Communicative Language Teaching and Group

Techniques in Turkey: Present and Future

Irfan Tosuncuoglu
Karabuk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Western Languages and
Literatures, 78050 Karabuk, Turkey

Abstract: Language competence is one thing, application in and to real life, another.
The one does not automatically lead to the other or to the use of a second language
on a regular basis. For this reason, English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students
need to communicate in English outside of the classroom and in real-life situations
or the time spent in the classroom will have been in vain. In order to accomplish this
life-long process of language acquisition, we must begin with proven, pedagogical
techniques and strategies that not only awaken in students a desire to
communicate in a foreign language, but that result in the creation of a foreign-
language environment by the students themselves, with reference to local customs
and national objectives. This student-centered approach is consistent with
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which allows for a high degree of creative
misinterpretation and even malapropism as students constantly revise
experimental, communicative scenarios or environments. The results, it is hoped,
will both enhance and transcend the classroom and thus greatly expand the
learning environment of and for the students. Such an approach requires a very
different attitude on the part of teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and
English as a Second language (ESL), especially when it comes to correction and
evaluation, requiring them to take a more tolerant attitude and to pay less attention
to mistakes. For this reason, it is paramount that test construction keeps pace with
student progress and not the reverse. A variety of techniques have proven effective
in the case of Turkish undergraduate EFL students and their broad application to
international classrooms elsewhere is proposed.

Key words: Communication Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) English as a

Foreign Language (EFL) English as a Second Language (ESL) Environment First
language (L1) Method second language (L2)

INTRODUCTION grammar through meaningful and

Communicative Language Teaching authentic speech. Competence and
(CLT) has been the grammar and Performance [1-12]. The idea was
vocabulary, the latter a factor of little Thus, CLT was born, turning the
hotly debated in academic circles as traditional methodology simple
far back as the 1970s more than rote enough: English as a Foreign
memorization. Something new was Language (EFL) and on its head [13].
called and 1980s, as a consequence The Information Age and the ubiquity
of Noam Chomskys for if of English as a Second Language (ESL)
communication was the objective: had labored computer-assisted
the study of pioneering work in the teaching seemed perfectly suited to
1960s and the twin notions of somewhat unsuccessfully and for
much too long, under CLT and the nature and even a combination
creation of a student-centered, the thereof, However, with reference to
mistaken assumption that the the globalization of English as maynot
structural aspects of a technologically- work in every instance. a second
enhanced and auto-didactic approach language, S. Savignon in Beyond In
language alonegrammar, audio- Saudi Arabia, as Majid Al-Humaidi
linguistic repetition and that promised argues, CLT communicative language
to bridge the gap between the teaching: What's ahead? simply asks
structural mimesisought to be the too much of teachers and students,
focus of foreign language and the who lack contends that with
communicative [14-17]. However, it technological innovation in the the
soon became teaching and that both necessary creativity and imagination.
fluency and understanding clear that In more classroom and greater
CLT labored under the weight of a autonomy on the part of students
cultural bias naturally, if not magically, traditional educational settings like the
are certain to follow. with reference Kingdom of Saudi and teachers alike,
to traditional classroom settings in CLT may well be obsolete, at least as
Asia, students did not go beyond a Arabia, a functional rather than formal
rather mechanical sense of approach to a method. At the same
World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (3): 326-332, time, Savignon argues in favor
2013 language acquisition is a reason for
327 concern and thus, the of CLT as a
the Middle East and elsewhere [11, viable pedagogical practice and
18]. Much of the [26-29] It is evident strategy, as bridging of the two seems
that CLT has gathered a range of the best course of action in this long
debate since then has been an as it accommodates local needs and
attempt to provide practical works in case. The emphasis on group
characteristics, perhaps more through work and student-centered harmony
misunderstanding solutions that take with national objectives [10]. learning
into account the vast array of cultural conflicts with a number of Saudi
or by association, she points out, but cultural norms as well [20]. Bayram
it is actually not settings where Pekoz contends that a Usage Versus
competence per se is a factor of the Use: Suffice it to say that most
as incompatible with other valued communicative approach to grammar
practices as it is grammatical, the may be the answer teachers, if asked,
sociolinguistic, the discursive and the will state that CLT is their [21]. An
sometimes made to appear. In fact, ethnographic study of six
she contends that it strategic as a communicative ESL methodology of
whole [19]. One thing is clear: a choice, regardless of whether they
pedagogical, has a lot to offer mixed- university classrooms in China and
ability classes, increases one-size-fits- India by Adrian understand or
all approach, whether structural or appreciate the fact that CLT is more an
motivation and moves naturally from Holliday casts doubt on the
form to fluency [30]. communicative in effectiveness of and approach and
strategy and thus a delicate balance of curricula and examinations. If there is
the questions the wisdom of group any real teachers to both awaken and
work, oral practice and linguistic and facilitate this desire. For chance of
the cultural. In Communicative success, CLT must adapt to local
Language teacher withdrawal, all the environments Turkish students, this is
teachers in this case being Teaching a crucial first step, often hindered
Today, J.C. Richards is surely not [24]. by their tendency to revert to
overstating non-native English Turkish once outside the The cultural
speakers [22]. Here, too, the the case constraints of CLT cannot be ignored
when he writes: Perhaps the majority classroom and by the paucity of
of contention is for an approach that opportunities to use and, as Sally
favors cultural language teachers Sieloff Magnan has shown, the
today, when asked to identify the ostensibly English in their everyday
continuity; Chinese students are lives. American attributes of CLT--
unlikely to perform well methodology transactional language use, Turkish
they employ in their classrooms, students are not very different from
mention in a communicative students the monolingual norm,
classroom for similar cultural reasons. personalization and pair elsewhere
communicative as the methodology and so they do not respond well to
of choice [31]. Yong Zhong and inordinate workfacilitate Western
Francis R. Low place much of the patterns of thinking and criticism of
blame Nevertheless, there is less the hyper-grammatological kind. They
agreement on what CLT means for this have socializing. For Magnan, CLT is an
on Chinese textbooks, known for their approach that has already undergone
excessive or may entail, especially a long and arduous text-book-driven
where the acquisition and, with detail, much to offer native English speakers
obscure vocabulary and overly in the United States approach to EFL,
complex sentences, any luck, mastery more intent upon a particular social
of a second language is concerned. all and and thus may be a means of
of which prove problematic for realizing American national behavioral
Chinese students and However, rather outcome and so they are likely to shut
than being seen as a negative, it can down language objectives [25].
be teachers alike [23]. Another study Whether CLT, as a method, is
of the Pacific-Asian considered as a completely in the face of more of the
positive in several important respects. same at university. viable outside of
region suggests that CLT has a number North America is the question.
of conceptual Opportunities to Rebecca A CLT approach is desirable
communicate meaningfully are because the focus is Belchamber
constraints in relation to local values, contends that the pros far outweigh
the classroom itself predicated on the the cons. communicative rather than
desire of students to speak in a and a punitive, i.e., learning by rote.
variety of institutional practices, chief World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (3): 326-332,
among them second/foreign language 2013
and the ability of ESL/EFL being 328
When communication is the goal in Techniques: or relevance.
mind, grammar Consequently, a communicative
mimicry/memorization, with approach In Turkey, where EFL
emphasis on mechanical becomes classrooms are often filled to that
peripheral. This is not to say that distinguishes between usage and
grammar fades drilling and mindless use is capacity, it can be difficult to
(mind-numbing) repetition, has from create an environment in preferred,
view. Instead, it moves in tandem with the latter a matter of meaningful,
a proved counter-productive. In fact, indeed which every learner will come
effective learning and communicative away with a craving to memorable
approach to second/foreign language communication, the former a purely
meaningful speech is less a matter of communicate in L2. No teacher can
imitationthe learning.Grammar hope to reach every mechanical,
improves as the level of culturally extraneous and very
communication duplication of correct forgettable student, especially when
sentence structures-- as a increases.In such capacity seating is a affair. The
this case, the mastery of English as a erstwhile focus on usage was not
foreign psychological disposition and only corollary of the multi-ability
even an emotional desire language classroom. Individualization artificial in
becomes a self-directed enterprise nature, but formulaic to a fault.
which to communicate in a meaningful Students might of instruction is often
way in another language. evolves next to impossible in the practical
more naturally, day-by-day. For this excel at a variety of sentence-building
reason, In the act of communicating, exercises with little sense. Classroom
language forms are absorbed management is another problem. or
correction and/or evaluation that does no value for application in real life.
not take this into as a matter of What is more, Universities in Turkey,
course. The role of ESL/EFL teachers in as elsewhere, face increasing teachers
this account is certain to prove and students both knew it. The
problematic, especially in case following economic pressures and so
involves a greater attention to the large and seemingly illustrates the
classroom activities Turkey. that are problem and difference between
rich in communicative possibility usage unmanageable EFL classroom
whether they In Turkey and is here to stay. A variety of and use:
elsewhere, the traditional textbook group techniques can offer a degree of
be stories, games, or problem-solving pedagogical relief
the objective approach continues to Question: When did you get up on
plague EFL teaching. Usage or being Monday ? classroom where EFL
to instill a strong desire to students learn to participate,
communicate in English. grammar Half past seven. and the mastery of
reigns supreme and the objective is English as a group effort. I got up at
the ad infinitum construction of half past seven on Monday. In this
sentences of no apparent worth The case, the group techniques listed
Mixed-Ability Classroom and Group below
Normally, b would be considered the say that receives not only help in
correct attempt to facilitate the return, but a sense of social
practice of guided, but answer, despite and serve as effective communicative
the fact that the native English devices in the
response unrestricted, conversational becoming potential players in the
English in real time and are would be, game of communication
Half past seven. The aforementioned involve a wide array of practical
example geared to realistic situations. classroom activities that
Some of the learning is a simple one, Peer-Group Interdependence:
but it illustrates the point. Of course in Language performs a
outcomes and overall benefits that World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (3): 326-332,
can be achieved are: real life, the 2013
conscientious EFL student would soon 329
learn active participation of students awareness and responsibility in a class
over the entire school thatthe setting which can the case of Turkey.
appropriate response to the question That said, arbitrary grouping has been
of what time year, enrichment of the then be transported outside the
curriculum, accommodation of s/he classroom. In fact, known to work
arose from bed the previous day is simply because of the social nature of
very short and to learners with the students are likely to learn more
different abilities and interests, from their peers than activity and the
overcoming the point. Why this could tendency of groups of any composition
not be achieved in the language teachers. It is also important to note
inhibition and most importantly, the that peer to unite if given time to do
realization classroom and even with so. In classes of thirty to forty
the assistance of a good by students teaching/learning is inextricably
themselves that learning another connected to peer-group students, for
language is, textbook, remains the example English Classes in Karabuk
question and a pedagogical indeed, interdependence and support rather
possible. obstacle to be overcome. than competition. University, four to
TheFailings of Mimicry/Memorization in five groups is advisable; and if the For
the ESL/EFL variety of important social Turkish EFL students, this is essential,
functions. Group techniques since local classroom geography is one
Classroom:Turkish ESL/EFL students of straight rows, then groups custom
are masters of the open the way to and practice is communal and
meaningful, social interaction. ESL/EFL supportive by should be organized
memorized, often failing to grasp the according to these rows, thus nature.
meaning of the students work in The American predilection for a kind
groups on problems or tasks they find of reducing the necessity to move
English texts they manage to cram desks and rearrange class
into their heads and interesting, antagonistic, unbridled competition in
relevant and useful. By helping others, all walks of life equipment etc. It may
one regurgitate in class. Suffice it to become necessary to relocate does
not sit well with contemporary
Turks as a rule. students who are member of the group is Teacher-Led
consistently silent from one group to A Instruction and Group-Work Protocol:
middle way is the norm and so needed and has something of worth
competition between another, but not to contribute. Once the groups are
before enough time has passed that it formed, the teacher will discuss the
groups or teams, rather than between Every contribution, whether big or
individuals, strikes becomes clear the small, is recognized how of group
change is unavoidable. Any and all work and explain the immediate task
exactly the right balance. Any feelings at and valued. Even those more silent
of isolation on the decisions on the members of the group hand. All such
composition of groups made by the teacher-led instruction should be clear
part of any single participant are and can benefit from what others
mitigated by membership teacher might say, giving them the the
should be undertaken to facilitate activity should not proceed unless
greater in a group and so learning a and until courage over time to
foreign language is not interaction become more active participants
between the following: one learner students understand the nature of the
and something in which only a few task before them. themselves. Any
succeed in the endeavor. another, one feelings of inferiority that may exist
group and another, the learner and Those groups who finish the
the Cooperation and collaboration assignment in advance of are likely to
are at its very core. Teacher and the dissipate, especially as the group
group and the teacher. Rearranging becomes the other groups may be
Peer input becomes the essential subdivided into pairs and more close-
source for and means of groups should knit and purposeful. CLT and some of
only be done to encourage greater the assigned additional work. It is
correction and constant learning that desirable that groups work
is more likely to take inter-group aforementioned group techniques,
communication, but such a course of owing to their social on different tasks
action place outside, as well as inside simultaneously, but having a single
the classroom. Most should be rare, nature, have the most to offer the
lest group work become unsettled. silent and reticent objective or
important of all, these CLT-based problem which has been divided into
group techniques Finally, appointment its members of the group. Moreover,
of group leaders is not necessary the sense of collegiality constituent
heighten awareness of the necessary parts. Splitting up the problem and
skills for the task at unless an activity working and interdependence that
specifically calls for them. Leadership group work fosters also spills together
hand, making language learning a as groups toward a solution means
pleasurable and within the group is that group into the classroom as a
best left to peers and the natural order whole, making it is a more work is
satisfying experience. of things. Peer- interdependent and complementary.
group interdependence operates Group work welcoming and pleasant
according to the principle that every environment in which to study should
also be a regular facet of any and communicative experience of any
every language and resulting in kind. In-class strongly recommended,
greater individual confidence and whereas criticism per se should be
sense class and commence directly activities and exercises need not be
following the presentation of of social overly complicated reserved for
responsibility. some new language serious behavioral issues that might
issue, thus giving students an and should have a clear objective that
Practical Considerations When can be met in the arisewhen a
Forming Groups: realistic student, for example, seems
communicative situations and in determined to time allotted. For
group/social Care should be taken example, the assignment can be as
when forming groups, allowing for basic upset the progress of his group
settings. Group work militates against or the class. Stated as divide
boredom. It can a degree of flexibility eighteen horses between three sons,
and keeping in mind the language also 1/2 to the clearly, teachers should
be an effective means of in-class study exercise discretion when first, 1/3 to
time in proficiency, level of interest, the second and 1/6 to the third. Or it
personalities and any special advance can be confronted with and are
of tests or examinations, as well as an tempted to correct such linguistic
learning needs of the students. more complex and nuanced.
Ability grouping will opportunity for Regardless, it should involve issues as
students to reflect and consolidate incomplete sentences, incorrect
their militate against boredom and/or utterances, the a degree of
being left behind, thinking at the background or preparatory work, fix
conclusion of a particular unit of study course use of the mother tongue (L1)
although grouping by age and gender and even an over reliance materials in
is not advised in and/or language the minds of students, lead to the
exercise. opportunity to test their production on non-verbal responses
understanding and facility in such as hand gestures and of learning
World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (3): 326-332, materials and enhance problem-
2013 solving skills, inordinate head nodding.
330 resourcefulness and independence of
Importantly, group work should not thought. Because The rationale behind
exceed twenty front of their peers. In such a tolerant attitude on the the
common with Asian students minutes goal in sight is communicative
of any given class period. Anything efficiency, use part of the teacher
longer is (Central Asia), they are afraid toward mistakes that EFL students are
of losing face and are likely to result in rather than usage should be the
a sense of monotony or frustration, focus of group certain to make is
almost certain to shut down mentally simple enough: making mistakes and
and socially as a whereas ten minutes assignments and activities which are
or less is not enough time for an oral in nature with a making them
defense mechanism. Therefore, aloud, is essential to learning and is
positive reinforcement is effective, even nominal written component. The
basic assumption evidence that intellectual and social attitudes and As
learning is taking place. Moreover, the group work progresses toward a
underlying this communicative conclusion, the behavior ; and
approach is three-fold: larger question cultivate sensitivity and tolerance for
is one of communication and whether, the teacher also serves as a model for
that an information gap exists students by exhibiting strengths and
between speaker and hearer despite a weaknesses of others. anattitude of
failure to abide by all the rules of acceptance of a variety of personality
grammar and at the beginning, that types, interests, attitudes and levels of
both understanding and effort are linguistic competence Some Routine
usage, students are communicating Problems to Keep in Mind and even
to any degree. required in every case incompetence to a degree. One and all
and finally that the task at hand is The can see Moving Classroom
object of any lesson and group activity Equipment:Classrooms may be small
is surely to as new to students as any the positives, the potential strengths
as real-life utterance or improve the upon which the and the desks are
level of communication and although often heavy. As mentioned above,
situation they might encounter. group can build and everyone can
attention to detail is vital, problem- benefit in time. groups can be seated
solving in L2 is the in pre-existing rows which not only The
The Teacher as Mediator, Not Judge: general attitude of the teacher in the
Taking the Long monopolized by the classroom saves time but avoids
linguistic or the grammatical since the confusion. should be one of
View: The role of the teacher after acceptance, warmth, affection,
group-work has been objective is also enthusiasm and encouragement. The
to build confidence. With this in mind, common Western or Noise: Any group
assigned should be that of a mediator activity involves a high degree of oral
and thus someone teachers should do American predilection for detachment
the following: select group tasks to be and neutrality allows for a higher
referred to should some difficulty degree of criticism, with which most of
arise. Importantly, carefully, using their students are not likely to take
their knowledge of the class; design issue. However, Turkish students do
new teachers need to resist the not respond well to criticism of this
temptation to do for students and/or kind, especially if it is meted out in
adapt existing lesson plans to the class and in goal. For this reason, the
needs of what they can do for discussion should not be work and so
themselves. Although it is often noise is unavoidable. Teachers need to
students; coordinate group activity understand and accept this fact, but
and regroup when easier to advise, also distinguish between purposeful
correct and arbitrate, the rule is that noise and that which indicates that
the necessary; monitor and supervise students have done what they can and
group work; inspire a teacher should it is time to bring the class to order.
instead provide a dose of World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (3): 326-332,
encouragement. variety of positive 2013
331 and ought to assessment or
Teaching Materials: Commercially- examination at the end of the term or
prepared materials place before and year. be--the neck. Criticism per se
after class, between semesters and should be restricted to the long-term
may not be available. In this case, evaluation. The tolerance and positive
teachers are advised to during the reinforcement REFERENCES discussed
wee hours of the night. Success or above and in connection to group work
failure prepare in advance a bank of should be applied to the short-term
lesson plans that conform to assessment strategy and 1. Brown,
ultimately depends on the creation of H.D., 1987. Principles of Language
a solid lesson plan the CLT philosophy Learning serve mainly as preparation.
and group-work approach to EFL. and and Teaching. MA: Addison-Wesley
series of assignments tailored to the Publishing
individual needs A Caveat: In many ways, acquisition of
Time: Time is of the essence. Careful L1 and L2 can be 2. Brumfit, C. and K.
planning and proper runs by itself-- Johnson, (eds.). 1979. The similar.
easier said than done, to be sure, but Both involve factors of time and an
not as lesson plans will reduce the ability to Communicative Approach to
need for inordinate hard as it may Language Teaching. absorb a new
seem. CLT demands a lot from language structure. Because there is
teachers in explanation, presentation, an New York: Oxford University Press.
etc. some respects, but only if they fail incubation period, learning a
to understand that the language should not be a 3. Hymes,
Evaluation: Perhaps the biggest D., 1972. On Communicative
obstacle of all is how best in advance Competence. In mechanical affair in
of class. The approach tendered here which material is pumped in and out J.
assumes to evaluate students without B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.),
appearing overly critical. the natural Sociolinguistics. of students.
ability of Turkish students to master Progressing slowly has a number of
another In this case, evaluation should Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp:
be divided equally language on their 269-93. advantages, taking into
own terms and even in their own account the complex hierarchy of 4.
sweet between short and long-term Littlewood, W., 1981. Communicative
assessment. Immediate time. An Language language acquisition. One
important prerequisite to this kind of may consider that for any Teaching.
trust and feedback with regard to New York: Cambridge University Press.
mastery of language structure and given lesson or group assignment, the
confidence is that the group work and following is the 5. Nattinger, J.R., 1984.
assignments follow clearly-defined Communicative Language expected
proficiency levels can be accomplished cognitive pattern: recognition,
a clear and well-thought-out plan of understanding, Teaching: A New
action. Essentially, if over short time Metaphor. TESOL Quarterly, oral
periods, followed by a long-term the reproduction, production of non-
students are the head, the teacher is complex utterances 18(3): 391-407.
and eventually, varied utterances. part to the inter- 10. Savingnon, S.J.,
Mastery is intrinsically 6. Nunan,D., 1983. Communicative Competence:
1987. Communicative Language language hypothesis which lauds the
Teaching: an uneven enterprise at virtues of student- Theory and
best, some vocabulary items and Classroom Practice Reading. Mass.:
Making it work. ELT Journal, 41(2): centered learning, experimentation
136-145. idiomatic phrases sticking, and auto-didacticism. Addison-Wesley
others failing to do so, for 7. Nunan, Publishing Company. By implication,
D., 1989. Designing Tasks for the the role of the teacher in the
reasons that are often a matter of classroom is 11. White, C.J., 1989.
personal preference and Negotiating Communicative something
Communicative Classroom. New York: of a moot question and consequently,
Cambridge experience. The most any the real Language Learning in a
EFL teacher can, or ought to do Traditional Setting. ELT job and best
University Press. is instill in students a work of the pedagogue in this case,
love of learning that will last a 8. takes Journal, 43(3): 213-220.
Richards, J.C. and T.S. Rodgers, 1986. of the students. This might be
Approaches lifetime,forthe mastery of described as a machine that
another language is very likely and real work, possibly the only work, can
Methods in language Teaching: A and should be done
Description to take at least that long.
and Analysis. New York: Cambridge Company.
University Press.
CONCLUSION 9. Rossner, R., 1988.
Materials for Communicative Language Teaching and Learning.
CLT and the group techniques and Annual Review of
caveats Applied Linguistics, 8: 140-
163. discussed in this paper adhere in World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (3): 326-332,
2013

332

12. Yalden, J., 1983. The Communicative Syllabus: 23. Zhong, Y. and F.R. Low, 1995.
Multiple Instructions Evolution, Design and Implementation. Oxford: in
Communicative Language Teaching. Australian Pergamon Press. Review of Applied
Linguistics, Supplement Issue, 13. Widdowson, H.G., 1984. Explorations in Applied
pp: 250-267. Linguistics. Volume 2. New York: Oxford University 24. Butler, Y.G.,
2001. The Implementation of Press. Communicative and Task-Based Language
Teaching 14. Alessi,S.M. and S.R. Trollip, 1985. Computer-based in the Asia-Pacific
Region. Annual Review of Instruction: Methods and Development. New Jersey:
Applied Linguistics. Vol. 31, 36-57. DOI: 10.1017/ Prentice Hall.
S0267190511000122 15. Gates,B., 1996. The Road Ahead. New York: Penguin 25.
Magnan, S.S., 2007. Reconsidering Communicative Books. Language Teaching for
National Goals. Modern 16. Huang, S.J., 1997. The Preliminary Study of the
Language Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2, 249 - 252. DOI: Indirect Use of Computer
Simulation in EFL 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00543_3.x Teaching. Paper presented
at the First International 26. Andrewes, S., 2005. The CLT Police: Questioning the
Conference of CALL, Naval Academy, Taiwan. communicative approach. Modern
English Teacher, 17. Levy, M., 1997. Computer-assisted Language 14(2). Learning.
Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks. 27. Doman, E., 2005. Current Debates in SLA. Asian
EFL 18. Al-Mutawa, N. and T. Kailani, 1989. Methods of Journal, Vol. 7. Issue 4.
Article 8 Retrieved October Teaching English to Arab Students. Longman Group 20,
2006 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/ Ltd. December_05_ed.php 19. Hedge,
T., 2000. Teaching and Learning in the 28. Hu, G., 2002. Potential Cultural
Resistance to Language Classroom. New York: Oxford University Pedagogical
Imports: The Case of Communicative Press. Language Teaching in China. Language,
Culture and 20. Al-Humaidi, M., 2007. Communicative Language Curriculum.
Retrieved October 20, 2006 from Teaching. King Saud University. http://
http://www.multilingual-matters.net/ lcc/ 015/ 0093/ faculty.ksu.edu.sa/ alhumaidi/
Publications/ lcc0150093.pdf Communicative% 20Language%20Teaching.pdf, 29.
Lowe, M., 2005. The Shibboleths of TEFL: Accessed 16/11/2012. Straightening out
our thinking. Modern English 21. Pekoz, B., 2008. Integrating Grammar for Teacher,
14(1). Communicative Language Teaching. The Internet 30. Belchamber, R., 2007.
The Advantages of TESL Journal, 14(10). iteslj.org Communicative Language
Teaching. The Internet 22. Holliday, A., 1997. Six lessons: cultural continuity in TESL
Journal, XIII(2). http:// iteslj.org/ Articles/ communicative language teaching.
Language Belchamber-CLT.html. Accessed 16/11/2012. Teaching Research, 1(3):
212-238. DOI: 10.1177/ 31. Richards, J.C., 2006. Communicative Language
136216889700100303. Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.