challenges in implimenting a communicative syllabus

Challenges in Implimenting a

Communicative Syllabus

Alexander S R Walsh

Student Number - TTXAW20 Module – XX4708 Developments in TESOL Methodology Contents

Contents 1) Purpose of Study Page 1 2) History of ESL in South Korea Page 1 3) Literature Review

i) What is Communicative Language Teaching?

ii) The Application of Communicative Language Teaching Page 6 Around the World

4) Results

i) Teachers Understanding of Communicative Page 9 Language Teaching

ii) The Extent to which Korean Teachers Implement Page 10

Communicative Teaching Methods iii) Do Korean Teachers Share the Government’s Page 11

Desire to Use a Communicative Approach iv) Teachers’ Perceived Difficulties in Implementing a Page 12

Communicative Approach v) Research Methods Page 14

5) Implications of the Research Page 15

i) The Institutional Structure Page 16

ii) Support for Teachers Page 16

iii) Adaptation Rather than Adoption of CLT Page 17 6) Conclusion Page 18 Bibliography Page 19 Appendix Page 22

of 23

Student Number - TTXAW20 Module – XX4708 Developments in TESOL Methodology Page 1

1) Purpose of Study This study explores the reasons why, despite a heavy focus on developing students‟ communicative

competence in the English language syllabus developed by the South Korean Ministry of Education, South

Korean English language teachers are hesitant to move away from the traditional grammar translation and

audiolingual teaching methods. The study will meet this objective through an analysis measuring the extent

to which communicative language methods are being used to meet the curriculum goals, whether the

teachers‟ understanding of communicative language teaching may be a preventative issue, if teachers are

concerned by the current teaching methods being utilized and, finally, what they believe is preventing them

from using a communicative approach. With these factors in mind, this study hopes to improve our

understanding of the difficulties teachers are facing in implementing a communicative approach to language

teaching. This research will also explore the reasons for such a communicative focus in the English syllabus,

and the benefits South Korean English teachers feel a communicative approach could have on their

students‟ English ability.

A total of ten teachers in four high schools, located in different areas of South Korea (namely Seoul and

Busan) took part in the research. The implications of this research are important not only for the South

Korean education system, but also for similar countries that are also struggling to implement a

communicative syllabus, such as China, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam and other East Asian countries (Wang,

2007; Carless, 2004; Anderson, 1993) who share similar cultural and educational characteristics.

2) History of ESL in South Korea According to the English Curriculum provided by the South Korean Ministry of Education:

English, being the most widely used language, is playing an important role in the communication and bonding between people of different native languages. For elementary and secondary school students who must live in the future, the ability to communicate in English is an essential skill that they must learn at school. To contribute to the nation and society, to show leadership as a cosmopolitan citizen, and to enjoy a wide range of cultural activities, the ability to understand and use English is essential. The ability to communicate in English will act as an important bridge connecting different countries, and will be the driving force in developing our country, forming trust among various countries and cultures. (Ministry of Education 2008:41)

As South Korea has realised its dream of becoming an international economic power, it has also realised

the necessity of creating a workforce ready to communicate in English with global partners. There has been

a huge commitment from the government to stress the importance of learning English in the South Korean

of 23


public school system, as Li (1998) describes, “…rather than wait for speakers of other languages to learn

Korean, the government wants its people prepared to communicate in English” (Li, 1998:681). With this

heavy focus on English language learning there was a realisation that traditional approaches to language

teaching in South Korea, which were centred around the audiolingual and grammar translation methods of

teaching (Choi, 2005; Chang, 2003; Li, 1998; Yoon, 2004), were not adequate to provide students with the

skills necessary to continue South Korea‟s economic development; “the grammatical syllabus does not help

much to develop learners‟ communicative competence.” (Development Committee, South Korea 1992:66)

The government decided that more modern approaches to language learning and teaching were needed to

develop the students‟ ability to communicate with native speakers in the English language.

The 6th curriculum was the first to make the transition over to focusing on communicative competence

and was put into practice in 1995 (Yoon 1:2004). According to the 6th curriculum, the then goal of English

language teaching in South Korea was “to develop the learners‟ communicative competence in English

through meaningful drills and communicative activities, such as games, with the aid of audio-visual

equipment” (Development Committee 1992:180). The 7th national curriculum, which was applied in 2000,

continued in a similar vein with the clear drive to develop communicative competence. The goals of the 7th

national curriculum were for students to:

a) Have interests and self-confidence in English, and develop the basic ability to

communicate.

b) Communicate naturally about daily life and general topics.

c) Understand various information from foreign countries, and raise the ability to

make use of it.

d) Recognize the new aspects of our culture through understanding foreign cultures,

have a right sense of value.

(Choi 2005:8).

3) Literature Review

i) What is Communicative Language Teaching?

Communicative language teaching was developed in the 1970‟s as a response to the needs of European

and North American learners (Savignon, 2007). In Europe, the number of immigrants and guest workers

was rapidly increasing, all of whom needed to be educated in how to communicate in the language of the

country they had immigrated to. To deal with this, the Council of Europe developed a basic competency as

to the level at which students would be able to communicate based on the learners needs (Savignon

209:2007). In Germany, due to individual empowerment, language teachers had started to develop

of 23


materials that focused on learner choice and exercises that were communicatively focused and designed to

help students understand the social meanings attached to certain grammatical structures (Candlin, 1978).

The theoretical basis that underpins communicative language teaching can be dated back to

Chomsky (1957) and Leonard Newark and David Reibel, who, in 1968, were seen as ground breaking

when they stated that not only is teaching unhelpful, but it actually interferes with learning (Littlewood,

2006). This followed Chomsky who, in 1965, had applied the terms „linguistic competence‟ and „linguistic

performance‟ to states of language learning. „Linguistic competence‟ was used to describe the learners‟

knowledge of the language, while linguistic performance referred to the learners‟ ability to use the language

in real situations (Campbell & Wales, 1970). Chomsky (1957,1965) demonstrated how the structural

theories that were being employed at the time were not able to account for the creativity and uniqueness of

individual sentences as, in order to form meaningful utterances, a language learner must know and

understand not just how, but where and when to form utterances. In other words, students must be aware

of a language‟s contextual appropriacy (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

In response to Chomsky‟s notions of linguistic competence and performance, Hymes (1972) used

the term „communicative competence‟ to refer to the social appropriacy of what one says. The theoretical

basis behind his view on communicative competence was, as Hymes explains:

[…] To account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not only

as grammatical but also as appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when to

speak, when not, and as to what to talk about to whom, when, where, in what manner. In

short, a child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part in

speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by others.

(Hymes 1972:277-8)

By describing the process by which a child acquires language, Hymes (1972) explains how it is imperative

that a language learner acquires the appropriate contexts as to when and how to use language. According to

Hymes (1972), a person who acquires communicative competence has acquired both the knowledge and

ability for language use with respect to:

1. Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;

2. Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of

implementation available;

3. Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful)

in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated;

4. Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed, and what

its doing entails.

of 23


(Hymes, 1972: 281)

A much-referred to theory of communicative competence is that of Canale & Swain (1980). Canale &

Swain identified four dimensions of communicative competence:

1) Grammatical Competence – similar to Chomsky‟s „linguistic competence‟, it focuses on a

student‟s grammatical and lexical capacity.

2) Sociolinguistic Competence – refers to a students‟ knowledge of the social context in

which communication should take place.

3) Discourse Competence – refers to a students‟ knowledge of the meaning inferred by the

interconnectedness of individual message in relationship to the whole.

4) Strategic Competence – refers to the coping strategies a student would utilize to deal

with initiating, terminating, maintaining, repairing and redirecting communication.

(Li, 1995; Savignon, 2007; Richards and Rodgers, 2001; Richards 2006; Littlewood, 2005).

„Communicative competence‟ can be seen to be what it is that our students will achieve through

communicative language teaching. Both of these prominent frameworks of communicative competence

hinge on the learners‟ ability to maintain communication, understand communicative messages and

appropriately communicate in the target language. Given these frameworks, we need to, as teachers, apply

certain methods to our classrooms in order to help students achieve communicative competence.

In describing how teachers can help students achieve communicative competence Howatt (1984)

distinguished between a “strong” and a “weak” version of CLT. The “weak” version, which has become the

most common in the past 10 years (Savignon, 2007) is characterised by the priority given to providing

learners with opportunities to engage in activities that necessitate communication as a skill. It integrates

these activities into a wider programme of language teaching. The “strong” version, on the other hand,

asserts that communication is necessary for language to be acquired. Where the “weak” version can be

seen to activate an inert knowledge, the “strong” version actually develops the language system (Savignon,

2007). As Howatt explains, the weak version could be described as „learning to use‟ English, the strong

version entails „using English to learn it.‟ (1984: 279)

Despite these attempts to clarify certain aspects of CLT, there is no set definition as to what exactly

CLT is or what it entails, modern day CLT has, according to Li “expanded in scope and been used by

different educators in different ways. It has no monolithic identity, and no single model of communicative

language teaching is universally accepted as authoritative” (Li, 1998:678). Indeed Harmer has been critical

of CLT for exactly this reason, arguing that “the problem with communicative language teaching is that the

term has always meant a multitude of different things to different people” (2003:289). Spada (2007:72)

provides a helpful summary of this problem when she states “What is communicative language teaching?

of 23


The answer to this question seems to depend on whom you ask.” This uncertainty could be a consequence

of CLT being derived from multiple disciplines such as linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology and

educational research (Savignon, 2007).

Despite the lack of agreement as to the exact definition of what either CLT or communicative

competence is, it is possible to identify some common characteristics with regard to the teaching methods

employed and the learning goals of a communicative approach, with both of these revolving around a focus

on communication and learner-centeredness. Weshce and Skehan (2002) identified the traits of a

communicative classroom in the following manner:

- Activities that require frequent interaction among learners or with other interlocutors to

exchange information and solve problems.

- Use of authentic (nonpedagogic) texts and communication activities linked to “real world”

contexts, often emphasising links written and spoken modes and channels.

- Approaches that are learner centred in that they take into account learners‟ backgrounds,

language needs and goals, and generally allow learners some creativity and role in

instructional decisions.

(Weshche & Skehan, 2008:208)

Li (1998) identified more specific features of a communicative approach to language teaching:

1) A focus on communicative functions;

2) A focus on meaningful tasks rather than on language per se (e.g., grammar or vocabulary

study);

3) Efforts to make tasks and language relevant to a target group of learners through an analysis

of genuine, realistic situations;

4) The use of authentic, from-life materials;

5) The use of group activities; and

6) The attempt to create a secure, nonthreatening atmosphere.

(Li, 1998:679)

Other features of a communicative classroom were explored by Breen and Candlin (1980) when

assessing the roles of the learner and the teacher. Breen and Candlin (1980) described how the learner

assumes the role of „negotiator‟. The learner is required to negotiate between himself, the learning process,

and the object of learning. This negotiation requires the learner to not only absorb the learning himself, but to

contribute back to the group. The learner, here, is learning interdependently.

Breen and Candlin identified two roles for the teacher. The first role is to encourage participation

from the learners, both with each other and the materials. The second role, which follows on from the first, is

to act as an independent participant, guiding the group through the materials. The teacher is the organiser,

resource and guide (Breen & Candlin, 1980).

of 23


For the basis of this study, I shall suggest that the defining features of CLT are:

1) An attempt from both the teacher and the students to communicate in English;

2) The encouragement of focus on the meaning of tasks rather than the accuracy. This does not mean that

neither grammar nor vocabulary cannot be the focus of the lesson;

3) The majority of tasks to be completed in pairs or groups to encourage a transfer of information;

4) The use of authentic materials and tasks that relate to the students communicative needs;

5) Lessons based on students‟ language needs, with students active participants in the learning process;

6) Explicit error correction only when absolutely necessary in order to facilitate the creation of a safe

environment and to encourage student participation.

ii) The Application of Communicative Language Teaching in East Asia

Littlewood surmises the rising need for English as a second language in the following manner:

Over the past 30 years, as national boundaries have weakened under the influence of

globalization, more and more countries have felt an intensified need for English as a

medium of international communication and developed communicative language

teaching based policies in order to meet this need.

(Littlewood 2005:245)

Ho‟s (2004) survey of the development in ELT in fifteen countries in East Asia shows that, since the

1980s, CLT has become the dominant teaching model. This notion is supported by Nunan‟s (2003) survey of

seven countries in East Asia which showed the implementation of CLT in all the countries surveyed. This

adoption of CLT in Asia has, however, tended to be problematic. One possible reason for the difficult uptake

of CLT in East Asia is that CLT was developed in the West to meet the needs of Western students. To

assume that the principles developed with Western students in mind could simply be adopted by teachers in

other cultures around the world is ethnocentrically naïve. Ho & Wong (2004) also identify problems caused

by CLT meaning different things to different people, resulting in no one being certain as to how it should be

implemented. Studies conducted in East Asia have specifically identified obstacles such as:

- Lack of properly trained teachers;

- Lack of appropriate materials;

- Students not being accustomed to the teaching techniques;

- Lack of guidance on suitable evaluation;

- Lack of preparation time;

of 23


- Class size;

- Grammar focused examination systems and;

- Irrelevance to the populations needs.

(Anderson, 1998; Chau & Chung, 1987; Sano et al. 1984; Ellis, 1994; Shamin, 1996; Kirkpatrick, 1984;

Gonzalez, 1985. From Li 1995:151)

Despite these obstacles there have been examples of CLT being successfully implemented in East Asia.

Liao (2004) used the example of a secondary school teacher in China that had overcome situational

constraints to successfully implement aspects of CLT in her classroom. In describing the need for CLT in

China, Liao (2004) explains that “It is clear that difficulties caused by the situational constraints (e.g. large

class sizes and grammar-based tests) will inhibit the adoption of CLT. However, if teachers are aware of

situational constraints, any difficulties can be overcome”. (Liao 2004:271)

Looking more specifically at the teaching situation in South Korea, research has shown that,

despite the English language syllabus specifically focusing on the communicative needs of students since

1995, teachers are simply not incorporating a communicative approach in their classroom (Li, 1995).

Research by Li (1995) on 18 South Korean English language teachers reported that all of them were using a

grammar translation method, the audiolingual method, or a combination of the two. Of the four categories of

problems identified, the most common were (in descending order) those caused by the teacher, followed by

the students, the education system and finally by communicative language teaching itself. Specifically, the

most common problem identified was the teachers‟ own deficiency in spoken English, which they felt

constrained them in applying communicative language teaching in their classrooms. However, Li (1995) did

note that confidence was more likely to have been the problem than actual ability. The second most common

reason identified was a deficiency in strategic and sociolinguistic competence, highlighted by the fear of

losing face if not able to answer a student‟s question. Li (1995) identified that the combination of these two

factors was extremely influential in teachers deciding to stick with the traditional grammar centred, text

centred and teacher centred approaches. These methods allowed the teachers to prepare for what would

happen in every class and could reduce the likelihood of suffering indignity when unable to answer a

student‟s question. A study conducted by Igawa (2008) found that when South Korean English language

teachers were asked about the areas in which they had professional development needs, the largest number

of entries were in the “teaching skills and methods” category at 65.9%, suggesting that South Korean

of 23


teachers are aware of the need to move away from, or at least to develop, the traditional grammar-

translation and audiolingual methods.

Communicative language teaching does not only present problems for the teachers, but also the

students. Cho (2004) has identified how, because students traditionally learn by rote, listening, reading,

observing and imitating, they are simply not accustomed to the role of learner in communicative language

teaching (which relies on discussion and debate). Cho (2004) identified how South Korean students appear

in class as “passive, timid, defensive and even shy when they are invited to express their opinions and ideas

clearly.” (2004:34) Cho (2004) also identified how South Korean students frequently express themselves in

indirect ways and have a tendency toward group orientated thinking as reasons for why South Korean

students struggle with CLT. Jin (2004) identified how the collectivism-oriented culture that is prevalent in the

South Korean education system has had detrimental effects and discourages students from speaking

English. He explains that even when South Korean students are encouraged by their teacher to try and

speak English, the students are hesitant to express themselves freely due to having been brought up in a

collectivist culture where chemyun (face-consciousness) is valued. Jin (2004) also describes how, in a

collectivist culture such as South Korea‟s, the role of knowledge sharer and opinion giver are given to people

of higher status, namely your elders and teachers.

This research shows how an approach to language teaching such as CLT, which has been

developed in Europe and the U.S, can encounter problems when simply adopted into a culture very different

to those that it originated from. This is supported by research across East Asia, for example Hiep (2007),

while looking specifically at the problems encountered with CLT in Vietnam concluded:

[problematic] factors range from systematic constraints such as traditional

examinations, large class sizes, to cultural constraints characterized by beliefs about

teacher and student role, and classroom relationships, to personal constraints

students‟ low motivation and unequal ability to take part in independent active learning

practices, and even to teachers‟ limited expertise in creating communicative activities

like group work.

(Hiep 2007:200)

of 23


4) Results

i) Teachers’ Understanding of Communicative Language Teaching

The South Korean high school teachers displayed a clear understanding regarding the concepts of CLT and,

more importantly, they were aware that communicative methods could be used to teach both grammar and

vocabulary.

The above results are contrary to previous research which has shown teachers‟ misconceptions of

CLT itself as a cause of apprehension and difficulty when implementing communicative approaches.

Thompson (1996) conducted research which concluded that the most common misconception about CLT

amongst his colleagues was that CLT does not teach grammar and that it only teachers speaking. He

concluded that these misconceptions needed to be corrected in order for CLT to be developed. Li (1998)

also found that a conceptual difficulty with implementing CLT stems from the teachers misconceptions about

CLT, especially with regards to the lack of focus on grammar (Li, 1998; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999). This

finding suggests that research would do well to move its focus away from teachers‟ understanding of CLT

(given that they are conceptually aware of its uses) and that this is not the reason teachers are unwilling to

apply CLT to their classrooms. The increased accuracy in knowledge of the concepts of CLT could be due

to progressively better access to training materials in the past thirteen years, through resources such as the

internet as well as the potential of younger teachers who will have had training in the concepts of CLT in

their training courses.

Table 1.1 Teachers Understanding of CLT. Teachers were asked to respond either true of false. All instances where figures have been omitted indicate that the result was 0%.

Question % Correct

Communicative language teaching (CLT) places a high level of importance of meaning.

90%

CLT can be used to teach grammar. 90% CLT is teacher centred 100% CLT tries to use authentic materials wherever possible 100% Meaning bares little importance in CLT 90% In CLT, tasks should be based on realistic situations where ever possible. 90% CLT can be used to teach vocabulary. 90% CLT requires a safe, non-threatening environment. 100%

Total 93.75%

of 23


ii) The Extent to which South Korean Teachers Implement Communicative Teaching Methods

Surprisingly, given the focus on communicative methods in the English syllabus and the teachers‟ acute

understanding of CLT, the teachers who took part in this study indicated that the extent to which they use

communicative methods is still negligible.

Table 1.2 The Extent to which Communicative Methods are Used Teachers were asked to choose one answer per question.

Question: Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

How often do you communicate with the students in English?

30% 60% 10%

To what extend do you encourage meaning over accuracy?

60% 20% 20%

How often do the students communicate with each other in

English?

10% 70% 20%

How often do students practice using English in realistic situations?

10% 90%

How often do students participate in tasks that involve either

transferring knowledge, sharing knowledge or negotiating

knowledge?

30% 70%

How often do students use authentic materials?

10% 30% 60%

Extremely Very Important

Quite Important

Little Importance

No Importance

How important is explicit error correction in your class?

10% 30% 50% 0%

Individually In Pairs In Groups

What percentage of time do students spend working:

63% 12% 25%

Students language & communicational preferences

The needs of the examination

Would you say high school English lessons are based on:

10% 90%

To refer back to the six features of CLT identified earlier (see page 6), the only feature of CLT that can be

seen to be used in the classroom is the focus on meaning over accuracy. This can be explained by the fact

that the final examination (the University Entrance Examination) that the students take is a multiple choice

reading comprehension exam. This type of examination is designed to test the students‟ ability to

understand the text and not to accurately reproduce language. However, all teachers acknowledged the

of 23


importance of explicit error correction in their class as being „quite important‟ or higher, indicating that

despite a focus on meaning, error correction still forms an important part of the lesson when establishing the

meaning.

iii) Do South Korean Teachers Share the Government’s Desire to Use a More Communicative

Approach?

So far, the results have indicated that, despite the communicative nature of the English syllabus and

teachers having an acute knowledge of the uses of CLT, the teachers have chosen not to implement

communicative strategies in the classroom. The teachers did, however, indicate that they are concerned by

the current teaching situation and the extent to which they are fulfilling their students‟ needs.

Table 1.3 Teachers Perceived Importance of Communicative Approaches Teachers were asked to choose one answer per question.

Questions: Yes No

Are you concerned about the teaching methods currently used in Korean high schools?

90% 10%

Do you think it can be possible to combine English language teaching with developing other skills such as critical and creative thinking?

100% 0%

Grammar-Translation Audiolingual

What methods do you think are most commonly used in Korean high school English classes? [Participants were not given a set of options for this question; they were asked to enter text freely.]

90% 10%

Reading Writing Listening Speaking Grammar Vocabulary

Which do you think students most need more opportunities to practice?

20% 80%

Extremely Very Quite Little None

How Important a language skill is it to be able to maintain communication despite having limitation in ones knowledge?

40% 60%

How important is it for students to get a chance to experiment with and try out the language they learn/know in realistic situations?

40% 40% 20%

of 23


The above results show that there is a high level of concern amongst the teachers with regard to the

traditional grammar translation and audiolingual methods they are currently using. This apprehension is in

conjunction with a desire for students to engage in more communicative activities, with 80% of teachers

specifically identifying speaking skills as the most prominent need for student improvement. The other 20%

identified the need for improvement in reading skills. This is presumably because of the importance placed

on the students‟ University Entrance Examination, which is almost completely focused on reading skills.

Every one of the teachers recognised the importance of students having opportunities to use the language

they are learning in realistic situations in order to aid the learning process by answering the relevant

question with at least „quite important‟, and 40% rating it as „extremely important‟. Furthermore, all the

teachers recognised the importance of students having the ability to “maintain communication if there are

gaps in their English language knowledge” (see table 1.3), an important focus of CLT.

iv) Teachers’ Perceived Difficulties in Implementing a Communicative Approach

The results were divided into four categories; students‟ difficulties, teachers‟ difficulties, institutional

difficulties and resources. The teachers‟ reasons for not implementing communicative methods were

heavily concentrated in the institutional difficulties and teachers‟ difficulties categories, followed by students‟

difficulties and finally the requirements of CLT.

Table 1.4 Difficulties in Implementing CLT Teachers were asked to choose either yes or no.

Category and difficulty % ‘Yes’

Institutional 93%

Lack of efficient and effective assessment methods 100% Large class sizes 100% Reading comprehension and grammar based examinations 80%

Teachers Difficulties 90%

Teachers’ confidence in speaking English 90% Teachers’ English proficiency 90% Lack of training 90%

Students Difficulties 57.5%

Students’ resistance to class participation 60% Students’ learning styles 60% Students’ English proficiency 50% Students’ lack of motivation to work on their communicative competence 60%

Requirements of CLT 55%

Lack of preparation time between classes to prepare materials 60% Having to use inappropriate materials 50%

of 23


Unanimously, participants in the study highlighted a lack of support when it came to effectively assessing a

student‟s communicative ability. Despite the Ministry of Education‟s highlighting in the national curriculum of

the requirement for teachers to use communicative methods, it has failed to offer support as to how teachers

should go about assessing the students‟ communicative level. It is not possible to assess students‟

communicative ability in large groups at one time; assessing could be seen as time consuming and

impractical given their large class sizes. The majority of the participants also indicated perceived difficulties

with their English proficiency as a reason for not implementing CLT. Having worked with many of the

participants, this came as somewhat surprising. Many of the teachers‟ I work with have lived in the U.S or

other English speaking countries for extended periods of time and are competent in spoken English.

Although for some teachers a deficiency in spoken English may have been the issue, the teachers‟

confidence level could have have been the reason for such a high percentage, rather than actual ability; a

possibility highlighted in Li‟s (1995) study on South Korean teachers where he suggests that in the past 16

years, neither the ability nor the confidence of South Korean English teachers has been improved.

There was a large drop in number of teachers who believed students‟ difficulties were a barrier to

introducing CLT; overall only 57.5% of the participants answered „yes‟ to questions related to students‟

difficulties. This shows a marked difference to research conducted by Li (1995), in which every interviewee

identified students‟ low proficiency and 17 out of 18 participants highlighted students lack of motivation. This

can be explained by the huge uptake and focus on learning English in South Korea over the last 15 years.

Attending private after school academies, often to practice speaking with a native English speaker, has

become a prevalent part of society. Consequentially, students‟ average English ability may have significantly

improved since Li‟s study in 1995. The difference in students‟ motivation to work on their communicative

ability could be explained by South Korea‟s increasingly global economy and business ties. Students‟ may

be increasingly realising the benefits for their futures of being able to communicate in English. Only 60% of

the participants identified students learning style, which ties in with recent research conducted across East

Asia indicating the cultural value based explanation for problems with introducing CLT is an

oversimplification (Butler, 2011). This research has shown that Asian students do not always prefer the

lecture style classroom and that in fact many may have a preference for a communicative classroom. (See

Kubota, 1999; Savignon & Wang, 2003; Chung & Huang, 2009)

of 23


The participants showed much less concern for the requirements of the actual implementation CLT

than either institutional or teachers difficulties. This could be due to their greater understanding of the

requirements of CLT and easier access to appropriate materials than would have been available for the

participants in Li‟s study in 1995 (in which 14 out of 18 teachers cited not having time to prepare appropriate

materials).

v) Research Methods

The four schools were chosen based on their differing geographical location. An advertisement was placed

on the message board of an „English teachers in Korea‟ group on a social networking site, asking for

volunteers to take part in the study. The selected participants were asked if any of the other English

teachers in their school would be willing to participate. All participation was voluntary. Although no requests

were made as to the age, gender and experience of the participants, the teachers varied from young

teachers in their first year of teaching, to older teachers with up to 35 years of high school English teaching

experience, the average teaching experience was just over nine years and of the ten participants, eight were

female. To encourage honesty the participants were reassured that their answers would be kept anonymous.

They were sent the questionnaire via email and they returned it via email.

The questionnaire was developed through a careful analysis of significant literature in the area of

CLT and similar research to identify the key information needed to answer the research question. The

questions were split into four sections, each designed to focus the participants on a specific part of the

research question. Almost all of the questions were multiple-choice, this allowed me to focus the participants‟

answers on exactly the information needed, however there were opportunities for the participants to freely

add any other information they thought was relevant.

The methods used to select participants and develop the questionnaire do present a number of

issues regarding validity. Firstly, all the schools were located in urban cities, namely Seoul and Busan,

which are the first and second largest cities in South Korea respectively. It could be that teachers in rural

areas have different problems or concerns regarding CLT and their students may have a different level of

ability in English and maintain a different level of motivation to improve their English abilities. Also, English

teachers in urban areas may have a higher English ability when compared to English teachers in rural areas

as Western culture is more predominant in urban areas, especially Seoul. Large urban high schools are also

of 23


likely to have at least one native English speaking teacher the Korean teachers can turn to for assistance,

where as smaller rural high schools are more likely to have to share a native English teacher, making it

more difficult for the Korean English teachers to seek assistance, all these factors may affect the

generalizabilty of the results.

The nature of a questionnaire survey could have affected the validity of the results. There is no way

of knowing the extent to which the teachers misunderstood any of the questions. Although the teachers

were encouraged to email me if they needed assistance, if it was a language issue they may not have

realised the misunderstanding. Indeed, the surprising results highlighted in section one could have been due

to a misinterpretation of the questions themselves. In an attempt alleviate this a „don‟t know‟ option was

added alongside the „true‟ or „false‟ options, however no participants took advantage of this option. Without

having the ability to ask follow up questions there was no way of substantiating whether all the participants

had interpreted the questions in the same manner. Although a field for participants to write any additional

information was included, the very nature of a closed-ended questionnaire was likely to have discouraged

the participants from using it, resulting in the possibility that the research may have missed out on any

information or opinions the participants wanted to express other than what was directly asked of them.

To develop the research it would be beneficial to arrange follow up interviews with a selection of the

participants, this would create an opportunity to further evaluate the participants understanding of CLT, and

would increase the reliability of the participants‟ answers. A pilot study with a small number of Korean

English teachers would be valuable to check the participants‟ comprehension of the questions.

5) Implications of the Research

The research presented here has indicated that the successful implementation of CLT requires more than

teachers having an acute understanding as to the dynamics of CLT or the desire to instil a higher level of

communicative competence in their students. It has indicated that neither a lack of motivation, lack of

knowledge regarding CLT nor the factor of students‟ abilities are adequate explanations as to why teachers

in South Korean high schools are failing to utilise CLT techniques in their classroom. The results of this

study can, it is hoped, serve as a template of language teachers‟ requirements for the successful

implementation of CLT, not just in South Korea, but in similar institutional settings across East Asia. The

of 23


following problems must be addressed if the South Korean Government is to see fruitful returns on their

investment in focusing their English syllabus on students‟ communicative needs and if they are to meet their

objective of creating a nation capable of competently communicating in English in the future.

i) The Institutional Structure

The current examination and means of assessment are clearly a concern for teachers in South Korea. The

University entrance examination system employed in South Korea is of the upmost importance to both

students and teachers. As long as these examinations focus on reading comprehension and testing

grammatical knowledge through reading exercises, it will be extremely difficult for teachers to transfer over

to a communicative approach. Messick (1996) refers to this problem as “negative washback”, this is the idea

that under-representation and irrelevance of the actual curriculum in the examination manifests itself in the

classroom teaching. In the context of South Korean education system this means that the skills associated

with communicative competence are constantly unmeasured and, therefore, not being presented in

classroom teaching. In discussing how CLT was integrated into the Chinese educational system, Liao (2000)

identified how one of the key factors was the transition of the National Matriculation English Test to include

linguistic competence. The English curriculum would, I feel, benefit from an examination system that

encourages teachers to utilize communicative teaching techniques to help students achieve maximum

success in their University Entrance Examinations.

ii) Support for Teachers

Large class sizes and the classroom management techniques needed to control a sizeable communicative

classroom are also a concern for South Korean teachers. It is essential that the Ministry of Education

provide teachers with the confidence needed to effectively manage communicative tasks and to provide an

atmosphere conducive to communicative learning. Savignon (2007) explains how “teaching may cause

anxiety among teachers accustomed to seeing error suppression and correction as the major instructional

responsibility, and who see their primary function as preparing learners to take standardized or other kinds

of tests,” (2007:168). This problem would be intensified for non-native teachers with large classes, such as

in the South Korean public education system. This need is supported by research conducted by Igawa

(2008) which concludes that the number one area of professional development needs for teachers in South

Korea and Japan are teaching skills and methods.

of 23


iii) Adaptation Rather than Adoption of CLT

Tying in with the requirement for teachers to be given more support is the necessity for teachers in South

Korea to be assisted in finding ways to adapt to the communicative focus of the English syllabus, helping

them to create their own eclectic approach, rather than simply trying to adopt CLT techniques developed in

Europe and North America that require the teacher to communicate almost exclusively in English. In

describing how high schools in China came to accept CLT Liao described how, “to be eclectic, teachers

were required to use CLT as a method while accepting elements of the traditional method”. (Liao 2000:2)

The participants‟ low level of confidence in spoken English shown in this study demonstrates the

need for adaptation, rather than adoption of CLT. South Korean teachers‟ confidence in spoken English

requires more than a short-term solution, meaning that the teachers, with support from the Government,

must find a way to adapt communicative methods to their teaching context, which would, potentially, result in

an increased level of confidence in using communicative methods. Berns (1990) explains how

communicative competence must be adapted for a given group of learners to reflect the sociocultural

context of language use, and that the materials need to be developed locally by classroom teachers to fit

their needs. This fits in with the “postmethod” perspective which looks at how teachers can accept the

fundamental aspects of CLT but develop a methodology to suit their own contexts. Littlewood (2005)

identifies three ways this can take place:

1) Li (1998) – Adapting CLT, so that CLT provides the base-framework from which teaching

methods are developed.

2) Rao (1996) – Reconciling. This would involve using CLT as a reference, but using it along

with traditional approaches in an equal relationship

3) Wong and Ho (2004) – Cross-breeding. This would involve taking elements from many different approaches to language teaching to form a localized methodology, of which CLT could be a part.

(Littlewood 2005:551)

Mitchell & Lee (2003) identify how some teachers in Hong Kong have successfully adapted CLT to create an

approach more suitable for their teaching context with a “teacher-led interaction, and the mastery of correct

language models, taking priority over the creative language use and students centring which have been

associated with more fluency-orientated or “progressivist” interpretations of the communicative approach”

(Mitchell & Lee 2003:56). Zheng & Adamson (2003) provide the example of a teacher in China who has

maintained many traditional elements of a structural approach, such as his role as the knowledge transmitter

of 23


and his providing the students with grammatical explanations as well as memorisation exercises and pattern

drills. He also integrates interaction and creative responses from the students, usually using the context

provided from the textbook. Although these techniques may not suit South Korean teachers, they serve to

exemplify how, with the right support, they could begin to adapt certain features of CLT into their lessons

while maintaining the structure of a South Korean language lesson. Carless (2004) believes that this

adaptation is a natural part of making CLT fit into both the school and sociocultural context.

6) Conclusion

Despite having a curriculum that identifies students‟ communicative abilities as its chief concern, the current

practicalities of day-to-day teaching has left a gulf between these expectations and what is actually

achievable in the English language classroom in South Korea. If the government truly wants to produce a

generation of students capable of effective communication in English, they must provide teachers with the

support and tools needed to achieve such goals. The participants in this study demonstrated both

knowledge of CLT and the desire to improve their students‟ communicative competence, but they were

being held back by their institutional settings and a lack of support in developing a communicative approach

to meet their classroom needs. I would suggest that further research focus on developing an approach to

language teaching that incorporates CLT within a cultural context that would leave South Korean teachers

comfortable and confident in its utilization.

of 23


Bibliography

Alpetkin, C & Alpetkin, A. (1984). The Question of CultureL EFL teaching in non-English speaking

countries. ELT Journal. 38/1 (1), p14-20.

Beretta, A & Davies, D. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore Project.ELT Journal. 39 (2), 121-127.

Berns, M. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and culture consideration in communicative language

teaching. New York: Plenum Press.

Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching.

Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 89-112.

Brumfit, C. (1984). The Bangalore Procedural Syllabus. ELT Journal. 38 (4), 233-241.

Butler, Y G. (2005). Comparative perspectives towards communicative activites among elementary school

teachers in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Language Teaching Research. 9 (9), 423-446.

Butler, Y G. (2011). The Implementation of Communicative and Task-Based Language Teaching in the

Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 31 (1), 36-57.

Campbell, R & Wales, R. (1970) The Study of Language Acquisition. In J.Lyons, ed. New Horizons in

Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Candlin, C. (1978). Teaching of English: Principles and an exercise typology. London: Langensheidt-

Longman

Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers‟ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOLQuarterly 38.4, 639–662. Chang, B M. (2003). English Textbook Analysis for Developing the 8th National Curriculum. English

Language & Literature Teaching. 1 (1), 35-49

Chang, B M & Jaekeun L. (2005). Korean Curriculum reforms and the Progressivism. PAAL Japan. 1 (1),

44-54.

Cho, B. (2004). Issues Concerning Korean Learners of English: English Education in Korea and Some

Common Difficulties of Korean Students. The East Asian Learner. 1 (2), 31-36.

Choi, B M. (2005). The possible goals of the 8th national English curriculum for middle schools in

Korea. Dissertation. 1 (1), 1-17.

Chomsky, Noam (1957), Syntactic Structures, The Hague/Paris: Mouton

Chomsky, Noam (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press

Harmer, J. (2003) „Popular Culture, Methods & Context. ELT Journal. 57 (3), 288-294.

Hiep, P. H. (2007). "Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity." ELT Journal 61(3): 193-201.

Ho, W. K. (2004). English language teaching in East Asia today: An overview. In Ho & Wong (eds.), 1–32. Ho, W. K. & R. Y. L. Wong (eds.) (2004). English language teaching in East Asia today. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Howatt, A. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

of 23


Hymes, D. (1972)‟On Communicative Competence‟. In J.B Pride & J. Holmes, eds. Sociolinguistics.

Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Igawa, K. (2008). Professional Development Needs of EFL Teachers Practicing in Japan and

Korea. International Buddhist University Bulletin. 45 (1), 431-455.

Jeon, I. and Hahn, J. (2006). Exploring EFL teachers' perceptions of task-based language teaching: A Case

study of Korean secondary school classroom practice. Asian Journal, 8(1). Retrieved November, 2011,

from: http://www.asian-efljournal.com/March_06_ijj.php

Jin, K. (2004). Coping with Cultural Obstacles to Speaking English in the Korean Secondary School Context.

Asian EFL Journal. September 2004.

Yoon, K. (2004). CLT Theories and Practices in EFL Curricula. A Case Study of Korea. Asian EFL Journal.

September 2004. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/september_04_yke.html

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 (2), 677-703.

Liao, X. (2000). "How Communicative Language Teaching Became Acceptable in Secondary Schools in

China." Internet TESL Journal VI(10).

Liao, X. (2004). "The need for Communicative Language Teaching in China." ELT Journal 58(3): 270-272.

Liu, D et al. (2004). South Korean High School English Teachers' Code Switching: Questions and

Challenges in the Drive for Maximal Use of English in Teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 38 (4), 605-636.

Littlewood, W. (2005). Communicative Language Teaching: An Expanding Concept for a Changing World. In:

Hinkel, E Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge. 541-

556.

Littlewood, L. (2006). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian

classrooms. Language Teaching. 40 (1), 243-249.

Messick, S. (1996). Validity and Washback in Language Testing. Language Testing 13, 241-56.

Mitchell, R. & Lee, J.H.W. (2003). Sameness and difference in classroom learning cultures: Interpretaions of

communicative pedagogy in the U.S and Korea. Language Teaching Research 7 (1), 35-63

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea. (2008). English Curriculum.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly 37.4, 589–613. Richards, J (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S.. (2001). Communicative Language Teaching. In: Richards, J.C. & Rodgers,

T.S. Approaches and Methods in Language Teachingq. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sato, K. & Kleinsasser, R.. (1999). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Practical

Understandings. The Modern Language Journal. 83 (4), 494-517.

Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative Language Teaching: State of the Art. TESOL Quarterly. 25 (2), 261-

277.

Savignon, S. (2007). Beyond Communicative Language Teaching: What's Ahead?. Journal of Pragmatics.

39 (1), 207-220.

http://www.asian-efljournal.com/March_06_ijj.php

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/september_04_yke.html

of 23


Spada, N. (2007). Communicative Language Teaching: Current Status and Future Prospects. In Jessner, U. and Cenos, J.(ed.) International Hand Book of English Language Teaching. New York: Springer. Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal 50.1, 9–15.

Wesche, M. and P. Skehan. 2002. ‘Communicative, task-based and content-based instruction‟ in R. Kaplan

(ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yoon, K. (2004). CLT Theories and Practises in EFL Curricula. A Case Study of Korea. Asian EFL Journal.

September 2004. http://www.asian-efljournal.com/september_04_yke.php

Zheng, X. M. & B. Adamson (2003). The pedagogy of a secondary school teacher of English in the People‟s Republic of China: Challenging the stereotypes. RELC Journal 34.3, 323–337.

http://www.asian-efljournal.com/september_04_yke.php

of 23


Before starting the questionnaire please make sure you have fully read the previous

page.

Name Click here to enter text.

School Name & Location e.g. Gaepo High School, Seoul Click here to enter text.

Number of years teaching in Korean high schools Click here to enter text.

Contact Email Address or Phone Number Click here to enter text.

Section 1: Please indicate if these are true, false or don’t know:

1) Communicative language teaching (CLT) places more importance on accuracy than meaning.

Choose an item.

2) CLT can be used to teach grammar.

Choose an item.

3) CLT is teacher centred.

Choose an item.

4) CLT tries to use authentic materials wherever possible.

Choose an item.

5) Meaning bares little importance in CLT.

Choose an item.

6) In CLT, tasks should be based on realistic situations where ever possible.

Choose an item.

7) CLT can be used to teach vocabulary.

Choose an item.

8) CLT requires a safe, non-threatening environment.

Choose an item.

Section 2: Please choose or write one option per question

1) How often do you communicate with the students’ in English?

Choose an item.

2) To what extent do you encourage meaning over accuracy?

Choose an item.

3) How often do the students’ communicate with each other in English?

Choose an item.

4) What percentage of time do students spend working: Individually In pairs In groups

Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Total should = 100%

5) How often do students’ practice using English in realistic situations?

Choose an item.

6) How often do students’ participate in tasks that involve either transferring knowledge, sharing knowledge or negotiating knowledge? E.g. problem solving in pairs, information sharing, role plays or games?

Choose an item.

7) Would you say high school English lessons are based on:

Choose an item.

8) How important is explicit error correction?

Choose an item.

9) How often do students’ use authentic materials such as newspapers, magazines, English news on the radio or English news on T.V?

Choose an item.

of 23


Section 3: Please choose or write one option per answer.

1) Are you concerned about the teaching methods currently used in Korean high schools?

Choose an item.

Please explain your answer to 1) Click here to enter text.

2) What methods do you think are most commonly used in Korean high school English lessons?

Click here to enter text.

3) Which one do you think students most need more opportunities to practice?

Choose an item.

4) Do you think it can be possible to combine English language teaching with developing other skills such as critical and creative thinking?

Choose an item.

5) How important a language skill is it to be able to maintain communication despite having limitations in ones knowledge?

Choose an item.

6) How important is it for students to get a chance to experiment with and try out the language they learn/know?

Choose an item.

Section 4: Which of the following make it difficult to incorporate a communicative

approach to language teaching in Korean high schools?

1) Reading comprehension and grammar based examinations

Choose an item.

2) Lack of efficient and effective assessment methods.

Choose an item.

3) Large class sizes.

Choose an item.

4) Lack of preparation time between classes to prepare materials.

Choose an item.

5) Students’ resistance to class participation.

Choose an item.

6) Students’ learning style.

Choose an item.

7) Teachers’ confidence in speaking English.

Choose an item.

8) Teachers’ English proficiency.

Choose an item.

9) Inappropriate materials.

Choose an item.

10) Students’ English proficiency.

Choose an item.

11) Students lack of motivation to work on their communicative competence.

Choose an item.

12) Lack of training

Choose an item.

13) Other/Additional info on the above: Click here to enter text.

Would you be happy to answer follow up questions face to face? Choose an item.

challenges in implimenting a communicative syllabus

Documents

communicative page

teachers page

research page

south korea page

communicative language

conclusion page

bibliography page

appendix page