000085568 TEACHERS' PERCEIVED DIFFICULTIES IN IMPLEMENTING COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING ENGLISH AT HANOI INDUSTRIAL COLLEGE FOR TEXTILE GARMENT AND FASHION (NHỮNG KHÓ KHĂN NHẬN THỨC CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TRONG VIỆC TRIỂN KHAI GIẢNG NGÔN NGỮ GIAO TIẾP TRONG GIẢNG DẠY TIẾNG ANH TẠI TRƯỜNG CAO ĐẲNG CÔNG NGHIỆP DỆT MAY THỜI TRANG HÀ NỘI)
A IM S O F T H E S T U D Y
T h is study aim s at (1) Investigating the reality o f im plem entation o f C L T in teaching
This study focuses on English instruction for non-majored students in HICT, identifying teachers' perceived difficulties when applying Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to non-majors and proposing practical solutions to overcome these challenges for a more successful CLT implementation in HICT It highlights barriers such as misalignment between CLT goals and current curricula, limited CLT training for teachers, and classroom constraints that impede authentic communicative practice To improve outcomes, the study recommends targeted professional development, curriculum redesign that integrates speaking, listening, reading, and writing, and task-based activities that foster meaningful interaction among learners Additional strategies include scaffolded instruction, formative assessment aligned with communicative objectives, and the use of collaborative learning to accommodate diverse proficiency levels Implementing these approaches can enhance student engagement and language proficiency for non-majored students in HICT.
R E S E A R C H Q U E S T IO N
T h e research aim s at figuring out the obstacles that teachers perceive w hen applying
C L T in teaching non E nglish m ajor students in H anoi Industrial C ollege for Textile,
G arm ent and Fashion and suggest som e solutions to solve problem s In sum m ary, the research is carried out to answ er the follow ing question:
W hat are teach ers’ perceived difficulties in im plem enting C L T in H ICT?
S C O P E O F T H E S T U D Y
The effectiveness of implementing Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) depends on multiple factors, including teachers’ perceptions of CLT, their training and proficiency, the methods they employ in the classroom and even salary, and how examinations are designed (Hird, 1995) Other influential elements include students’ learning styles, their motivation, and their language proficiency (Bock, 2000) Finally, the teaching and learning environment—encompassing classroom climate, available resources, and institutional support (Gahin and colleagues)—also shapes how well CLT translates into observable learning outcomes.
According to Myhill (2001), successful implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) depends on factors such as access to authentic materials and adequate time, a suitable testing system, an aligned teaching syllabus, cultural considerations, and ongoing support from the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and school administrators, along with the availability of appropriate teaching materials In this study, the focus is on teachers’ perceptions of CLT and how they translate those perceptions into practical classroom practice.
S IG N IF IC A N C E O F T H E S T U D Y
CLT, or communicative language teaching, is a recognized theoretical model in English language teaching today Many applied linguists regard it as one of the most effective approaches to teaching English In Vietnam generally and HICT in particular, after a long period of using traditional methods, educators are increasingly turning to CLT to improve learners’ communicative competence and overall language proficiency.
Grammar-translation, a traditional language teaching method, shows significant limitations, particularly in developing learners' communicative competence In contrast, the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach aims to enable students to use a language meaningfully in real-life situations, assuming they can engage socially in everyday communication CLT focuses on both the functional use of language—the communicative purposes it serves in authentic contexts—and its linguistic form, including vocabulary and grammar This study examines the practical difficulties teachers encounter when applying CLT in classroom settings, explores the realities of implementing CLT within ICT-enabled environments, and offers concrete solutions to make CLT more effective.
O R G A N IZ A T IO N O F T H E T H E S I S
T h e stu d y consists o f 5 chapters, a list o f references, and appendix.
Chapter 1 presents the introduction, outlining the background of the study as well as the aims and scope Chapter 2 provides a literature review of the research-related topics to contextualize the study and identify gaps in existing knowledge Chapter 3 describes the methodology, including details about the study population, the instruments used for data collection, and the data analysis methods.
C h ap ter 4 presents the findings and discussion and chapter 5 consists o f recom m endations and conclusion.
T h is chapter review s the literature relevant to the study T he literature review focuses on the follow ing aspects: (1) Canale and S w ain’s com m unicative com petence; (2)
C om m unicative language teaching; and (3) Previous studies related to application o f
C A N A L E A N D S W A IN S C O M M U N IC A T IV E C O M P E T E N C E
G ra m m a tic al c o m p e te n c e
Grammatical competence, as defined by Canale and Swain (1980), encompasses knowledge of lexical items and the rules of morphology, syntax, sentence grammar, semantics, and phonology It is not clear that any single theory of grammar can be preferred over others to characterize grammatical competence, nor that a particular theory of grammar is directly relevant for second language pedagogy, although the interface between theory and pedagogy has been explored in recent work on pedagogical grammars Nevertheless, grammatical competence remains a central concern for any communicative approach that aims to provide learners with the knowledge to determine and accurately express the literal meaning of utterances.
D iscourse com petence is th e co m plem ent o f gram m atical com petence in m any ways
It is the ability to connect sentences in sketches o f discourse and to form a m eaningful w h o le out o f a series o f utterances D isco u rse m eans everything from sim ple spoken conversation to lengthy w ritten tex t (articles, books and the like) W hile gram m atical com petence focuses on sen ten ce-lev el gram m ar, discourse com petence is concerned w ith intcrsentential relationships.
Sociolinguistic com petence refers to the w ays in w hich utterances are produced and understood appropriately T he prim ary focus o f sociolinguistic com petence is on the extent to w hich certain p ro positions an d com m unicative functions are appropriate w ithin a given socio-cultural context d ep ending on contextual factors such as topic, role o f participants, settings and norm s o f interaction A secondary concern o f such rules is the extent to w hich appropriate attitude and register o r style is conveyed by a particular gram m atical form w ithin a given socio-cultural context For exam ple, it w ould generally be inappropriate for a w aiter in a restaurant to actually com m and a clicn t to order a certain m enu item , regardless o f how the proposition and com m unicative function w ere expressed gram m atically; likew ise, inappropriate attitude and register w ould be expressed i f a w aiter in a tasteful restaurant w as asked
"O K chum p, w hat are you and this broad g o n n a eat?" in taking an order.
Strategic competence encompasses the verbal and nonverbal communication strategies people deploy to compensate for breakdowns in conversation caused by performance variables or gaps in competence Savignon frames these strategies as ways to offset imperfect knowledge of rules or constraints such as fatigue, distraction, and inattention In essence, strategic competence underpins our ability to repair messages, manage imperfect knowledge, and sustain effective communication through techniques like paraphrase, circumlocution, repetition, hesitation, avoidance, guessing, and shifts in register and style.
According to Canale and Swain (1980), knowledge of how to use communication strategies can be especially beneficial in the early stages of second language learning, and it is expected that the need for certain strategies will change as learners' age and second language proficiency evolve As learners develop, different strategies become more or less important, reflecting shifts in communicative demands This dynamic implies that L2 instruction should tailor strategy training to learners’ developmental stage and proficiency level to maximize communicative effectiveness.
“coping” strategies are m ost likely to be acquired through experience in real-life com m unication situations rath er than through classroom practice that involves no m eaningful com m unication.
C om m unicative com petence com ponents
• la n g u a g e c o n v e n t io n s ( g r a m m a r p u n c tu a tio n a n d sp e llin g )
• p la n a n d a s s e s s th e e f fe c t iv e n e s s of c o m m u n ic a t io n
T h e a bility to u n d e rs t a n d a n d u s e la n g u a g e e ffe c tive ly to c o m m u n ic a t e in a u t h e n tic s o c ia l a n d s c h o o l e n v ir o n m e n t s
• s o c ia l t u ie s o f la n g u a g e (e g fo rm a lity, p o lit e n e s s , d ir e c t n e s s )
• c ultu ra l r e f e r e n c e s (e g id io m s , e x p r e s s io n s , b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e )
T h e h isto ric al b a c k g ro u n d o f C L T
The emergence of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) coincided with a turning point in language pedagogy as traditional approaches were questioned for their inadequacy in enabling real communication Faced with an unsatisfactory syllabus that impeded learners’ ability to use language for genuine interaction, linguists began designing syllabi aimed at achieving the communicative goals of language teaching Wilkins (1976) and his notional syllabus had a significant impact on CLT, introducing a framework that foregrounded communication in language learning To support learners’ communicative needs, Wilkins integrated communication functions into the notional syllabus Notions refer to conceptual categories such as time, sequence, quantity, location, and frequency, while communicative functions refer to language actions like requests, denials, offers, and complaints.
In 1981, a communication language syllabus based on the notional syllabus was developed, comprising situations, language activities, language functions, notions, and language form Consequently, the design of the foreign language syllabus emphasized learner-centered and communication-oriented language instruction, as described by Richards and Rodgers (1986).
C o m m u n icativ e L anguage T each in g starts w ith a theory o f language as co m m unication and its goal is to d evelop learners’ com m unicative com petence Sheils
( 1988, p 1) defines C om m unicative L anguage T eaching as follow s:
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a learner-centered approach that motivates students to learn the target language by building on their existing knowledge and experiences It engages learners by focusing on relevant themes and by offering choice in selecting texts and tasks that meet the aims and objectives of the syllabus As learners successfully complete meaningful communicative tasks, their communicative competence grows, providing satisfaction and boosting self-confidence.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) centers on developing learners’ ability and willingness to use the target language for real, effective communication, with a focus on appropriate, accurate language use in meaningful contexts The approach prioritizes understanding, negotiating meaning, and expressing ideas, with the learning of structures and vocabulary supporting this communicative aim.
F ollow ing is a discussion on the ch aracteristics o f the C om m unicative Language
T eaching A pproach to m ake further sense o f C om unicative L anguage Teaching.
R esearch projects on the ch aracteristics o f th e com m unicative approach have been carried out by m any researchers such as R ichards and R odgers (1986), Freem an
(1986), N unan (1991) In th is section, three characteristics proposed by Freem an
(1986) w ill be exam ined and analyzed in detail because they are the focus on com m unication, the use o f auth en tic m aterials and the use o f group/pair work.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) places communication at its core, shaping classroom activities to enable learners to convey meaning and interact effectively in the target language Freeman (1986) notes that the most obvious hallmark of the communicative approach is that nearly everything students do is driven by a communicative intent, prioritizing authentic language use over isolated grammar drills.
Communication has long stood as the central objective of most language teaching approaches Yet the path to that objective has frequently been assumed to run through mastering grammar and vocabulary—i.e., achieving linguistic competence By contrast, the communicative approach prioritizes real-world use, arguing that the route to effective communication is the development of learners’ communicative competence, a broader mastery that includes linguistic skills and extends beyond them.
Savignon (1997) describes communication as an ongoing process of expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning, a view that frames classroom talk as a real-time activity essential for learners In this framework, classroom communication should function as a novice phase that equips learners to engage in authentic interaction beyond the classroom Richards and Lockhart (1994) argue that the classroom is the primary environment for using the target language, and the kind of language learners are exposed to there strongly influences language development Therefore, the target language should be used in the classroom as much as possible through communicative activities such as games, role-plays, and problem-solving tasks (Freeman, 1986).
Communicative activities are essential for developing students’ communicative competence, as they use language to achieve real purposes and give learners a chance to express their attitudes, feelings, emotions, and concerns creatively By focusing on meaning rather than form, these tasks help students concentrate on what they are saying rather than how they say it They also provide opportunities to adapt to real-life demands, practicing improvisation, paraphrasing, and self-correction—the kinds of unpredictability characteristic of natural language use outside the classroom.
A ctivities that are truly com m unicativc, according to M orrow (Johnson & M orrow ,
1981), have three features: inform ation gap, choice, and feedback.
An information gap exists when one participant in an exchange holds knowledge that others do not Johnson and Morrow (1981) asserted that the concept of information gap appears to be one of the most fundamental ideas in the field of communication, highlighting how asymmetric knowledge shapes how people interact and understand each other.
Effective language teaching relies on activities that genuinely promote student communication Any exercise or procedure claiming to engage learners in dialogue should actively support that goal A primary job of the teacher is to create authentic learning situations that reveal information gaps and motivate students to bridge them through appropriate interaction and collaboration When tasks are designed around real communicative needs, learners practice language in context, build fluency, and develop better comprehension.
In communication, the speaker has the freedom to decide what to say and how to say it When an exercise is so tightly controlled that learners can only respond in one predetermined way, the speaker has no genuine choice, and the exchange ceases to be truly communicative.
Feedback is a vital part of communication, signaling to the speaker whether their utterance was understood as intended and clarifying the criteria for understanding during a given interaction For example, if someone asks, "Did you go out last night?", the feedback might be "Did you go out last night?" or "Yes, I did."
Language teaching should balance attention to form and attention to meaning: one phase draws learners’ focus to linguistic form, while another emphasizes semantic meaning The design of activities determines the kind of feedback that is appropriate, with teachers selecting feedback that aligns with the specific task goals According to Littlewood (1981), teachers should monitor the feedback learners receive—from either the teacher or peers—to ensure it supports the activity’s methodological purpose.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is characterized by a focus on real communication, achieved through interactive, communicative activities such as games, role-plays, and problem-solving tasks This approach emphasizes meaningful language use over rote memorization, inviting learners to negotiate meaning, engage in authentic conversations, and develop practical speaking and listening skills in real-life contexts.
The second characteristic of Communicative Language Teaching, introduced by Freeman (1986) and supported by researchers such as Nunan (1991), Reid (1995), and Widdowson (1996), is the use of authentic materials Freeman (1986) argued that it is desirable to give students opportunities to develop strategies for understanding language as it is actually used by native speakers.
S U B JE C T S O F T H E S T U D Y
The study involved twelve English teachers—four men and eight women—who teach Basic English to first-year students across majors such as garment technology, fashion designing, accounting, banking and finance, business administration, marketing, and CTC, as well as English for Special Purpose to third-year students (English for Garment Technology, English for Banking, English for Economics) Their ages ranged from 26 to 39, and all held a BA degree.
E nglish L anguage and C ertificate o f T eaching M ethodology, 6 o f them finished post g raduate stu d ies at H anoi U niversity and C ollege o f Foreign L anguages - V ietnam
N ational U niversity T h e teachers have at least 3 years o f teaching experience
Most of the teachers began teaching immediately after finishing university and have never used English in real-life contexts Only those who completed postgraduate studies were presented with CLT training None of them had participated in any CLT workshops They were asked to complete a questionnaire, which is described later, and the information from their answers was checked through classroom observations Two teachers were selected for the classroom observations The teachers’ performance is documented on a class observation sheet.
A llw right and B ailey (1991) m entioned that th e researcher m ight v iew th e learners as
“passive o bscrvees” o r “actively involved participants” in respect o f the study plan
T herefore, students arc treated as a factor w hich has influence on the subjects They m ajor in G arm ent T echnology and Fashion D esigning T hey are aged from 18 to 20
English is a compulsory subject in their curriculum For a long time, classes have focused primarily on grammar, with insufficient attention to overall language skills or pronunciation As a result, many learners feel comfortable taking paper-based tests that mainly measure grammar and vocabulary, while their understanding of phonology—such as linking words and intonation—remains limited.
T he lim itation in pronunciation and repertoire o f vocabulary in accom pany w ith the lack o f ideas to produce discussion m akes them speak English w ith undue hesitation.
D A T A C O L L E C T IO N IN S T R U M E N T S
P R O C E D U R E S
S ectio n 1 (q u e stio n s from 1 to 4 )
All of the teachers have at least three years of English teaching experience, and seven have more than eight years This substantial tenure has enabled them to accumulate extensive experience teaching English to diverse learners across a variety of contexts.
Six teachers w ho finished po st grad u ate study on teaching m ethodology had been presented C L T but the rest had not N one o f them have attended any w orkshops on
Although the aim is to improve students' ability to communicate, many classrooms still rely mostly on the Grammar-Translation method This contradiction arises from grammar-based test pressures, student anxiety and expectations, and a lack of teaching equipment, which together push teachers to favor form-focused, test-centered instruction over genuine communicative practice.
All the teachers reported that they had never attended workshops or training courses on CLT to enrich their knowledge of Communicative Language Teaching Only some claimed an understanding of CLT's principles and characteristics, while the rest admitted that this was the first time they had heard of CLT.
A lthough C L T cam e into bein g and h as been developed since 1990s, this m ethod o f teaching language is till n ew an d far from the know ledge o f teachers not only in
V ietnam but also in m any other A sian countries, especially in rem ote area.
Although it remains unclear whether teachers fully understand CLT, this was assessed through their responses to the following questions Table 1 presents the answers to Question 5 of the questionnaire, which investigates teachers’ views on communicative language teaching (CLT).
According to Table 1, all teachers view Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) as student-centered and linked to genuine, realistic situations They also believe CLT prioritizes fluency over accuracy However, 83.3 percent of teachers questioned agree that
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is often viewed as a method focused on developing listening and speaking, but Richard and Rodgers (1986, p 80) argued that "communicative principles can be applied to the teaching of any skill, at any level." This perspective emphasizes that the core ideas of CLT—meaningful interaction, authentic contexts, and real communication—can guide instruction across all language skills and proficiency levels, not just oral ones.
Survey results indicate the approach is student-centered (100%) and prioritizes fluency over accuracy (100%), with its primary use in teaching listening and speaking skills (83.3%) It is not typically used for teaching grammar (25%), yet it is closely linked to genuine, realistic situations (100%), and it emphasizes meaningful tasks over focusing on language itself (25%).
The communicative approach is not limited to oral skills; to promote students’ confidence in all four language skills, reading and writing should be developed as well By using elements encountered in many different ways—reading, summarizing, translating, discussion, and debates—language becomes more fluid and students’ manipulation of it more fluent According to Larsen-Freeman (1986), students work on all four skills from the beginning, and meaning negotiation occurs not only between speakers and listeners but also between writers and readers The writer does not receive immediate feedback from the reader, but the reader tries to understand what the writer means, and the writer writes with the reader’s perspective in mind Therefore, meaning does not reside exclusively in the text but arises through negotiation between reader and writer, which shows that CLT is not limited to listening and speaking.
Only three of twelve teachers agreed with the view in questions 5d and 5f that grammar should not be taught and that instruction should focus on meaningful tasks rather than language itself It is argued that successful communication cannot take place without structure, grammar, shared assumptions about how language works, and participants’ willingness to cooperate in meaning negotiation Grammar should not be neglected but presented to learners in the classroom However, research shows that grammar plays a crucial role in language learning and is best addressed when it relates to learners’ communicative needs and experiences (Lightbown & Spada, 1993).
Grammar can still be taught, but not as systematically as in traditional methods; today, educators are adopting more innovative approaches that blend form-focused instruction with communicative goals Recognizing that effective communication depends on grammar and that many teachers are influenced by traditional teaching methods, the grammar-translation approach persists and shapes their views, with many teachers disagreeing with the claim that communicative language teaching (CLT) does not teach grammar.
Littlewood (1981) notes that one of the defining features of communicative language teaching is its systematic attention to both the functional use of language and its structural aspects In this approach, a product is defined as any piece of comprehensible information, whether written, spoken, or presented in a non-linguistic form.
T he product, then result from su ccessful com pletion o f tasks” B rum fit and Johnson
Fluency in the communicative process develops only through task-based teaching that provides real meaning by focusing on tasks mediated through language, and success or failure is judged by whether those tasks are performed Thus, 75% of teachers did not understand the nature of CLT when they denied that CLT focuses on meaningful tasks rather than on language itself This situation is not surprising, because the majority of teachers have little knowledge about CLT and have had no opportunity to attend a CLT workshop.
Icy conccpts, principles and characteristics Strongly agree
Agree I ’nccrtain Disagree Strongly disagree
No % No % No % No % No %
Grammar correctness is the most important criterion by which inguage performance should he judged.
7 58.3 2 16.6 3 25 i Ciroup work activities are essential in providing opportunities for co- ằperative relationship to emerge and in promoting genuine interaction m o n g students.
For students to become effective communicators in foreign language, he teachers' feedback must be focused on the appropriateness and not he linguistic form o f the students' response.
1 The learner-centered approach to language teaching encourages
Csponsibility and self-discipline and allows each student to develop lis/her full potential.
Group work allows students to explore problems for themselves and
Jius have some measures o f control over their ow n learning It is hcrcforc an invaluable means o f organizing classroom experiences.
10 83.3 2 16.6 r The teacher should correct all the grammatical errors student make, f errors arc ignored, this w ill result in imperfect learning.
7 58.3 2 16.6 3 25 g It is impossible in a large H a ss o f students to organize your teaching
as to suit the needs o f all.
9 75 3 25 l Group work activities take loo long to organize and waste a lot o f valuable teaching lime.
The communicativc approach to language teaching produces (luenl nil in accurate learners.
B y mastering tiie rules o f grammar, students become fully capable o f communicating wilh another.
6 50 3 25 3 25 c The role o f the teacher in the language classroom is to impart knowledge through activities such as explanation, writing, and example.
Tasks and activities should be negotiated and adapted to suit the students’ needs rather than imposed on them.
8 66.6 4 33.3 n Group work activities have little use since it is very difficult for the eacher to monitor the students' performance and prevent them from
2 16.6 8 66.6 2 16.6 n A textbook alone is not able to cater for all the needs and interests o f he students ITic teacher must supplement the textbook with other.
Survey results show that 58.3% of teachers agree with statements 6a and 6.1, namely that grammatical correctness is the most important criterion by which language performance should be judged and that teachers should correct all grammatical errors students make, since ignoring errors leads to imperfect learning; 50% of teachers believe that by mastering grammar rules students become fully capable of communicating with others These data indicate that grammar plays the most important and decisive role in traditional CLT for more than half of teachers Yet Finochiaro and Brumfit (1983, p.34) argue that the audio-lingual approach emphasizes structure and form over meaning, whereas in CLT meaning is paramount, so meaningful language use is a key criterion for success in learning Regarding question 6f, most people—both teachers and learners—associated with the traditional teaching method think errors lead to learning failure and should not be tolerated; Chaudron (1983) counters this by arguing that hypothesis testing is part of learners’ development and that mistakes should be viewed as positive Reinforcing this view, Edge (1989) suggests language errors should be seen as learning steps from which learners actively construct rules by trying them out and testing their language during the learning process.
S upporters o f C L T advocate that it’s not necessary to correct all gram m atical m istak es, the m ain aim o f language learning is to receive and convey m eaningful m essag es and co rrection should be focused on m istakes that interfere w ith th is aim , not o n th e inaccuracies o f usage (Ur, 1996) In sum m ary, m istakes are a natural part o f language learning T he corrections w hich help students talk and express them selves sh o u ld b e noted b y teachers and given to students as a w hole at the end o f the lesson, and th u s form o f language becom es secondary T his v iew encourages students to use language m ore creatively, spontaneously and actively; they are also released from p ressu re o f rules an d m istakes they m ay m ake.
R elated to tea c h e rs’ correction in classroom s, only 25% o f the teachers support the idea that “ for students to becom e effective com m unicators in the foreign language, the teach ers' feedback m u st be focused on th e appropriateness and not the linguistic form o f the stu d e n ts' resp o n se" (question 6.c), w hile 50% o f them disagree w ith this This inform ation show s that for teachers, language form plays very im portant role and they spend m uch tim e for it M oreover, teachers them selves also have no chance to com m unicate in E nglish ou tsid e the classro o m , so the concept o f "appropriateness" is som etim es far from w h at they know