ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
Although the Ministry of Education in the Kurdistan region of Iraq decided to adopt communicative language teaching (CLT) to improve the English language competencies of Iraqi students, implementing this approach poses significant challenges for Iraqi English language teachers. This study examines the obstacles these teachers face. This study aims to identify the main challenges that hinder the implementation of CLT and how these challenges impact classroom practices, mainly in teaching speaking skills. It also seeks to understand the contradictions between teachers’ theoretical understanding of CLT principles and their classroom practices of such principles. The first data collection phase was conducted through interviews with 10 English language teachers. Following that, classroom observations of 16 teachers were conducted to examine their classroom practices and activities. Finally, an online questionnaire of 38 items was distributed to the teachers to explore the issue. The findings reveal that even though English language teachers acknowledge the benefits of CLT, they face challenges such as limited recourses, insufficient training, contextual and societal expectations factors such as large classes, grammar-oriented examination system, and students' language proficiency that hinder its successful implementation. Additionally, there are inconsistencies between teachers’ theoretical understanding of CLT principles and their classroom practices. These inconsistencies emerge from different sources, including the suitability of CLT for the Iraqi context and teachers' lack of understanding of its principles. They are also due to a lack of practical training, student-related factors including motivation, and student assessment systems that heavily rely on assessing Grammar and vocabulary. The study finds that teaching speaking is neglected, and the teachers rarely incorporate communicative activities in their classrooms. As a result, Iraqi classrooms can be considered genuinely communicative. This study contributes to the existing teaching methodologies and offers practical recommendations for policymakers to enhance the effectiveness of CLT in Iraq.
Abate, E. B. (2014). Prospects and challenges of communicative approach in EFL Context. Prospects, 4(25).
Abdulkader, F. A. (2016). An Investigation of Saudi EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of the Appropriateness of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in a Saudi Context. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(6), 42-68.
Abdullah, B. M. A. (2015). KURDISH STUDENTS’PERCEPTIONS TOWARD COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING AT A UNIVERSITY IN KURDISTAN REGION IRAQ. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 11(10).
AlAkeeli, F. S. (2013). Examining Lexical and Grammatical Difficulties Encountered by Iraqi Students in Learning English as a Foreign Language. (PhD thesis), St Clements University.
Albahri, M. A., Yang, P., & Moustakim, M. (2018). Saudi Arabian tertiary teachers’ and learners’ attitude towards the communicative language teaching (CLT). International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(4), 317-321.
Alkhateeb, M. M. A. (2013). Evaluating Iraqi Primary EFL Curriculum and Textbooks. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research, 12(1).
Al-Khatib, H. (2017). Revisiting the Communicative Approach: The Tripod Construct. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 8(1), 3-15.
Almutrafi, F. (2018). How learners of English learn best in a foreign language context? A glimpse of the debate over the written versus the spoken form. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 9.
Bulbula, D., Bulti, T., & Sada, E. (2021). EFL teachers’ practices and implementations of speaking activities in Ethiopian English textbooks. Education Research International, 2021, 1-11.
Austin, J. D. (2003). The grammar translation method of language teaching. In: London: Longman.
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT journal, 57(3), 278-287.
Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second language acquisition. Pearson.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. In: New York, NY: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage publications.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The 2010s. Communicative Language Teaching in the 21st Century: The “Principled Communicative Approach”. Perspectives, 36(2), 33-43.
Galloway, A. (1993). Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction and Sample Activities. ERIC Digest.
Harmer, J. (2003). The Practice of English Language Teaching. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Hassan, F. R., & Ghafor, O. F. (2014). Assessing the suitability of “sunrise” programme to the Kurdish learners of the seventh basic grade in the schools of Erbil city. Journal of Teaching and Education, 3(3), 469-482.
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.
Ibrahim, M. K., & Ibrahim, Y. A. (2017). Communicative English language teaching in Egypt: Classroom practice and challenges. Issues in Educational Research, 27(2), 285.
Islam, F. (2016). Effectiveness of communicative language teaching at primary level in Bangladesh. (Masters thesis, BRAC University).
Jamalzadeh, M., & Shahsavar, Z. (2015). The Effects of Contextual Factors on Teacher's Beliefs and Practices. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 166-171.
Jones, L. (2007). The student-centered classroom: Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
Kamal, S. (2010). Introducing A New Format Of Baccalaureate Exam For Sunrise 12. (Master thesis submitted to college of languages,Salahaddin University).
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching 3rd edition-Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers: Oxford university press.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. In: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, K., & Deris, F. (2023). Teachers’ Perceptions of Communicative Language Teaching Approach in English Grammar Teaching. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 14.
Madrid, D., McLaren, N., & Bueno, A. (2005). TEFL in secondary education. Granada: University of Granada, 641-678.
Manzano, B. A. (2015). English Teachers' Beliefs, Practices, and Problems Encountered in Using Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). International Journal of Education and Research, 3(3).
Mhamad, A., & Shareef, M. (2014). Education in Kurdistan: A lost cause. Fair Observer. https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/education-kurdistan-lost-cause-83612/#
Mirdehghan, M., HoseiniKargar, N., Navab, S., & Mahmoodi, T. (2011). Cultural barriers: pros and cons on ELT in Iran. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 15.
Nishino, T. (2012). Modeling teacher beliefs and practices in context: A multimethods approach. The Modern language journal, 96(3), 380-399.
Nunan D. (1989) Designing Task for the Communicative Classroom. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University, Sydney.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching: McGraw-Hill/Contemporary.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pham, H. (2006). Communicative language teaching: University within diversity. ELT journal, 61(3), 193-201.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method—why? TESOL quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
Rahimi, A., & Quraishi, P. (2019). Investigating EFL students’ poor speaking skills at Kandahar University. American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research, 2(2), 1-9.
Richards, J. C. (2006a). Developing classroom speaking activities: From theory to practice. Guidelines-Singapore-Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers Then Magazine for Language Teachers-, 28(2), 3.
Richards, J. C. (2006b). Communicative language teaching today: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching: Cambridge university press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th Edition ed.): Pearson.
Richards, J., &Rodgers, Th. (1999). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Saeed, N. R. (2015). Problems of Teaching English in Iraqi Public Schools in Mosul for the Intermediate Stage from the Teachers’ Point of View. Middle East University, 6(1), 53-60.
Sanna, M. (2013). Developing the Students Speaking Skills through Communicative Language Teaching (Unpublished Master Thesis in Science of the Language). Department of Foreign Languages English Division, Mohamed Khier University of Biskra, Faculty of Letters and Languages, Algeria.
Savignon, S. J. (2001). Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 3, 13-28.
Sofi-Karim, M. (2015). English language teaching in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. (Master thesis, Webster University.
Syarief, K. (2016). Communicative language teaching: Exploring theoretical foundations and practical challenges. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 12(3).
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences. In: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT journal, 50(1), 9-15.
UNESCO. (2014). UNESCO National Education Support Strategy: Republic of Iraq, 2010-2014. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216873#:~:text=UNESCO%2DIraq's%20National%20Education%20Support,vocational%20education%20and%20training%20(TVET)
Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 01-15.
Audil, A. F., & Mustafa, H. R. (2024). From Theory to Classroom: Examining Communicative Language Teaching Practices in Iraq. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(4), 2146–2159.
Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode