International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 7, No.

3; 2017
ISSN 1923-869X E-ISSN 1923-8703
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Making Communicative Language Teaching Work in Pakistan

Abdul Hameed Panhwar1, Shahnaz Baloch2 & Sanam Khan3
1
Institute of English Language and Literature, University of Sindh, Jamshoro, Pakistan
2
Karachi University Business School, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan
3
Govt. Nazareth Girls Degree College, Pakistan
Correspondence: Abdul Hameed Panhwar, Institute of English Language and Literature, University of Sindh,
Jamshoro, Pakistan. E-mail: hameed.panhwar@usindh.edu.pk

Received: November 26, 2016 Accepted: March 28, 2017 Online Published: April 13, 2017
doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n3p226 URL: http://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n3p226

Abstract
This paper examines communicative language teaching (CLT) and its significance in terms of language teaching
and learning. The actual purpose of the paper is to explore the causes of failure of CLT in Pakistan and other
developing countries in order to suggest the ways to make it successfully effective in the context. It is found that
contextual problems such as overuse of traditional methods of teaching such as lecturing and large classes
always come into clash with the use of CLT in the developing countries such as Pakistan because CLT is in fact a
method developed and used in the developed countries where the contextual issues found in the educational
institutes are rare as compared to developing countries.
Keywords: CLT, methods, lecturing, issues, adaptation, situational analysis
1. Introduction
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a widely implemented teaching approach in the field of language
teaching in developed countries. Conversely, Sakui (2004) argues that its application in developing countries is
rare. CLT represents the western learning values and principles; therefore, it always comes into clash with local
learning environment of developing countries. Furthermore, CLT is the field that lacks empirical research and is
more or less based on the concepts and activities mentioned by its pioneers and founders. The research so far
conducted on CLT is based on teachers’ and learners’ views and perception of CLT and observation (e.g., Nunan,
1987; Wyatt, 2009; Xue, 2013). Nevertheless, very few studies have made an attempt to empirically test CLT.
However, there are some studies which have tested some CLT approaches anyway and found effective results
(Bughio, 2013; Shamim et al., 2007). Despite the fact that these studies claim that group work enhanced student
communication and language learning, these studies faced management issues. This paper is an attempt to
explore if the socio-culturally adapted CLT strategies such as cooperative learning could improve student
communicative competence and help teachers solve the management issues in large ESL classes.
2. Importance of CLT
The purpose of CLT is to develop students’ language communicative proficiency. Communicative competence or
proficiency includes the capability through which a student can use all the four skills i.e. speaking, writing,
reading and listening. Therefore, Hymes (1972, p. 63) argues that communicative proficiency is “the overall
underlying knowledge and ability for language which the speaker-listener possesses.” Communicative
competence requires from learners the understanding of the target language and the aptitude to use that
understanding contextually. To support this argument, Littlewood (1984, p. 1) debates that CLT “pays systematic
attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language, combining these into more fully communicative
view”. Communicative activities assist students become skilled in interaction and communication with others in
their use of any foreign language. On the other hand, conventional activities authorises the teacher to teach,
whereas, communicative activities place the students at the center and marginalises the role of teacher.
3. Background
3.1 English Language Teaching and Learning in Pakistan
The role of English as an international language, language of research, science and technology, trade,
communication and offices is indispensably evident in Pakistan. English language has become indispensable and

226
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

ever-growing necessity for socio-economic development (Mansoor, 2004). As a result, it has been introduced as
a compulsory subject from primary schools to higher education institutes like colleges and universities in
Pakistan. However, English language has been used as a lingua franca since the independence of Pakistan; the
conditions for English Language teaching-learning in Pakistan are not favourable. Warsi (2004) argues that
although English is taught as a compulsory subject from class first, students, particularly from rural areas, cannot
communicate in English easily. They feel deficient in all four language skills. The main reason behind this
situation about teaching-learning in Pakistan is that the techniques used to teach English language are not
communicatively up to the mark. English is taught in Pakistan as a second language or foreign language. Some
people speak Urdu (National Language) as their mother tongue; English becomes as a second language for them,
but the people with other languages such as Sindhi, Pashtu, Punjabi etc. as their mother tongues, English
becomes as a foreign language for them because Urdu works as a second language for them (Warsi, 2004).
Ahmad et al. (2011) debate that in spite of its being claimed second language of Pakistan, the syllabi of English
language in Pakistan do not meet the specific curricular goals. The teachers are not trained and are not armed
with modern teaching equipment; the majority of teachers use outdated teaching methods and contextually
irrelevant textbooks to teach English as a foreign or second language. Examinations to assess English Language
proficiency is entirely flawed and does not include the modern efficient evaluation and assessment methods
(Warsi, 2004).
3.2 English in Higher Education
In all higher education institutes such as colleges and universities, medium of instruction is English for all
subjects excluding subjects related to Languages (Rahman, 2004; Mashori, 2010). English is also taught as a
major subject in the form of Language and literature and as a compulsory subject in Pakistani universities and
colleges. However, teachers of English in these higher education institutes do not follow the required ELT based
communicative methods of teaching and continue with the traditional lecture teaching style through which they
themselves were taught (Raja, 2012). Universities in Pakistan have achieved greater scope in terms of English
teaching. Both private and public universities offer multiple courses of English language such functional English,
TESOL (Teaching of English to the Speakers of other Language), TEFL (Teaching of English as a Foreign
Language), ESP (English for Specific Purposes) and EAP (English for Academic purposes). Some private
universities also provide students pre-sessional English courses exclusively. In public universities ESL or
Functional English courses are taught to remedy students’ weak English, because the majority of students in
public universities come from vernacular medium or non-elite English medium schools. Therefore,
ESL/Functional English courses are considered to be important to enable students to meet the requirements of
higher education (Rahman, 1999; Mansoor, 2003).
In Public universities, the courses of English language are offered largely at the undergraduate level including
some courses at the postgraduate level in particular departments, i.e., Business and public management sciences.
These courses are conducted by the institute of English in other departments and institutes in the general
universities. These universities also hire visiting faculty to teach English compulsory and the permanent teachers
are supposed to teach English Literature or Linguistics to the students of major subjects. A prescribed syllabus of
English is taught to the undergraduate students. In the professional universities, the English language programme
is controlled by the departments concerned or the faculty concerned. In the English language programmes of
professional universities, teachers design the course for English themselves. The assessment and evaluation of
the courses focuses content and information e.g., difficulties in communication or features a good paragraph
writing practical skills of language (Shamim, 2011).
Moreover, one the most disturbing issues that keeps students of vernacular medium/government run institutes
worried in developing countries is large classes. English language teaching in large classes of vernacular or
government English medium schools, colleges and universities is negatively affected. Large classes create so
many constraints which make the process of teaching and learning English language difficult for teachers and
students. For students, the course content becomes useless and meaningless due to the large number of students
in the class. The teachers become unable to use appropriate and interactive teaching methods in such large
classes, therefore they normally pass time instead of teaching properly and meeting the needs of students' interest
and knowledge. The greatest number of the teachers of large classes agrees that large classes are a serious
problem (Shamim, 1993). In the context of Pakistani colleges usually classes are very large of around more than
a hundred students in a class. The students in these classes are mostly of multi-level and heterogeneous in regard
to their mental abilities and socio-economic backgrounds therefore and it becomes exceedingly problematic to
gratify them with the help of outdated teaching techniques. The huge size of classes leaves no or tremendously
little opportunity for teacher-student interaction. In such a large class the teacher performs as an authoritative

227
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

ruler rather than a facilitator (Raja, 2012). It is normally found by the researchers that the traditional lecture
method of teaching curtails students’ cognitive development (Raja, 2012). Therefore, there is a need of
developing a more appropriate teaching methodology that may address large English language classes’ problems
more effectively. This paper has been aimed to address the problems of large university English classes at the
UoSJP.
However, these compulsory classes cannot achieve goals as desired in spite of Pakistani universities offering
English language support. The main reason is argued to be traditional teaching activities in these universities
(Khan, 1997; Warsi, 2004; Bughio, 2013). Lecturing-method to teach English is used excessively which is not a
very effective approach to teach and learn English. There is clear evidence that, for language teaching and
learning, communicative language teaching methods should be used. Savignon (2002) and Richards (2006) argue
that these methods engage learners in the process of language learning by keenly practising the target language
for interactive purposes. The majority of language teachers in Pakistani universities do not adopt interactive
teaching-learning methods. On the other hand, they reproduce outdated lecture-style instruction they experienced
as students (Shamim, 2011; Raja, 2012; Bughio, 2013).
It is debated that teachers lecture to avoid management problems which are caused by the use of interactive
methods in such large classes (Naidu et al., 1992; Jimakorn & Singhasiri, 2006). Despite the fact that
lecture-style teaching does not create interactive environment in class, instructors opine that its use at least help
control classroom management issues. However, Naidu et al. (1992) and Jimakorn & Singhasiri (2006) reason
that collaborative methods like team work create disorganised circumstances where it becomes almost
impossible for teachers to control learners from moving about and off-task chatting. Larger classes create greater
disruption. A large number of learners produce more noise and it becomes extremely difficult to organise
students into teams, which wastes much time and can cause substantial confusion. Teachers in large classes
become unable to engage students through student-student and student-teacher interaction in the English learning
process which is the basic objective of CLT.
4. Critical Review and Analysis
4.1 Student Engagement
The utmost significant feature of CLT is to improve communication and interaction among students in class
(Allwright, 1984). This environment of interaction in the classroom offers a vital and resourceful podium for
transferring classroom knowledge to the external world. Thus, learners practice their learning not only in the
class, but also outside the class. Therefore, communicative language teaching activities should be designed not
only to emphasise communication in the classroom, but these should also stimulate real life communication
problems. Classroom interaction is not normally a sufficient aim of CLT. It should commonly be managed to
enhance communication for outside the real world (Allwright, 1984). The teachers need to provide learners with
real life like situation and communicative strategies that help them use language under a certain situation where
learners can contextualize and negotiate meaning depending on the situation (Swan, 1985). Social interaction
among students through group/pair work further expedites language learning process by providing learners open
platform to practice language through discussion and reflection.
The real life communicative activities help bridge the gap between classroom and outside world communication.
We learn by communicating, especially in language learning, where it is used as means of communication in
solving communication problems. Communicative learning in the classroom aims at enhancing student
involvement (Allwright, 1984). Student engagement and involvement is necessary for developing student
achievement and oral fluency in language. According to Allwright (1984), Savignon (2002) and Sharan (2011)
reason that Language learning always needs a communicative environment where student-student and
student-teacher communication is regular. Communicative environment not only improves provides
opportunities for the problem-solving process through one-to-one interaction, but it also command of the target
language is strengthened (Allwright, 1984). Similarly, Savignon (2002, p. 6) argues “It is essential that learners
be engaged in doing things with language—that is, that they use language for a variety of purposes in all phases
of learning” (Savignon, 2002, p. 6).
4.2 Role of CLT in Pakistan and Developing Countries
Unfortunately, the phenomenon of large ESL classes in developing countries like Pakistan makes it almost
impossible for learners to enhance their language skills through engagement in interaction. Due to the large size
of classes and the frequent use of the traditional lecture method by teachers, students seldom get opportunities to
engage in interactive activities with one another. Consequently, students fail to enhance friendly and constructive
cooperation through which they not only can learn, cooperate and enhance one another’s knowledge, but they

228
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

also can develop their communicative language and social-interpersonal skills.

Therefore, the present paper aims to find ways through which CLT can be used to enhance student engagement
in large ESL classes because it is extremely important for language learning (e.g., Kuchah & Richard, 2011;
Todd, 2006). Through the traditional lecture-style in classrooms, students are chiefly taught language rules, not
how to use or practice language. Thus, they only learn the linguistic rules of the target language rather than the
ways to adopt it communicatively to express thoughts both in written and orally. In traditional teaching styles,
the student is primarily a passive recipient of knowledge (Nunan, 1999, p. 72). For better learning of language,
students need to “learn language as communication, not just as a list of facts to be memorized or set of symbols
to be manipulated”. Language learning should begin from active practice of the target language and involve
interactive learning strategies.
Student engagement with one another and in learning processes and procedures through interactive activities is a
prime requirement for language learning. Students are unable to achieve the desired level of Language
proficiency and skills unless they practice it through interaction (Nunan, 1999; Ur, 2004; Harmer, 2007). Content
learning also require interaction and student engagement, but in the case of language, it is the most important
element. In content learning focus is on learning content only, whereas, in language learning, firstly, interaction
should be focussed and then content (Todd, 2006, pp. 1-2).
4.3 Learner Autonomy
CLT method such as Group/pair work liberates learners from unnecessarily excessive dependence on the teacher
(Sakui, 2004). They, thus, become responsible their own learning. This further enhances their motivation level.
CLT offers learners’ autonomy in their learning. The teacher only can perform as facilitator and inform about and
organise communicative activities. His role is to motivate not to control learners. “If we look at foreign language
learning as it occurs in the natural environment, it also becomes clear that these processes can work without any
teacher at all, so long as the environment provides the necessary stimuli and experience.” Communicative skills
better develop when learners feel motivated and have opportunity to express their own individuality and
associate themselves with the people around them (Littlewood, 1984, p. 92). CLT thus requires a learning
environment which provides them with a feeling of security and value as individuals.
The language-learning process is not likely to be restricted to the classroom setting. Najeeb (2013) argues that
language learning needs ever-lasting effort both in and outside the classroom. Therefore, CLT requires from the
teacher train learners in order to take responsibility for their learning, thus establishing learner autonomy. For
language teaching and learning, making students independent learners is important and is likely to be positive;
he/she becomes independent learner and user of the target language, not only in the class but also in the real
world. Thus, it can be argued that learner autonomy may be established in the classroom setting with an
objective that it may extend beyond it (Najeeb, 2013). An autonomous learner as the one who should understand
his/her learning practices and activities, actively involves himself/herself in the learning task at hand, is always
prepared to take risks. He/she does his/her homework no matter if it is evaluated or not and values precision and
appropriateness (Thanasoulas, 2000).
On the contrary, the case with large ESL classes seems to be the reverse in Pakistani universities. Large classes
are more likely to reduce students’ engagement with the teacher and with one another. In the context of language
learning, interaction and student engagement is extremely important. However, in developing countries, for
language learning even in small classes, the focus is more likely on content/course learning which may have the
least impact on students’ skill development such as speaking, writing, reading and listening (Kumar, 1992;
Shamim, 1993; Bughio, 2013). Both small and large classes taught through student-centered approaches such as
group work enhance student engagement, interaction and teacher feedback. On the contrary, as Kumar (1992)
discusses that the classes in which teacher-centered methods are used, have the opposite effect. For the
enhancement of student engagement, group work has not only been recommended, but it also has been
empirically shown to be a useful method in large language classes (Nunan & Lamb, 1996; Harmer, 2007;
Kuchah & Richard, 2011; Bughio, 2013). Group activities enhance student talking time and engagement.
Interaction in small groups enhances students’ practice in communicating and negotiating meanings, building
positive rapport, and upholding dialogue (Sakui, 2004; Coskun, 2011). Hence, group-learning develops social
positive interdependence in students and keeps them prepared to control themselves (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
4.4 Empirical Evidence
Empirical evidence shows that student involvement in language-learning processes has positive correlation with
student academic achievement and skill development. Nystrand & Gamoran (1991), for example, found, through
teacher-student questionnaires, tests and classroom observation of 58 classes of 16 USA middle schools, that

229
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

student engagement positively affected student achievement. He argues on the basis of the findings that when
students engage with substance and topics of their learning more substantively, their cognition and achievement
are more likely to be enhanced. Collaborative engagement in learning tasks may best facilitate students with
substantive engagement where students and teachers may engage in open discussion. Carini, Kuh, & Klein (2006)
examined tests (RAND, GRE and SAT) and conducted Survey (NSSE) from the sample consisted of 1058
students at 14 US colleges and universities. Generally, the findings suggest that engagement is positively
associated with desirable learning outcomes such as critical thinking and grades. However, the relationships
between engagement and academic performance were not as strong as expected. Colonel, Altunay, &
Yurdabakan (2012) conducted different reading comprehension tests developed by University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES) from 182 participants to judge the effects of CLT. The participants were
enrolled at TuAF NCO College in 2005-2006. The researchers found that the group engaged in CLT-learning
techniques showed significant improvement in reading comprehension achievement. Similarly, Donato’s (1994)
observational study showed collaborative learning seems to result in the improvement of language competence
of students. In Swain & Lapkin (1998) the communicative undertakings which involved learners significantly
improved student learning. In addition, Tsou (2005) conducted an experimental study through questionnaires,
tests and participation turns in a Taiwanese university. Both qualitative and quantitative data showed that
engagement and interaction through communicative activities improved the treatment group’s language skills
especially speaking skills.
4.5 Problems of Implementation in Other Contexts
Although CLT has been considered as an essential approach for establishing communicative situation of
everyday life and developing communicative competence, its adoption in developing countries is not frequent.
Coskun (2011) found that apart from the political, language policy, infrastructural, and other economic factors,
perhaps, the most affecting factor is its clash with local culture of learning. Traditional teaching methods, which
expect students to be submissive and passive in the classroom, are the main cultural factor that negatively
influences CLT’s application in developing countries. Sakui (2004) and Hiep (2007) conclude that pedagogical
approaches grow from social and cultural situated contexts. Therefore, if any of these approaches is used in the
context where it was not established, can be challenging in another totally different context.
Following problems are found to be faced by teachers in various countries by “Li (1998) in Korea, Carless (2004)
in Hong Kong, Hu (2005) in China, Hiep (2007) in Vietnam, Nishino & Watanabe (2008) in Japan, Jeon (2009)
and Orafi & Borg (2009) in Libya. See also surveys of a range of East Asian countries in Ho & Wong (2004) and
Butler (2011) by teachers during the implementation of CLT” (Littlewood, 2013, p. 5):
 “Difficulties with classroom management, especially with large classes, and teachers” resulting fear that they
may lose control;
 New organizational skills required by some activities such as pair or group work;
 Students’ inadequate language proficiency, which may lead them to use the mother tongue (or only minimal
English) rather than trying to “stretch” their English competence;
 Excessive demands on teachers’ own language skills, if they themselves have had limited experience of
communicating in English;
 Common conceptions that formal learning must involve item-by-item progression through a syllabus rather
than the less observable holistic learning that occurs in communication;
 Common conceptions that the teacher’s role is to transmit knowledge rather than act as a facilitator of
learning and supporter of autonomy;
 The negative “washback” effect of public examinations based on pencil-and-paper tests which focus on
discrete items and do not prioritize communication; Resistance from students and parents, who fear that important
examination results may suffer as a result of the new approach.
4.6 Significance of Contextual Adaptation in CLT
CLT should not be considered as a ready-made prescribed set of package of classroom techniques. Teachers in
developing countries like Pakistan “need to make further efforts to develop and generate, within the
communicative approach, classroom techniques appropriate to their condition” (Hiep, 2007, p. 200). Kramsch &
Sullivan (1996) debate that the way CLT is adopted in London might not be practicable in Hanoi. Littlewood (2013)
argues that to address the issues of CLT in classrooms in different contexts is that more operative methods should
be discovered that focus on group work in order to direct and support autonomous interaction, even in the absence

230
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

of direct involvement of the teacher. “Techniques in cooperative learning (e.g., Littlewood, 2009) are an avenue
for exploration” Littlewood (2013) argues that “top-down approaches, in which policy-makers and other “experts”
legislate on how language is best taught, have lost their validity”. Every teacher is an expert professional in his/her
own specific context. However, s/he can also draw understanding from other people (theorists as well as teachers)
and examine them in the context. In a nutshell, the investigation for effective pedagogical approaches and
principles, it is imperative that “theory, research and practice work together on a basis of equality”.
Similarly, it is of utmost importance that teachers in Pakistani university need to look into the contextual issues and
adapt and adopt CLT methods. Using CLT methods straight away without contextual adaptation is likely to create
issues of management and discipline. For example, Hiep (2007) conducted study on the three teachers to explore
how ESL they perceive and use CLT in the context of Vietnam. All these teachers underscored the potential
effectiveness of CLT and stressed that CLT chiefly was a method of teaching learners the language meaningfully
for their future life, and assisting them to enhance the classroom environment. These teachers expressed that the
main objective of CLT was to create meaningful communication to support the learning process. They indicated
that the activities based on such as role play and group or pair works the main components of CLT. However, these
teachers faced difficulties in using these activities because they did not adapt the activities contextually and
“appeared to lack confidence or skills to generate independent CLT practices” (Hiep, 2007, p. 198). For example,
one teacher unconsciously retained her authority during group work and another teacher found it difficult to group
students in the class because grouping them created chaotic situation due to a large number of students. Therefore,
it is always necessary that before adopting CLT methods, teachers need to adapt them.
Ho & Wong (2004, p. xxxiv) argue: “there has been much criticism of an unquestioning acceptance of CLT
techniques in ELT in this [East Asian] region and of the varying practices of CLT”. Hiep (2007, p. 196) similarly
states that although “teachers in many parts of the world may reject the CLT techniques transferred from the West”,
“it is doubtful that they reject the spirit of CLT”. He further argues that this spirit is that learning appears to take
place when classroom processes are made factual and expressive for learners and that the goal is to teach learners
“to be able to use the language effectively for their communicative needs”. Thus, CLT may continue to deliver a
theoretical framework focusing firstly on orienting our instructions towards students’ communicative goals and
secondly, planning evocative experiences which direct towards these goals. Following this modus operandi,
teachers and teacher-trainers now emphasise “not adopting CLT but on adapting it to suit the context where
English is taught” (Littlewood, 2013, pp. 6-7).
4.7 Situational Analysis
The implementation of CLT cannot be given up in other countries (other than it is originated) because it conflicts
with cultures (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Rejecting new and active pedagogical methods of language is to disregard
progress in language teaching (Hiep, 2007). The overall argument about the CLT approach reinforces the
position of CLT as a very operative technique of language teaching and learning. It is, therefore, supported that
CLT’s implementation should be extended rather than dismissed. CLT, if not used in an exactly similar way as it
in western countries, perhaps as Littlewood (1984) reasons, with some adaptation and innovation, it can also
produce anticipated effects in other cultures and countries. The teacher can always adapt the text into smaller
communicative sections and teach them through various contextually adapted communicative strategies.
Literature suggests the analysis of situation and the adaptation of CLT methods according to the situation
requirements (e.g., Richards, 1990; West, 1994; Khan, 2007; Savignon, 1991). The situational analysis can offer
an insight into teacher-learner perceptions which can help familiarise programme of language learning to their
contextual needs (Richards, 1990). Thus, it may also encourage teachers and learners to own improvements and
innovations. In order to identify the incompatibility between the theory and practice, the teachers’ and learners’
views need to be explored (Savignon, 1991). For the proper implementation of CLT, the most important factor
would be to change teachers’ behaviour towards and perception of CLT (Coskun, 2011).
Moreover, for effective and successful implementation of CLT, it is also necessary that its use is continued and
practiced permanently in other contexts. Wyatt (2009) observed a teacher’s behaviour and teaching for three
years and found she developed the skills for CLT implementation to a considerably great extent. In her very first
classes, she used more closed-ended tasks inviting individual students to solve with least efforts on their
reasoning and reflection which she considered CLT activities. However, later, with the passage of time, she
started to use CLT activities like group/pair work and role plays with more open-ended tasks inviting students’
reasoning and reflections. Continuity in the use of CLT tasks not only develops teachers’ CLT skill, but this also
develops students’ interest and attitudes towards CLT. For example, Xue (2013, p. 6) that, with the
permanent/longer use of CLT, students’ attitudes towards CLT activities underwent gradually improved. Thus,

231
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

CLT activities always need time to get fused with other cultures, the new practitioners need to be consistent.
5. Conclusion
This article looks into the uses and importance of CLT in language pedagogy. It is an attempt to expose CLT into
Pakistani higher education institutes. It describes and discusses the present status of English language teaching
and learning in Pakistan and other developing countries. It aims to explore the causes of failure of CLT
approaches such as group work or cooperative learning in Pakistan and establishes that CLT is not an approach
that is universally designed to be adopted in all countries of the world. However, CLT is found to be an approach
that CLT needs adaptations according to the constraints of contexts where it is implemented.
Pakistani teachers need to consider the cultural and contextual aspects and adapt CLT accordingly. Since there is
trend of teaching English through traditional teaching methods such as lecturing due the contextual constraints
such as large classes and lack of training, the language teachers in Pakistani universities are suggested to
investigate their situations and circumstances and adapt CLT techniques instead of using them straight away.
This attitude of teachers may improve the present scenario of English language teaching in universities and may
help students engage in learning processes and take responsibility of their learning. Since learners in universities
are adults and mature, they could easily get trained to become autonomous through the use of different CLT
methods such as cooperative learning.
References
Ahmad, N., Ahmad, S., Bukhar, M. A., & Bukhari, T. A. (2011). The Nature of Difficulties in Learning English
by the students at Secondary School level in Pakistan. Journal of Education and Practice, 2(10), 18-24.
Allwright, R. L. (1984). The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language Learning. Applied linguistics,
5(2), 156-171.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. http:/dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587655
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Bughio, F. A. (2013). Improving English language teaching in large classes at university level in Pakistan. Ph.D,
University of Sussex. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/45170/
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific
region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36-57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000122
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages.
Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
Carless, D. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31, 485-500.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.03.002
Colonel, M. E. T., Altunay, U., & Yurdabakan, I. (2012). The effects of active learning on foreign language
self-concept and reading comprehension achievement. International Journal on New Trends in Education
and Their Implications, 3(4), 43-58. Retrieved from http://ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/04._er.pdf
Coskun, A. (2011). Investigation of the Application of Communicative Language Teaching in the English
Language Classroom—A Case Study on Teachers’ Attitudes in Turkey. Online Submission. Journal of
Linguistics and Language Teaching, 2(1). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED513910
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.
Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm026
Ho, W., & Wong, R. (2004). English language teaching in East Asia today. Singapore: Eastern Universities
Press.
Jimakorn, P., & Singhasiri, W. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs concerning large-class English teaching at the university
level. rEFLections. KMUTT Journal of Language Education: Special issue: Large Classes, 9, [e-journal],
13-23. Retrieved from http://arts.kmutt.ac.th/sola/rEFL/Vol9_Reflections_Large_Classes.pdf
Khan, H. (2007). A needs analysis of Pakistani state boarding schools secondary level students for adoption of
communicative language teaching. PhD, Middlesex University, London.

232
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

Khan, S. A. (2011). The effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement of low achievers in English.
Language in India, 11(3), 232-242.
Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50(3), 199-212.
http://doi101093/elt/50.3.199
Kumar, K. (1992). Does class size really make a difference?—Exploring classroom interaction in large and small
classes. RELC Journal, 23(1), 29-47. http://doi10.1177/003368829202300103
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York.
Li, D. (1998). It’s Always More Difficult than You Plan and Imagine: Teachers’ Perceived Difficulties in
Introducing the Communicative Approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, pp. 677-703.
https://doi.org/doi.org/10.2307/3588000
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language
Teaching, 40(3), 243-249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004363
Littlewood, W. (2013). Developing a Context-Sensitive Pedagogy for Communication-Oriented Language
Teaching. English Teaching, 68(3), 3-25. Retrieved from
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45795629
Mansoor, S. (2004). Language Planning in Higher Education: Issues of Access and Equity. Lahore School of
Economics Journals, 8(2), 17-42. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/5580
Mashori, G. M. (2010). Practicing Process Writing Strategies in English: An Experimental Study of Pre and Post
Process Teaching Perceptions of Undergraduate Students at Shah Abdul latif University Khairpur. ELF
Annual Research Journal, 12, 14-25.
Naidu, B., Neeraja, K., Ramani, E., Shivakumar, J., & Viswanatha, V. (1992). Researching heterogeneity: An
account of teacher-initiated research into large classes. ELT Journal, 46(3), 252-263.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.3.252
Najeeb, S. S. (2013). Learner autonomy in language learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70,
1238-1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.183
Nolasco, R., & Arthur, L. (1988). Large classes. London: Macmillan.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41(2), 136-145.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/41.2.136
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement.
Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261-290. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171413
Rahman, T. (1999). The language of employment: The case of Pakistan. Research Report Series # 23. Islamabad:
The Sustainable Development Policy Institute.
Rahman, T. (2004). Denizens of alien worlds: A study of education, inequality and polarization in Pakistan.
Pakistan: Oxford university press.
Raja, N. (2012). The Effectiveness of Group Work and Pair Work for Students of English at Undergraduate Level
in Public and Private Sector Colleges. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(5),
155-163.
Ribé, R., & Vidal, N. (1993). Project work: step by step. Oxford: Heinemann.
Richards, J. C. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155-163.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.2.155
Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL quarterly, 25(2), 261-278.
http://doi/10.2307/3587463/full
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). London and New Haven: Yale University Press.

233
ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

Shamim, F. (1993). Teacher-learner behaviour and classroom processes in large ESL classes in Pakistan. Ph.D,
University of Leeds, UK.
Shamim, F. (2011). English as the language for development in Pakistan: Issues, challenges and possible solutions.
In H. Coleman (Ed., 2001), Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language (pp.
291-311). London: British Council. Retrieved from
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/Z413%20EDB
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion
students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
http://doi/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209
Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered? The Internet TESL Journal, VI(11).
Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Thanasoulas-Autonomy.html
Todd, R. W. (2006). The Classroom Language of Larger and Smaller Classes. rEFLections. KMUTT Journal of
Language Education: Special issue: Large Classes, 9, 24-40. Retrieved from
http://arts.kmutt.ac.th/sola/rEFL/Vol9_Reflections_Large_Classes.pdf
Tsou, W. (2005). Improving speaking skills through instruction in oral classroom participation. Foreign
Language Annals, 38(1), 46-55. http://doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02452
Warsi, J. (2004). Conditions under which English is taught in Pakistan: An applied linguistic perspective. Sarid
Journal, 1(1), 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.saridweb.org/sarid-journal/2004_Warsi.pdf
West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language Teaching, 27(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800007527.
Wyatt, M. (2009). Practical Knowledge Growth in Communicative Language Teaching. TESL-EJ, 13(2), 1-23.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898199
Xue, M. (2013). Effects of group work on English communicative competence of Chinese international
graduates in United States institutions of higher education. The Qualitative Report, 18(14), 1-19. Retrieved
from http://crawl.prod.proquest.com.s3.amazonaws.com/fpcache/02476143098c477ff6fb96ce5c9febf4

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

234