The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 18:1 (2009), pp.

67-78

The Implementation of Communicative

Language TTeaching:
eaching: An Investigation of Students’
Viewpoints
I-Fang Chung
National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
if_chung@yahoo.com.tw

Yi-Cheng Huang
Centre for General Education
I-Shou University, Taiwan
g5260010@yahoo.com.tw

The research study seeks to extend the understanding of the implementation of Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) in classrooms through listening to students’ opinions. By employing
focus group interviews with senior high school students, the study explores learner attitudes
and perceptions of the classroom instruction they have experienced. The findings indicate that
despite The Taiwan Ministry of Education’s (MOE’s) efforts in promoting CLT, the exam-
oriented learning is still inclined toward memorization, grammar and translation. This shows the
difficulty for CLT to get integrated with the deep-rooted traditional teaching and learning methods
in Taiwan. However, one of the findings also suggests that most participants hold positive
attitudes towards a more communicative-based language teaching, which reflects the correct
direction that the MOE is moving towards in its recent curricular change. There is need to
slightly shift the focus of English teaching in the classroom to achieve students’ long-term goal,
which is to develop their English communicative competence.

Keywords: communicative language teaching (CLT), learner attitudes, English language teaching

CLT begins with a theory of language as
communication, which aims to develop learners’
communicative competence. This was a notion first
proposed by Hymes in 1971 (Savignon, 1991) to
represent the use of language in the social context
and the observance of sociolinguistic norms of
appropriacy. The term was used by Savignon in
the early 1970s to define the focus of her classroom
research. It was claimed that the goal of any
language teaching programme should be the
development of the learners’ communicative
competence, which is essential in achieving actual
use of a language for communication (Savignon,
1983).
Numerous interpretations have been proposed
to define the term “communicative competence”
since it was introduced into the language teaching
literature. One of the best-known definitions of

© 2009 De La Salle University, Philippines

68 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
communicative competence was the one proposed
by Canale and Swain in 1980. Canale (1983)
refined the definition and identified the four
components of communicative competence:
grammatical; sociolinguistic; discourse; and,
strategic competence. They argued that a
communicative approach must provide learners
with the opportunity “to respond to genuine
communicative needs in realistic second language
situations” (p. 27). According to Savignon (1997)
communicative competence refers to “the
expression, interpretation, and negotiation of
meaning involving interaction between two or more
persons belonging to the same (or different) speech
community (communities), or between one person
and a written or oral text” (p. 272).
It is worth noticing that the focus and essence
of CLT is “the engagement of learners in
communication to allow them to develop their
communicative competence” (Savignon, 2002, p.
22). Nowadays, CLT has developed into “a term
for methods and curricula that embrace both the
goals and the processes of classroom learning”
(Savignon, 1991). It is a theory used to support
any communicative approach with the goal of
developing learner communicative competence.
In theory, a communicative classroom aims to
promote interpretation, expression, and negotiation
of meaning. Learners should be active in
participating in meaningful interaction in class
(Kumaravadivelu, 1993). The theories and
definition about CLT clearly show that its focus
has mainly been on learners as well as their learning.
In other words, learners themselves play the key
role in the development and implementation of
communicative approach. Despite the theoretical
development of CLT, however, the literature shows
that understanding among learners remains very
limited. The researchers are therefore interested
in exploring how CLT, a language-teaching method
exported from English-speaking countries, is used
and perceived in Taiwan.
The Taiwan Ministry of Education (MOE)
published new national curricula for English
teaching in both junior and senior high schools in
1994 and 1995, respectively. Communication-
VOL. 18 NO. 1
based teaching and guide material development are
the main features exhibited in the new curricula,
which aim to raise Taiwanese’ communicative
competence in English. Accompanied by the
innovation is the development of new textbooks
designed and published by different publishers. The
design of these textbooks, which have been in use
since fall of 1999, is claimed to adhere to the
principles of communicative language teaching
(CLT) and the development of students’
communicative competence. Changes in
assessment also occur, making exam contents more
practical, interesting and relevant to the learners’
daily life.
In spite of the Taiwanese government’s great
efforts in making CLT the mainstream in English
teaching, a growing number of studies suggest that
the promotion of CLT in EFL contexts is difficult,
and that the rate of its successful implementation
is low (Anderson, 1993; Ellis, 1996; Li, 1998;
LoCastro, 1996; Sato, 2002; Shamin, 1996; Wang
& Savignon, 2001). Research has highlighted the
challenges in relation to the implementation of CLT
in EFL contexts. Many reports have been based
mainly on teachers’ perceptions of CLT, while few
have focused on learner views and attitudes with
respect to its classroom practice (Savignon &
Wang, 2003; Wang & Savignon, 2001).
Through revealing the perceptions of senior high
school students in relation to the classroom
instruction, this study intends to find out whether
there is any inconsistency between the goals of CLT
and students’ experience as well as expectation of
what is and should be taught in an English class. In
addition, it aims to identify some of the advantages
and difficulties associated with the implementation
of CLT in the context of Taiwan.
The research aims to investigate the following
questions. What are the high school students’
feelings about their current English class? What are
the learners’ attitudes and perceptions with regard
to classroom practice? What kind of classroom
instruction do learners believe to be the most useful
for them at their current learning stage? By
employing focus group interviews with high school
students, the study will contribute to a fuller
STUDENTS’ VIEWPOINTS OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
understating of the present English teaching and
learning in Taiwan, where curricular innovation has
recently begun.
Theoretical Framework
Horwitz (1988) explored the beginning
university foreign language students’ beliefs and
found out that students hold a range of beliefs on a
variety issues concerning language learning and
teaching. Horwitz argued that a major obstacle to
the attainment of the desired learning outcomes
came from failing to take learner perspectives into
consideration. Another study conducted by Sakui
and Gaies (1999) examined beliefs about language
learning of 1296 Japanese university learners of
English and concluded that Japanese university
learners of English have some awareness of and
beliefs about different methodological orientations
they may experience in their classes.
Findings from Anderson’s (1993) study of ELT
suggested that learners’ skeptical attitude towards
the use of communicative activities as learning tools
is one of the obstacles in implementing CLT.
Similarly, Shamin (1996) identified learners’
resistance as a barrier in her attempt to introduce
innovative CLT in her Pakistan English classroom.
It was further argued that although learners’
resistance can be such effective barrier to change,
their role is generally marginalized during the
planning and decision making phases when an
innovation is being introduced. A study by Li (1998)
found that students in secondary school in South
Korea are mostly concerned about grammar and
scores but are reluctant to participate in class
activities, which became one of the key difficulties
for CLT to be adopted in a previously traditional
classroom.
Rao’s (2002) study looked at the Chinese
students’ perceptions of communicative and non-
communicative activities in EFL classrooms. He
concluded that most of the students favour a
combination of communicative and non-
communicative activities in their English classroom.
Nevertheless, there exists a conflict between what
communicative activities demand and what the EFL
situation in China allows.
CHUNG, I-F. & HUANG, Y-C. 69
More recently, Savignon and Wang (2003)
carried out a study investigating first-year university
EFL learners’ attitudes and perceptions of the
classroom experiences they had experienced in
high school and their general beliefs about language
learning. The findings show that there is certain
mismatch between learner needs and preferences
and their reported experiences of classroom
instruction. A major limitation of this study is that it
relied mainly on university students’ recollections
of their English learning experiences during their
senior and even junior high school.years. However,
it is risky to rely too much on stretching people’s
memories to the extent that the answers for many
of them are likely to be inaccurate (Bryman 2001).
What’s more, results obtained from the above-
mentioned studies which employed different
instruments seem to present considerable
inconsistency. Therefore, it is crucial and significant
to put more extended emphasis on students’ views
and responses to CLT.
CLT in the Taiwanese Context
Berns (1990) introduced an important notion
by claiming that CLT should not be viewed as
monolithic, and it is crucial to identify appropriate
approaches to language teaching for a variety of
contexts. He further stated that CLT has the
potential to meet the needs of diverse situations
and to provide for the development of materials
suitable for each context.
The purposes and contexts in relation to English
learning of Taiwanese students are very different
from those who learn English as a native or second
language. Since this study only focuses on
Taiwanese learners, it is necessary to give a brief
account of the English learning context of Taiwan.
With the growing demand of competent English
users, the chief aim of the Ministry of Education of
Taiwan (MOE) in promoting an array of language
teaching innovations is to develop the learner’s
ability to use English appropriately in context. The
features of communicative-based teaching were
demonstrated from the publication of new curricula
for high schools and the accompanying elimination
of form-focused senior high school and college
70 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
entrance examinations effective in 2001 and 2002
(Wang & Savignon, 2001).
English is a compulsory subject taught in senior
high schools throughout Taiwan. The student
number of each English class is normally around
forty to fifty. According to the curriculum published
by MOE, the foremost goal for English teaching in
high school is the promotion of communicative
competence in speaking, writing, listening, reading
in daily life. The second goal is to develop learners’
effective way and proper attitude in learning
English, which will enhance independent learning
as well as life-long learning.
However, a recent study has reported some
discouraging facts associated with English learning
in high school in Taiwan. The results of Wang’s
(2002) interviews indicate that the prevailing
teaching materials and instructional practise in
Taiwan has “directly diminished interest in learning
and using English”. Another surprising finding of
the same study is that up to two thirds of learners
have experienced pain and frustration while learning
English.
The Particularized Definition
of CLT in the Taiwanese Context
It is necessary to present a particularized
definition of CLT in the Taiwanese context as this
study is based on and conducted in this particular
context. The Taiwan Ministry of Education claims
that for Taiwanese teachers and students, CLT is
(Zeng, 2001):
Communicative Language Teaching in
Taiwan will have the goal of producing
reasonably fluent communicative skills
appropriate to the local setting. Towards this
goal, the teacher will retain conventional
authority in the classroom while conducting
activities that encourage interactions among
students, teach grammar in meaningful
contexts (rather than as an unsituated system
of forms), utilize English materials authentic
in the local setting (e.g., Taiwanese English
newspapers or Taiwanese literature in
English) and make judicious use of Chinese
language in the English classroom. (p.12)
VOL. 18 NO. 1
The definition given by Zeng indicates that the
ultimate goal of EFL instruction in Taiwan is to help
Taiwanese speakers of English to use the language
effectively and appropriately as educated
Taiwanese.
Current Teaching Methods Adopted by EFL
Teachers in Taiwan
Ever since English became a compulsory subject
in high school, EFL teachers in Taiwan have been
facing a major challenge in teaching, which is the
time pressure. The pressure to cover the curriculum
effectively in the time allowed has greatly increased
the difficulties of implementing CLT which is known
to be time-consuming especially with large number
of students in a class.
Most teachers have known that mastery of the
mechanics of English does not guarantee the
students’ ability to use it for communication.
Nevertheless, current teaching practice in Taiwan still
delays the experience in authentic communication until
the students have acquired a basic set of correct
grammar rules. Despite the government’s efforts in
introducing a more communicative way of
instruction, most high school teaching in Taiwan
remain grammar-oriented (Wang, 2002). Dull and
boring learning sessions in the English language
classroom is quite common as a result of the
prevailing grammar-translation method.
METHODOLOGY
Research Instrument
Focus group interviews were adopted as the
research instrument in this study because with the
dramatically increased usage, it is highly consistent
with current trends in education that aim at
understanding more about how the stakeholders
think and feel (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub,
1996, p.16). The three scholars believe that one
of the values of using focus groups in this study
is that the interactive group format of focus groups
may stimulate greater participation, which facilitates
the collection of rich and in-depth data. Large and
rich amount of data in the respondents’ own
STUDENTS’ VIEWPOINTS OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
words can be obtained due to its open response
format (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Moreover,
during the proceedings of the interviews,
unexpected findings may arise from the interactions
and discussions, adding another value to the
adoption of focus groups in this study.
The Implementation of the Focus Group
Interviews
Piloting the Focus Group Interview Questions
Before the main interviews, two pilot interviews
were conducted to try out the interview questions.
A set of open-ended questions were piloted with
two mini focus group interviews in order to find
out whether the participants understand and
respond to the questions in the way the study
intends them to.
To obtain clearer and separate information
regarding the students’ viewpoint, the interview
questions were divided into three sections. In Section
One are some general questions for generating
discussion and disagreement. Section Two is used to
find out how English is taught in a typical English class
in senior high school. In Section Three, participants’
attitude and perceptions towards the way English is
being taught at school were then explored by asking
the questions.
The Administration of the Refined Questions
Based on the refinement and improvement of
the pilot studies, four focus group interviews were
carried out at the same high school where the pilot
studies were undertaken. Chinese was used
throughout the interviews in order to gather
bountiful data from fluent discussions.
Before starting the discussions, I asked the
participants to provide some personal information
by filling in the blanks that came before Section
One. By doing this, I hoped to get some basic data
about the participants, such as their age, the age
when they first learned English, and how long they
had learned English.
The participants in the main interviews were all
recruited from the same school as those in the pilot
studies. These participants had ages ranging from
CHUNG, I-F. & HUANG, Y-C. 71
16 to 17 and had Chinese as their native language.
There were six participants in each focus group
interview, with three males and three females from
the same class. Most of them began to learn English
at slightly different ages and graduated from
different junior high schools. In other words, each
group was carefully arranged to be both
homogeneous and heterogeneous in different
aspects so as to help facilitate communication and
enrich the discussions.
In order to make sure that participants had
something to say, the researchers asked the class
tutor of the students to help select the students who
would participate in each focus group. The selected
students were those who are not too quiet and who
usually have their own opinions However, to ensure
that the selected participants are only those with
better academic performance, the researchers
deliberately chose participants with varied class
performance.
Data Analysis and Findings
In this study, there were a total of 15 questions
in the three-section interview. Each participant was
asked to respond to each question, whether they had
a lot to say or not. The process of data analysis was
mainly tape-based. Relying on listening to the tape
recording, an abridged transcript of the relevant and
useful part of the discussion was developed. The
researchers focused mainly on the key ideas and main
themes arising from the discussion. Simple analytic
induction was then adopted to generate descriptive
and qualitative data. Each subsequent group was
analyzed and compared to earlier groups (Krueger
& Casey, 2000). To present various views
regarding different topics from different groups, the
data were presented respectively under each
question in the following charts. The questions,
some key comments and comparisons were
summarized and made below.
General Questions
Question 1: How do you feel about your current
English class?
Generally speaking, students agreed that English
class is very essential since English is not merely a
72 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
subject but also an international language. Some
liked it and thought they could learn lots of things
related to foreign countries from an English class.
Nevertheless, some people felt compelled to learn
English, saying that their aim of learning English is
to get prepared for exams, even though they all
agreed that learning English is essential. An
interesting finding was that many of the participants
said English teachers play a crucial role in how they
may perceive an English class. Different teachers
bring with them very different feelings.
Question 2: What is your favourite part of an
English class (e.g., reading / vocabulary /
grammar / expansion activities / tests)?
The students’ favourite part of an English class
varied. Some liked learning grammar rules, which
were regarded as helpful in enhancing their English
ability. Some liked the dialogue or reading. Most
students liked the reading part in the textbook
because teachers would translate each sentence
into Chinese, which was like telling them stories in
a very comprehensible manner. Some students liked
the extension practise at the end of each lesson,
and some liked the dialogue that came after the
reading. Some felt it was less dull with a plot in
each of them. An interesting finding was that a
number of students mentioned their favourite part
in class was listening to teachers talk about their
personal experiences abroad in the target language
culture.
Question 3: What is the part that you dislike
most in an English class?
Students also have very diverse perspectives
in terms of what they dislike. Generally speaking,
they felt very confused about grammar; regarding
it as a dull, boring, and difficult thing to learn. Most
of them also agreed that taking tests was the part
they disliked most.
Question 4: What is your biggest problem or
challenge in learning English?
Some students found grammar to be difficult as
it differed greatly from their native language,
Chinese. Some students said that even if they had
VOL. 18 NO. 1
learned English for more than four years, they still
found it difficult to “use” English freely. Their worry
was that even though they knew many words and
sentence patterns, they just didn’t know how to
put them together to make one complete sentence.
Speaking English was the biggest challenge for
most students. They felt afraid and frustrated at
not being able to express themselves in English
when they had to do so. In addition, vocabulary
was viewed as too much and too hard to remember
by most students, even though they were aware
that memorizing new words was a basic task to
achieve in learning English.
Classroom Instruction
Question 1. What type of activities do you spend
most of your classroom time doing in an
English class?
It was mentioned that most of their class time
was devoted to the learning of new English words,
sentence patterns, and grammar. Most mentioned
that they mainly sat quietly listening to English
teacher explain the content of the textbook. Most
of the time, teachers devoted themselves to the
introduction of vocabulary, sentence patterns, and
grammar, hurrying to finish the contents that the
monthly exam would cover.
Question 2. Can you tell me a little about how
and when your teacher uses English/Chinese
during class and how you feel about this?
For example, would you prefer her to use
English/Chinese more or less often?
Students said that their English teacher used
English only when she read the English vocabulary
or sentences, while Chinese was mostly used during
the explanation of grammar and translation of the
textbook contents. Students with better English
competence hoped their teacher could speak more
English in class so as to allow them more chances
to strengthen their listening ability. On the other
hand, students whose English was not so good was
happy with the proportion that English and Chinese
were used in their English class, arguing that
teaching would be less effective if only English were
used because students may get confused.
STUDENTS’ VIEWPOINTS OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
Question 3. Can you tell me when and in what
ways you speak English/Chinese in your
English class?
Most students said that they spoke English in
class only when they were asked to repeat after
the teacher to read out the new vocabulary or
reading material. Apart from these instances, they
only spoke Chinese in class. Only a few students
said they were asked to reply in English when
appointed by the teachers to give answers to the
questions listed in the textbooks.
Question 4. How often does your teacher ask
you to work in pairs or groups for
cooperative activities?
Students had very little experience, (i.e., once
or twice) of pair or group work. They were asked
to work in pairs for reading the dialogues or writing
English reports during cooperative activities, which
were held about once or twice a month. Some
students never experienced pair or group work in
their English class.
Question 5. Could you give me some examples
of the types of activities you have done in
pairs/groups and describe what you were
asked to do to accomplish them?
Most students said it should be more fun if they
have the chance to do activities in pairs or groups,
which never happened in their English class.
Students who had this kind of experience said they
were given the chance in class to create a short
dialogue and to present a conversation in small
groups. They didn’t seem to enjoy doing this,
although they liked that the teacher would give them
extra points for accomplishing the appointed tasks.
Student Attitudes and Perceptions
Question 1. How do you feel about the way your
teacher teaches you grammar or the way you
learn grammar? Do you feel that you’ve
spent too much or too little time learning
grammar in class?
Some students felt that the amount of time the
teacher spent on teaching grammar was
appropriate, and some hoped that teacher could
CHUNG, I-F. & HUANG, Y-C. 73
spend more time explaining grammar in details.
They all commented on the importance of being
able to write a short English paragraph, which was
required in the entrance examination. That was why
they hoped their teacher could strengthen their
ability in composition by introducing more
grammatical ideas. Interestingly, they also
understood that with the limited time between each
monthly exam, it was not possible for teachers to
extend too much in terms of teaching grammar.
Only few felt that their teacher spent too much time
teaching grammar and that the way grammar was
taught was too dull and boring.
Question 2. What is your feeling about learning
to communicate with your classmates in
English in class? Why do you think that your
teacher or textbook ask you to try to make
conversations with a partner?
Students were happy and willing to take part in
conversation practice with classmates as they all
realized the importance of English speaking ability,
which, they admitted, was their major weakness.
They generally held a positive view towards
speaking practice and thought it was more lively
and enjoyable than an ordinary English class. One
student made a straightforward point by saying,
“However good one’s English is, it is worth nothing
if he/she dares not open his/her mouth when having
to talk with people (English-speaking people)”. To
sum up, students all believed that their speaking
ability would be enhanced if they were offered the
opportunity to speak English at school.
Question 3. Would you agree if I told you that
one good way of learning a language is not
to worry about mistakes but just to use it as
much as possible? Why or why not? What
do you think if your teacher doesn’t correct
you immediately when you make a mistake
in using English in class?
Without an exception, students’ answer to the
first question was “yes”. They all claimed that every
language could be learned well only through using
it. In addition, most of them stressed the necessity
of immediate error correction. They felt
74 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
embarrassing if they made the same mistake again
and again partly because they didn’t receive proper
correction from teachers when they first did it. One
student made a comparison, “Learning English is
just like a toddler learning to walk. He/She will
never be able to walk without falling down for many
times. Everyone makes mistakes before being able
to speak good English”. Every student believed in
the proverb that “Practice makes perfect!” However,
some students preferred to be corrected later rather
than immediately after the error occurred. They
disliked being interrupted while talking which they
thought was quite frustrating and discouraging.
Question 4. From your point of view, what is
the ideal kind of English teacher?
For many students, teachers are just like
facilitators during the process of the participants’
learning in school. Some students thought their
English teachers were both a “facilitator” and a
“dominator” in their English class. However, they
disliked teachers who play the role of a dominator,
saying that an ideal teacher should listen to students’
views such as what the students want to learn,
rather than always being dominating in class. Some
said an ideal teacher should play the role of both a
teacher and a friend to all students yet keep a little
bit distance with them. Some thought a good
teacher should be able to create a lively learning
atmosphere and have good interactions with the
students. Others like teachers who ask more
questions and create lots of opportunities to get
students to talk and be involved, rather than keep
talking himself/herself. All of the students liked
teachers to provide them with their personal
experiences or useful information related to the
learning content, which is not included in the
textbooks. For instance, the teachers’ experiences
in studying or travelling abroad works best in
motivating them to learn. Some mentioned that an
ideal teacher should not bring his or her own
emotion into the classroom. Instead, he or she
should create a lively classroom atmosphere by
talking about some personal or interesting
experiences that is related to what the students are
learning.
VOL. 18 NO. 1
Question 5. What types of activities in class do
you find most useful in helping you to learn
English?
Learning the usage of new vocabulary by
sentence making as well as learning the dialogues
in the textbook were considered to be the most
useful ways to help learning. Students argued that
vocabulary is mostly practical, and daily usages of
words or phrases are contained in the dialogues.
Having English dialogues with teachers and having
the chance to talk in English were also thought to
be useful as these help improve their speaking
abilities. Many students hoped their current English
class could include more oral practice and
activities, just like what they did in their English
conversation class. In this way, according to them,
English class would be less boring but more lively.
Some mentioned that learning English through
games or songs and stage play contests were
regarded helpful as it was a funny and more relaxing
way to learn English. Others mentioned that as long
as one has the interest, any kind of activity would
be very effective and successful.
Question 6. What are your major needs and
goals in learning English in senior high
school? From your viewpoint, what is the
best way to meet or achieve them?
Several purposes of learning English were
mentioned, such as passing the entrance exam to
attend university and preparing for their future
careers. “What I need is to help me speak out in
English fluently”, one student said. Another pointed
out that what he needs is enhancing his own
language ability, and that speaking ability is more
important than taking exams. Students generally
agreed that learning English is a life-long task and
that learning to use it is essential. Despite this,
everyone was aware of his or her present and most
pressing need of learning English - to pass the
entrance exam and to be successfully admitted to
a university. As for the best way to achieve the
needs and goals, some agreed that reading English
newspapers and listening to English programmes
on the radio were helpful in improving their English
ability. To achieve this most pressing goal, some
STUDENTS’ VIEWPOINTS OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
said what teacher could do was simply “cram” as
much what will possibly be covered in the exams
as possible to their brains. It was discouraging that
one student claimed, “It will be most useful if
teachers just teach what we don’t like”. Learning
more vocabulary, grammar, sentence patterns,
writing, articles from English-learning magazines or
those related to current news were considered most
important in their preparation for exams. Some
gave a straightforward answer, saying that the most
useful way to achieve their goals was to try to get
familiar with the exam type and practice how to
answer the tests.
SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
AND DISCUSSION
There are a number of valuable findings derived
from the study:
First, the students interviewed perceived their
English teachers to practice conventional authority.
From the learners’ observation, senior high school
teachers in Taiwan seem to retain the main role
and make judicious use of Chinese in an English
class. This finding corresponds with the
particularized definition of CLT proposed by Zeng
in 2001.
Secondly, the results from the data analysis
reveal that from the Taiwanese students’ viewpoint,
English teaching in high school places much
emphasis on enhancing their grammatical ability.
This indicates that the fundamental problem in
English teaching in high school is that traditional
approach is still dominant. As a result, patterns of
classroom interaction seem to provide little genuine
communication between teacher and students or
among students. Students are rarely guided to go
beyond memorized patterns and monitored
repetitions. A determining reason for this is that
students in Taiwan generally feel the most pressing
need to “pass exams” rather than to “use English”.
By nature, the exam-oriented learning is inclined
toward memorization, grammar and translation.
This is because exams tend to focus on the aspects
CHUNG, I-F. & HUANG, Y-C. 75
of language that are more easily judged, such as
grammatical accuracy and vocabulary knowledge
(Burnaby & Sun, 1989). In other words, teachers
of the participants in this study simply adopt their
teaching methods to suit the students’ current
learning purpose, which is to achieve good exam
results. This leads to the difficulty for CLT to get
integrated with Taiwan’s local conception and
deep-rooted traditional teaching and learning
methods.
It is thus not surprising when we discover that
interviewees generally feel the way grammar is
taught and the time they spend on learning grammar
is just moderate. Some even feel that more time
needs to be dedicated to grammar teaching. Most
of them are happy with the current proportion that
English and Chinese are used in an English class.
Besides, they all understand that with rigid schedule
and large class, there is little chance for them to
communicate with classmates or partners in English
in class.
In spite of these, the third finding is encouraging
in that most participants value the importance of
developing English speaking ability, which does not
play a major part in their entrance exam. The
majority believe that being able to use a language
in the real situation is the uppermost meaning in
learning it, even though it is not their most urgent
need at this learning stage. Accordingly, they are
willing to take part in any forms of conversation
practice. One example they gave is that they use
English quite a lot when preparing for the annual
stage play contest held by school. They like to be
involved in this kind of cooperative competition,
despite the fact that some of them feel shy having
to speak English in front of an audience.
The fourth significant finding indicates that most
of the participants in the interviews do not have
great tolerance of their own errors but desire error
correction. Most of them prefer to be corrected
immediately whenever they make a mistake in using
English so that the same mistake will not be made
again. Although most participants think teachers
should use English more in teaching, Chinese
remains to be their most preferred medium of
instruction. With the heavy emphasis on learning
76 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
grammatical rules, learners have little confidence
in learning effectively if English is the only medium
used in their English class.
The fifth finding has to do with motivation.
Learners’ own interest and motivations were
mentioned by several participants to be the key
factors in achieving successful learning. They like
active and friendly teachers who understand their
views, such as what they want to learn and how
they want to learn it. Furthermore, teachers’
personal styles and ways of teaching play a decisive
role in motivating or demotivating them.
CONCLUSION
As has been stated earlier, CLT was first
introduced to engage learners in communication to
develop their communicative competence.
Therefore, learners themselves play the key role
in the development and implementation of CLT.
However, literature regarding how and what
students think of the classroom practice remains
very scarce. Through this study, the researchers
had the opportunity to hear many different views
directly from the students to find out what they think
and feel about what and how they want to learn.
The researchers were quite surprised at a number
of comments made by the participants in these
focus group interviews. To sum up, the study shows
that there are two dimensions in terms of the need
and goal of high school students in learning English
in Taiwan. Their short-term need is to pass
entrance exams to enter a good university. On the
other hand, their long-term goal is to develop their
communicative competence in all aspects so as to
prepare for their future careers or a globalized way
of life. This long-term goal is consistent with the
essence of CLT, which is to achieve the actual use
of a language for communication.
In Taiwan, schools are doing an excellent job
in meeting the students’ short-term need by
preparing them for the entrance exams.
Nevertheless, there seems to be a great gap
between the students’ long-term goal and the
purpose of English language teaching at school.
VOL. 18 NO. 1
One of the key reasons for this comes from the
fact that a more communicative way of teaching
cannot seem to guarantee high exam achievements
which the traditional teacher-dominating class can.
As a result, the students’ long-term goal is hardly
achieved by the present English teaching strategies
in school.
This study also provides the authorities
concerned in Taiwan and other countries of similar
education systems with some issues that need to
be considered cautiously. It goes without saying
that the process of educational change involves
multiple and interrelated factors which may influence
it at different stages and at different levels (Shamim,
1996). The results of the study echo LoCastro’s
(1996) claim that mismatch is inevitable between the
imported terminology, CLT, and the reality of the
situation in which the terminology is mapped. For
instance, when an education system encourages
teachers to try out new strategies in teaching, it
should also provide teachers with an environment
where they feel safe to do so. Unfortunately, just
like the case of Hong Kong (Cheng, 2002), it is
difficult to create such context in an intensive exam-
driven culture and society like Taiwan.
What the researchers want to emphasize is, no
matter how the environment can facilitate or impede
the educational reform, learners’ views and
perceptions should always be taken into serious
consideration. As Savignon (1997) maintained,
“ultimate success in learning to use a second
language most likely would be seen to depend on
the attitude of the learner” (p. 107). We would
like to conclude that the findings of the study are
encouraging because the participants’ positive
attitudes towards a more communicative-based
language teaching reflects the correct direction that
the MOE is moving towards in its curricular change.
This also implies that there is need to reconsider
changing the unequal power distribution of teachers
and learners as well as their conservative attitudes
in an English classroom. By making a compromise
and slightly shifting the focus of English teaching in
class, the students’ long-term goal in learning
English will be able to receive a more adequate
amount of attention.
STUDENTS’ VIEWPOINTS OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach
practical for teaching English in China? Pros and
cons. System, 21, 471-480.
Berns, M. (1990). Contexts of competence:
Social and cultural considerations in
communicative language teaching. New
York & London: Plenum.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burnaby, B., & Sun, Y. (1989). Chinese teachers’
views of western language teaching: Context
informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly, 23,
219-38.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical
bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied
Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative
competence to communicative language
pedagogy. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt
(Eds.), Language and Communication (pp.
2-27). London: Longman.
Cheng, L. (2002). The washback effect on
classroom teaching of changes in public
examinations. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.),
Interpreting communicative language
teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher
education (pp. 91-111). New Haven, CT &
London: Yale University Press.
Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the
communicative approach? ELT Journal, 50,
213-312.
Horwitz, E.K. (1988). The beliefs about language
learning of beginning university foreign language
students. The Modern Language Journal, 72,
285-294.
Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus
groups: A practical guide for applied
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). Maximizing learning
potential in the communicative classroom. ELT
Journal, 47, 12-21.
Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you
plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived
CHUNG, I-F. & HUANG, Y-C. 77
difficulties in introducing the communicative
approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly,
32, 677-703.
LoCastro, V. (1996). English language education
in Japan. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the
language classroom (pp. 40-58). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of
communicative and non-communicative
activities in EFL classroom. System, 30, 85-
105.
Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating
Japanese learners’ beliefs about language
learning. System, 27, 473-492.
Sato, K. (2002). Practical understandings of
communicative language teaching and teacher
development. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.),
Interpreting communicative language
teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher
education (pp. 13-28). New Haven, CT &
London: Yale University Press.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative
competence: Theory and classroom practice.
Addison, MA: Wesley Publishing Company.
Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language
teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly,
25, 261-277.
Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative
competence: Theory and classroom practice
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language
teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom
practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.),
Interpreting communicative language
teaching: Contexts and concerns in
teacher education (pp. 1-27). New Haven,
CT & London: Yale University Press.
Savignon, S.J. & Wang, C. (2003).
Communicative language learning in EFL
contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions.
IRAL, 41, 223-249.
Shamin, F. (1996). Learner resistance to
innovation in classroom methodology. In H.
Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language
classroom (pp.105-121). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
78 THE ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P.N. (1990).
Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S. & Sinagub, J. (1996).
Focus group interviews in education and
psychology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Wang, C., & Savignon, S. (2001). Communicative
language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner
attitudes in Taiwan. In Proceedings of the
Eighteenth Conference on English Teaching
and Learning in the Republic of China (pp.
345-361). Taipei: Crane.
VOL. 18 NO. 1
Wang, C. (2002). Innovative teaching in foreign
language contexts: The case of Taiwan. In S. J.
Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative
language teaching: Contexts and concerns
in teacher education (pp. 131-153). New
Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press.
Zeng, Z.L. (2001). Implementing English
teaching in primary school and evaluation
of syllabus. Taiwan: Taiwanese Ministry of
Education.