The Relationship Between EFL Teachers’ Attitudes Towards CLT and Perceived Difficulties of Implementing CLT in Language Classes in Omani Context

  • M. Al Kalbani
  • J. Solabarrieta
  • A. Bin Touq
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)


The present study investigated the relationship between EFL teachers’ attitudes in Omani context towards Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and perceived difficulties of implementing CLT in language classes. Twenty four EFL teachers participated in the study. Their attitudes towards CLT and their perceptions of the problems of implementing CLT were assessed by two questionnaires. The results of the descriptive statistics showed that EFL teachers had positive attitudes towards CLT in general and group work in communicative classes in particular. Further, while EFL teachers generally did not find much difficulty in implementing CLT in language classes, they found the difficulties the educational system creates as a major obstacle to use CLT. Moreover, CLT attitudes and perceived difficulties of CLT implementation were not found to be related; however, when subscales of CLT attitudes and perceived difficulties questionnaires were considered, four correlations were found to be statistically significant. Difficulties caused by teachers in communicative classes were found to be inversely and significantly related to (a) attitudes towards group and pair work (r = −.530 and p = .011) and (b) attitudes towards CLT quality/quantity of error correction (r = −.455 and p = .033). Further, attitudes towards the role and contribution of learners in the learning process were found to be negatively related to students’ related difficulties and challenges (r = −.468 and p = .021) and attitudes towards CLT-Quality/quantity of error correction were also found to be negatively related to students’ related difficulties and challenges (r = −.502 and p = .013).


Attitudes Communicative language teaching (CLT) Difficulties Problems Teachers 


  1. 1.
    Shawer, S.: Communicative-based curriculum innovations between theory and practice: implications for EFL curriculum development and student cognitive and affective change. Curriculum J 21(3), 333–359 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karavas-Doukas, : Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT J. 50(3), 187–198 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sato, K., Kleinsasser, R.C.: Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. Mod. Lang. J. 83(4), 494–517 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Issa, A., Al-Bulushi, A.: English language teaching reform in Sultanate of Oman: The case of theory and practice disparity. Educ. Res. Policy Pract. 11, 141–176 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al-Issa, A.: Making a case for new directions in English Language Teaching Research at an Omani University: a critical qualitative content analysis report. Qual. Rep. 20(5), 560–595 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Mahrooqi, R.: English communication skills: how are they taught at schools and universities in Oman? Engl. Lang. Teach. 5(4), 124–130 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Mahrooqi, R., Denman, C.: Omani graduates’ English-language communication skills in the workforce: employees’ perspectives. Int. J. Appl. Linguist. Engl. Lit. 5(4), 172–182 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nunan, D.: Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, D.: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. In: Hall, D.R., Hewings, A. (eds.) Innovation in English language teaching, pp. 150–165. Routledge, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiadong, L., Dacheng, Z.: Grounded theory approach to beginning teachers’ perspectives of communicative language teaching practice. Electron. J. Foreign Lang. Teach. 9(1), 76–90 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abebe, T., Davidson, M., Biru, F.: The role of instructors in implementing communicative language teaching methodology. Res. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2(3), 52–62 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McLean, A.: Particularity, practicality and possibility: an investigation in to: the awareness and use of communicative language teaching methodology in a college of higher education in Oman. Unpublished Master degree. University of South Africa (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Jadidi, H.S.: Teaching English as a foreign language in Oman: an exploration of English language teaching pedagogy in tertiary education. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Victoria University, Australia (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jafari, S.: A mixed methods study of teachers’ perceptions of communicative language teaching in Iranian high schools. Theor. Pract. Lang. Stud. 5(4), 707–718 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ozsevik, Z.: The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching of English as a Second Language in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ntirenganya, J.: Rwandan University EFL Teachers’ Perceived Difficulties in Implementing Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in English Teaching English as a Second Language. Minnesota State University, Mankato Mankato, Minnesota. (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Derakhshan, A., Torabi, M.: The implications of communicative language teaching: teachers’ perceptions in the spotlight. Int. J. Engl. Lang. Lit. Stud. 4(4), 203–211 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rahimi, M., Naderi’s, F.: The relationship between EFL teachers’ attitudes towards CLT and perceived difficulties of implementing CLT in language classes. Int. J. Appl. Linguist. Engl. Lit. 3(3), 237–245 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Creswell, J.: Education research: planning, conducting and evaluating, quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson, Edinburgh Gate (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chang, M.: EFL teachers’ attitudes toward communicative language teaching in Taiwanese college. Asian EFL J. Prof. Teach. Art. 53, 17–34 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Razmjoo, S.A., Riazi, A.M.: Do high school or private institutes practice communicative language teaching? A case study of Shiraz teachers in high schools and institutes. Read. Matrix 6(3), 340–363 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ngoc, K., Iwashita, N.: A comparison of learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam. Univ. Sydney Pap. TESOL 7, 25–49 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Al-Mekhlafi, A.: Expectation versus reality: communicative approach to EFL teaching. Stud. Learn. Eval. Innov. Dev. 8(1), 98–113 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanderson, M.: Attitudes toward communicative language teaching: the case of EFL teachers in Iquique, Chile. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Education (Measurement, Statistics, and Research Design. University of Washington (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farooq, M.: Creating communicative language teaching environment for improving students communicative competence at EFL-EAP. Int. Educ. Stud. 8(4), 179–191 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ansarey, D.: Communicative language teaching in EFL context: teachers’ attitudes and perception in Bangladesh. ASA Univ. Rev. 6(1), 62–78 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nizwa UniversityNizwaOman
  2. 2.Deusto UniversityBilbaoSpain
  3. 3.UAE UniversityAl AinUAE

Personalised recommendations