Although the extant literature shows that many teachers have a positive perception of CLT in an EFL context, several studies also establish that teachers face several challenges that can hinder the implementation of CLT (Orafi, 2013; Wu1 & Alrabah, 2014; Abate 2015; Al Rabadi, 2012; Butler, 2011; Anto, Coenders, & Voogt, 2012; Ahmed & Rao, 2013; Hsiu Huang, 2016; Al Asmari, 2015). Consequently, the research shows that a gap exists between the theoretical underpinnings of CLT principles, which teachers generally support, and the implementation of those principles in the classroom. This section explores the challenges that constrain the effectiveness of the outcomes for CLT.
In most EFL contexts, the examinations system advanced is only useful in testing students’ competence in grammar and students’ memorization abilities. The teachers and the students are compelled to make studies that address only the requirements of the summative grammar examinations. Such an evaluative model is not in line with a communicative orientation that is required in effective language mastering (Andrews 2004, Ansarey 2012, Choi 2008, Ghanbari and Ketabi 2011, Orafi 2013). For instance, Ghanbari and Ketabi (2011) noticed that the Iranian system of learning language faces myriad difficulties including that university entrance tests in Iran do not aim at evaluating the level of competence in communication and mostly check learner’s accuracy. According to Orafi (2013) teachers embrace the need to use CLT and even accept its usage. However, they rarely implement the concepts of CLT as required. They still find it awkward to teach using the CLT platform and evaluate the students based on the traditional terminal evaluation models. Moreover, Orafi (2013) noted that grammar bias during evaluation makes many teachers shun the full application of CLT Methods and procedures.
Beyond the mismatch between CLT and proficiency assessments, the lack of teacher training negatively impacts the fidelity of CLT implementation. In order to successfully apply the principles of any teaching method, teachers must gain the requisite knowledge and have ample opportunities to develop their abilities using the techniques and strategies. In support of this notion, Carless (1999) posited that “teachers need to acquire the skill and knowledge to implement something particularly if it is slightly different to their existing methods” (p. 327). In EFL settings, teachers are often required to adapt their teaching practices according to the functional use of a language without receiving any training on how to do so. This factor has been reported as a major concern in various EFL contexts (Abate, 2015; Al Rabadi, 2012; Butler, 2011; Anto, Coenders, & Voogt, 2012). For example, Al Rabadi (2012) conducted a study that compared the theory and practice of CLT implementation by two Jordanian university instructors using observation and semi-structured interviews. The participants revealed they suffered from a lack of training, which caused clear limitations regarding implementing specific aspects of CLT, such as pair/group work and how to approach error corrections. Similarly, in their mixed methods study, Anto, Coenders, and Voogt (2012) assessed the implementation of CLT in Ethopian universities and identified the professional development needs of EFL teachers. The study revealed a significant number of teachers lacked the appropriate professional preparation to enact CLT effectively. As a remedy, the researchers suggested arranging in-service professional development opportunities to support and improve teachers’ CLT implementation.
Even if teachers were to have adequate training, CLT requires a substantial investment of time on the part of the teacher within the classroom through directly interacting with students and involving them in the active, dynamic processes of speaking, reading, writing, and listening in order for learners to construct meaning and knowledge (Wyatt, 2009). Most of the studies presented, therefore, reports that most teachers are not satisfied with the allocated time to teach the communicative syllabus of CLT as allocated in EFL contexts (İnceçay & İnceçay, 2009; Abdel Latif, 2012; Al Asmari, 2015). For example, an investigation conducted by Abdel Latif (2012) assessed a standards-based CLT English textbook series that intended to meet the Egyptian Ministry of Education’s expectation for students “to use English for social purposes” as “the focus of language instruction is on functional, communicative English,” emphasizing “the four language skills” (p. 79). However, the findings of the study indicate the content of the textbooks was being taught in a non-CLT manner. The limitation of time was the factor that influenced the teachers’ practices the most as it was mentioned with the highest frequency in the teachers’ responses. Thus, in order to achieve CLT’s intended goal, both the teachers and learners should be provided with ample time to functionally use the language.
Adding to the challenges of the successful application of CLT principles is students’ English proficiency. In CLT, learners are required to construct meaning by interacting with each other. However, many studies conducted in EFL contexts have explored how students’ low level of English proficiency and competence constitute a major obstacle to the successful implementation of CLT (Ahmad & Rao, 2013; Huang, 2016). Without a strong command of the language, students struggle to adjust to their prominent role in the learner-centered paradigm of CLT classrooms. For example, Ahmad and Rao (2013) found that students’ low English proficiency and lack of motivation were amongst the barriers to proper CLT implementation in Pakistan. The participants stated that because of the pressure associated with the proficiency exam, students do not feel a need to use English for communication purposes. By and large, these findings are consistent with Huang’s (2016) study in rural Taiwan, which found that the primary barriers to CLT implementation included students having a low level of English proficiency, difficulties with communication, and minimal learning motivation. Huang (2016) also found that teachers’ concerns about their own English proficiency emerged as a legitimate impediment to utilizing the principles of CLT in their classrooms.
Without a high level of English proficiency, EFL teachers can struggle to effectively introduce communicative activities (Farooq, 2015; Koosha & Yakhabi, 2012). For example, Farooq (2015) investigated Saudi teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding CLT and its influence on the communicative competency of learners. The findings reveal that the adoption of CLT is difficult unless the teachers possess basic language proficiency. Teachers are positive about the development and implementation of CLT platforms in their teaching experiences. However, it is not without challenges. Teachers have also noted with concern some problems that hinder the implementation of CLT requirements. The research studies carried out by Orafi (2013), Abate (2015), Al Rabadi (2012), Butler (2011), Gendole, Coenders, and Voogt, (2012), as well, and Al Asmari, (2015) all pointed to the challenge that teachers would face in rolling out CLT. In most classroom scenarios, the examinations system advanced is only useful in testing student’s competence in grammar and students’ memorization abilities. The teachers and the students are compelled to make studies that address only the requirements of the summative grammar examinations. Such an evaluative model is not in line with a communicative orientation that is required in effective language mastering (Andrews 2004, Ansarey 2012, Choi 2008, Ghanbari and Ketabi 2011, Orafi 2013). For instance, Ghanbari and Ketabi (2011) noticed that the Iranian system of learning language faces myriad difficulties one including that university entrance test in Iran do not aim at evaluating the level of competence in communication and mostly check learner’s accuracy.
According to Orafi (2013) teachers embrace the need to use CLT and even accept its usage. However, they rarely implement the concepts of CLT as required. They still find it awkward to teach using the CLT platform and evaluate the students based on the traditional terminal evaluation models. Moreover, Orafi (2013) noted that grammar bias during evaluation make many teachers to shun the full application of CLT Methods and procedures. Every new training concept also requires training on the side of the teachers to create learning preparedness. Teachers handling EFL classes need to address the lesson in line with the unique classroom requirements. In this regard, teacher preparedness through quality training is valuable (Carless, 1999). Research studies were undertaken by Abate (2015), Al Rabadi (2012), Butler (2011), Gendole, Coenders, Voogt (2012) and Al Rabadi (2012) all pointed out to the need to have the teacher well trained before handling EFL classes through the use of CLT method.
The research study that was conducted by Al Rabadi (2012) compared the use of theory and practice in the implementation of CLT Method in Jordan universities. The research respondents indicated that in Jordan universities, they lack sufficient training towards the use and application of CLT Methods especially in the use of key aspects like the pairs/ groups useful in the learning process to make error corrections. Likewise, the research study report advanced by Gendole, Coenders, Voogt (2012) deployed a mixed method to study the ease of implementation of CLT method in Ethiopian universities. The study focused on the challenge’s teachers face in the implantation of CLT Methods which revealed a lack of adequate preparations possible to developed through In-service training. As a result, the study report recommended that the Ethiopian universities can deploy the use of in-service training for professional teachers to better equip them for the implementation of CLT methods in their teaching programs. Moreover, many teachers have also felt that time allocated for teaching communicative syllabus is very limited, and there is a need for more allocations.
Under the CLT learning approach, the learners are given the ownership of the learning process that enhances their understanding and motivation unlike the use of the GMT approached that is highly controlled. This is only possible when the learners have ample time of practicing the TL as much as possible. Many teachers who would like to apply the principles of CLT in the classroom model lack sufficient time to apply the same in the market. Accordingly, it is noted that the CLT method requires more time to roll out. This involves speaking, listening and writing as well. Most of the studies presented, therefore, reports that most teachers are not satisfied with the allocated time to teach the communicative syllabus of CLT as allocated in EFL contexts (İnceçay and İnceçay 2009, Abdel Latif & Mahmoud 2012, Al Asmari, 2015).
According to Latif & Mahmoud (2012), the use of data triangulation focused one study involving 263 teachers and administering them with questionnaires through semi-structured interviews and observation. The study was conducted to examine standard based-communicative English textbook series as used in the Egyptian education requirement. Latif (2012) noted that the study aimed to use English for special purposes. The focus of the use of the research study project was to explore the use of language as a functional and a communicative tool emphasizing on four tools relevant for developing English language skills. The research outcome, however, was contrary, showing that the book contents were majorly being taught in a non-communicative model. The highest response frequency from the teachers was the fact that time allocated for the learning process. This was the challenges that were indicated by the highest majority of the teacher respondents. The teachers, therefore, advocated for more time to make the learning a success under the CLT method.
According to Huang, (2016), the ministry of education in Pakistan has attempted to remodel the learning of English grammar to be communicative as speaker participates in learning. This has faced myriad challenges, but the process remains significantly promising in the integrated approach to the learning process. This further aims to improve the assimilation of CLT to students (Huang, 2016). Huang’s research (2012), teachers and students faced three major challenge in the provision of effective CLT Methods in their courses. Such a challenge like students’ low LA cognitive resources was the major contributing factor in the deteriorating value of the language teaching. Further, the research revealed that parents’ negative attitudes have also deterred the active development of English language principles. Finally, the assortment of students into the same class also see many teachers avoid the implementation of the CLT Methods in the learning process (Huang, 2016). Moreover, EFL teachers appear to struggle to introduce communicative activities for this reason (Farooq 2015, Koosha and Yakhabi 2012).
Teachers, English proficiency is the other constraint that CLT implementation faces in the classroom. Notably, the main focus of the CLT method is to improve the communicative competence for the learner’s situations (Larsen-Freeman 2000, Littlewood 2007). This, however, is limited by the lack of communicative competence among the teachers who should dispense the same knowledge not restricted to EFL learners alone. Teachers in the category of EFL normally struggle with the understanding of communicative competence and activities (Farooq 2015, Koosha and Yakhabi 2012) For instance, according to Farooq (2015) carried out a descriptive study to investigate how the Saudi teachers’ perceptions and their attitudes towards the possible implementation of CLT methods to learning communicative competency of the learners would be useful. From the findings, the report revealed that the adoption of the CLT is always not easy since teachers themselves only possess basic language proficiency.