. (1992). 'Three approaches to task-based syllabus design' TESOL Quarterly 26/1.
Masavisut, N. Sukwiwat, M. and Wongmontha, S. (1986). The power of English language in Thai media. World Englishes, 5: 197-207.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researchers, 17 (12): 13- 17. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X017002013.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oka, Hideo, Professor. The University of Tokyo. (2004). A non-native Approach to ELT: Universal or Asian? Asian EFL Journal, Volume 6.
Issue 1 Article.1. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_2005_EBook_editions.pdf.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62: 307-
332. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543062003307.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23/4: 591-615.
Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology. System, 28: 1-18.
Raksaphet, P. (1991). Study of English loanwords in Thai newspapers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Cited in Dr. S. Sengboon. (2006). Communicative teaching approach Revisited. NIDA Language and Communication Journal.
Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T.S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C (1990). Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. Gallo, P. Renandya, W. (2001). Exploring Teachers’ Beliefs and the Processes of Change. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional
Language Centre. Retrieved from http://www.chan6es.com/uploads/5/0/4/8/5048463/exploring-teacher-change.pdf.
Rao, Z.H. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30: 85-105.
Sano, M. et. al. (1984). Communicative language teaching and local needs. ELT Journal 38/3: 171-177.
Saengboon, Dr. S. (2006). Communicative teaching approach Revisited. National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) Language
and Communication Journal. Thailand.
Sato, K.and R. Kleinsasser. (1999). Communicative language teaching (communicative teaching approach): Practical understandings. The
Modern Language Journal 83 (4): 494–517.
Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39: 207-220.
Sullivan, P.N. (1996). English language teaching in Vietnam: An appropriation of communicative methodologies. PH.D. dissertation in
Education, University of California, Berkeley. In Freeman, D., 1999. On the appropriateness of language teaching methods in Language and
development. Retrieved from http://www.languagues.ait.ac.th.
Sullivan, P.N. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom.
Retrieved from J. P. Lantolf, ed. (2000: 115-32) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.
Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach (1) ELT Journal 39(1):1-12.
Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Applied Social
Research Methods Series. Volume 46. London: Sage Publishing.
Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal 50 (1): 9–15.
Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Publications.
Yoon, K. (2004). Communicative teaching approach Theories and Practices in EFL Curricula. A Case Study of Korea. Asian EFL
Journal. September 2004.

184