{"id":3970,"date":"2013-05-01T11:00:51","date_gmt":"2013-05-01T11:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.eltweekly.com\/elt-newsletter\/?p=3970"},"modified":"2013-05-01T11:00:51","modified_gmt":"2013-05-01T11:00:51","slug":"the-implementation-of-communicative-language-teaching-clt-approach-in-english-1101-towards-a-faculty-development-program-by-tichie-ann-econg-baena","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/?p=3970","title":{"rendered":"‘The Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Approach in English 1\/101 towards a Faculty Development Program’ by Tichie Ann Econg-Baena"},"content":{"rendered":"

Author\u2019s Note<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This manuscript is inspired by the researcher\u2019s initiative to recognize how Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach works in the language classrooms in St. Paul University Dumaguete. All the sources that substantiate the body of literature of this paper are carefully identified and acknowledged. The main sections of the paper are presented but the researcher had to reduce some of which for a facilitative reading.<\/span><\/p>\n

Contribution Statement<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Communicative competence, as it is the goal of the CLT approach, shapes the whole notion of this research work. As such, this paper advances the theory that employing real-life situations in the classroom require authentic communication, thus, facilitates successful language learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

ABSTRACT<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

This study assesses the extent of implementation of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach in English 1\/101 at St. Paul University Dumaguete (SPUD). Assessment is done on the following areas: syllabus design, teacher student interaction, lesson content, materials used, and activities conducted, lesson presentation, and assessment types and procedures. The respondents include all the teachers and students of English 1\/101 at SPUD.\u00a0 Employing both quantitative and qualitative research methodology, the study uses a structured interview guide, classroom observations, and focus group discussions (FGD) to gather data. Classroom observation data analysis focuses on student-teacher interaction; analysis is done using the Communicative Orientation to Language Teaching (COLT) Scheme and the Sinclaire and Coulthard Codes and Functions. Findings show that CLT is implemented; however, the teachers practice the weak form of CLT, which emphasizes structure and grammar skills still. The findings support the proposed in-service training program on CLT for the English language teachers at SPUD.<\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords:<\/b> Communicative Language Teaching, assessment, content, materials used, activities conducted, lesson presentation, Communicative Orientation to Language Teaching, Sinclaire and Coulthard Scheme of Discourse Analysis, Communicative Competence and Principles of Language Teaching<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

English language teaching, with its dynamic role in second language learning, has undergone many paradigm shifts. \u2018Change,\u2019 indeed, \u2018is the only permanent thing on earth.\u2019 Nevertheless, every language teacher should be conscious about these transferences in language teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus it is indeed a good start to revisit some principles of language learning, of which Brown (1994) has much to say. He points out that as we begin our teacher education journey, it is just appropriate to focus on what we know, what we learn, and how we speak, with some certainty as regards second language acquisition. It means that, a language teacher, despite the complexities of second language teaching, should ensure quality language instruction for the benefit of the learners.<\/span><\/p>\n

Practical situations in the language classroom are influenced by these principles of learning. According Lightbown and Spada (2000), there are different factors that affect second language learning. These include intelligence, aptitude, personality, motivation, attitude preferences, learner beliefs, and age.<\/span><\/p>\n

The pedagogical merit of these principles is entirely significant to my study with regard to language teachers\u2019 choice of communicative methodologies they want to use in class. As Brown emphasizes, \u201cby perceiving and internalizing connections between practice (choices you make in class) and theory (principles derived from research), your teaching is likely to be enlightened\u201d (p.15 ).<\/span><\/p>\n

This study draws attention to communicative language teaching (CLT), a language teaching approach that deems learners as active participants in the learning process. This new model, as emphasized by many authors, views interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language (Brown 1994).<\/span><\/p>\n

Learning a second language normally results from formal instruction and directly points to the school setting. This study focuses on the condition of language teaching specifically by assessing the extent of implementation of the CLT approach in English 1\/101 at St. Paul University in Dumaguete (SPUD).<\/span><\/p>\n

The primary aim of the study, then, is to assess the degree to which the CLT approach is carried out in English 1\/101 at SPUD. There are three colleges at SPUD: College of Arts and Education (CA-Ed) which offers Bachelor of Arts (AB), Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED), and Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED); College of Nursing (CON); and College of Business Education (CBEd) offering Business Administration (BA), Hotel and Restaurant Management HRM)\/Tourism, Computer Science (CS)\/Information Technology (IT), Accountancy (BSA), and Associate in Computer Science (ACS). The first year students of these three colleges are required to take English 1\/English 101. During the preliminary survey, the researcher conducted a casual interview with the department heads of the colleges regarding the English 1\/101 curriculum. According to Dr. Caridad Maadil, CAEd department head, and Mrs. Hilnora Gregorio, CBEd department head, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) mandates the English 1\/101 program through CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) number 59 series of 1996. Dr. Caridad Maadil specifies that the CLT approach is implemented in SPUD.<\/span><\/p>\n

Accordingly, the study aims to assess the extent of implementing the CLT approach in English 1\/101 syllabus, materials, activities used in the classroom, lesson presentations and assessment procedures employed by English 1\/101 teachers in their respective classes. It also delves into how English 1\/101 classes reflect learner-centered education and identifies possible constraints encountered in implementing the CLT approach at St. Paul University in Dumaguete.<\/span><\/p>\n

The primary assumption of this study is that CLT approach is being implemented in the English 1\/101 curriculum. In the implementation of the approach, it is also assumed that the characteristics or elements of CLT are evident in terms of syllabus design, lesson presentations, activities, materials, and the assessment procedures. In addition, it is assumed that teachers have undergone trainings on CLT with the support of the administration.<\/span><\/p>\n

This study is highly significant since its findings inform the administrators, language teachers and most of all the students of the target research environment. It can also contribute to the literature on researches about second language teaching methodology particularly the communicative way of teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n

Theoretical Considerations<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

This section covers relevant theories and principles underpinning the CLT approach. The major concepts discussed here include language teaching principles, theories of language learning, and theories of communicative competence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Language Teaching Principles<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The following section revisits relevant principles of second language learning which govern second language teaching. Brown (1994) presents these principles in his book Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach. He categorizes these principles into three: the cognitive principles, the affective principles, and the linguistic principles. Brumfit and Finnocharrio (in Beale, 2000) also present pedagogical principles of a communicative approach to language teaching. The communicative approach to language teaching contributes much in understanding the goals of instruction (Sanders, in Beale, 2000).<\/span><\/p>\n

The first set of principles is called the cognitive principles. These principles connect to mental and intellectual functions. The principles under this category are the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Principle of Automaticity illustrates that efficient learning of the target language involves control of language forms that builds up over time until it becomes automatic in communication.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Principle of Meaningful Learning is opposed to rote learning. This principle leads toward stronger retention through association of sounds, words, structures, and discourse elements.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Anticipation of Reward is when a learner easily learns a language through the rewards given him\/her. Skinner (in Brown, 1994) states that human beings are universally driven to act, or behave by the anticipation of some sort of reward whether tangible or intangible.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Intrinsic Motivation Principle asserts that intrinsically motivated learners are driven by self needs, wants or desires, and they consider the behavior itself to be self-rewarding.<\/span><\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Strategic Investment is another cognitive principle, which emphasizes that successful mastery of the language depends on the investment of time, effort, and attention to second language. (Brown, 1994)<\/span><\/p>\n

The second set of principles is the affective principles. These principles are centered on the emotional processing of human beings. Below are the lists of principles under this category:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Language Ego concerns the development of a new mode of thinking, feeling, and acting when learning a second language.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Self Confidence is another principle in which learners believe that they are capable of accomplishing a task. If learners have self-confidence, they are willing to take risks<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Risk-taking principle considers learners as \u2018gamblers\u2019 in the game of language, to produce and interpret a language even if it is beyond their certain perception and production.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Language-Culture Connection obviously relates language and culture. The principle states that \u201cwhenever you teach a language, you also teach a complex system of cultural customs, values, and ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. \u201c (Brown, 1994,\u00a0 p. 25)<\/span><\/p>\n

The third set of principles is called linguistic principles. The latter refers to language itself and how learners deal with complex linguistic systems. These principles include the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Native Language Effect. The first language system exercises either facilitating or interfering effect on the learning or acquisition of the target language.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Interlanguage principle has to do with believes that second language learning going through a systematic development as learners acquire or develop complete competence in the target language.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Communicative Competence is the goal of the language classroom. Communicative goals are successfully achieved by giving more attention to fluency and not just accuracy (Brown 1994).<\/span><\/p>\n

These principles definitely give light to language teaching, and more specifically to the CLT approach. Wilkins (1972) states that a language learner needs to understand and express communicative meanings. Given the principles presented here, one would say that every language teacher has to go back to what the learners really need for a successful second language learning endeavor. Also, being equipped with the knowledge of these principles would make facilitating learning an enjoyable and satisfying effort. It would give clear direction to language teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n

Language Learning Theories<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The following section discusses relevant learning theories that support the CLT approach. This section thrashes out two points: 1) Some elements of an underlying theory distinguishable in some CLT practices; and 2) Relevant theories in second language acquisition (SLA).<\/span><\/p>\n

There are three elements of an underlying learning theory which determines CLT. The first is the communication principle. This principle simply means that when learners are exposed to the activities that involve real communication, it could probably promote learning. The second element is the task principle which asserts that activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning. The third element is the meaningful principle which illustrates that language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning process. This principle provides activities selected for engaging learner in meaningful and authentic language use. These principles imply CLT practices.<\/span><\/p>\n

Savignon (2007) looks at second language acquisition research as a source of learning theories. She considers the role of linguistic, social, cognitive, and individual variables in language acquisition. Beale (2002) presents aspects of the learning process. The indirect approach relies on the learner\u2019s capability to interactively negotiate meaning with each other. The comprehensible input expressed by Krashen and Terrell (in Beale, 2000) challenges the learners to widen their understanding. Sanders (in Beale, 2000) asserts that learners creating their own internal language system is a foundation of CLT, and this is known as creative construct hypothesis.<\/span><\/p>\n

Johnson and Littlewood (in Alternative approaches to CLT, 2007) consider another learning theory that is related to CLT: A skill-learning model of learning. This learning model asserts that \u201cthe acquisition of communicative competence in a language is an example of skill development which involves both cognitive and behavioral aspects\u201d (p. 36).<\/span><\/p>\n

Hatch (in Ellis, 1985) proposes the theory of learning known as discourse theory. This theory of learning emphasizes its underlying principles such as learners having their conversational strategies to negotiate meaning such that speakers adjust their speech in order to be comprehensible with others. However, Hatch looks into external processes only such as those that can be observed in a face-to-face interaction and not the internal processes that can only be surmised in the ways learners perform.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another learning theory is Ellis\u2019s (1985) variable competence model. This model implies two distinctions: the product that comprises a continuum of discourse types such as planned and unplanned discourse. Planned discourse is thought out prior to expression while unplanned refers to spontaneous communication. The other distinction is called the process. This distinction is understood in terms of linguistic knowledge and the ability to make use of this knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

Beale (2000) emphasizes that though these theories are needed for communicative practice, it would not mean that it is possible to base teaching practice simply on these theories since language learning is a developmental process, which cannot be consciously controlled or predicted by teachers or learners.<\/span><\/p>\n

Communicative Competence: A Goal in CLT<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Hiep (2005) states that CLT is based on the work of Sociolinguists, particularly that of Hymes (1972). Hymes (in Hiep, 2005) asserts that an effective use of the language is not just all about knowing a set of grammatical, lexical, and phonological rules, but learners have to develop communicative competence. Hymes (in Hiep, 2005) says that communicative competence refers to the ability to use the language appropriately in a given social encounter.<\/span><\/p>\n

The National Capital Language Resource Center (2004) defines communicative competence as the ability to use the language correctly and appropriately to accomplish communication goals. Troike (in Sociolinguistic) adds that communicative competence involves the knowledge on what to say to whom, and how to say it appropriately in any given situations. It is also understood that communicative competence implies knowledge and expectation of who may or may not speak in certain settings, when to speak and stay silent, whom one may talk to, how one may speak to persons with distinct statuses and roles, including non-verbal behaviors.<\/span><\/p>\n

Cook (1989) asserts that senders and receivers need to be specified for students. Van Ek (in Cook, 1989) emphasizes that language courses should specify social roles and psychological roles students need to deal with. Others are settings, topics and language functions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Berns (in Savignon, 2007) stresses that communicative competence requires understanding of the sociocultural contexts of language use. Canale and Swain (in Beale, 2002) define communicative competence in terms of the underlying systems of knowledge and skill required for communication. According to the SIL International journal (1999), there are two aspects of communicative competence: the linguistic aspects and the pragmatic aspects.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Linguistic Aspects have four subcategories:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grammatical competence refers to the ability to recognize and produce the distinctive grammatical structures of a language and to use them effectively in communication. Canale and Swain (in Hiep, 2005) refer to grammatical competence to mean the knowledge of syntax, phonology, and lexis. It enables one to ask: What words do I use? How do I put them into phrases? Beale (2002) posits that grammatical competence produces a structure\u2019s comprehensible utterance.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lexical competence refers to the ability to recognize and use words in a language and includes understanding of the different relationships among families of words.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Phonological competence refers to the ability to recognize and produce the distinctive meaningful sounds of a language such as consonants, vowels, tone patterns, intonation patterns, rhythm patterns, stress patterns and any other suprasegmental features that carry meaning.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Discourse Competence consists of two related but distinct abilities called textual discourse competence that refers to the ability to understand and construct written texts of different genres (SIL International, 1999). Beale (2002) affirms that discourse competence is shaping language and communicating purposefully in different genres. The National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC, 2004) states that discourse competence is knowing how to interpret the larger context so that parts make up a coherent whole.<\/span><\/p>\n

SIL International (1999) presents another aspect of discourse competence, the Pragmatic Aspects, which include the following concepts:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Functional Competence refers to the ability to accomplish communication purposes in a language, for example, greeting.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Interactional Competence can also be associated with discourse competence. Interactional Competence involves knowing how to initiate and manage conversations and negotiate meaning with other people.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sociolinguistic Competence refers to the ability to interpret social meaning and to use language in the appropriate social meaning for the contexts.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Strategic Competence enhances the effectiveness of communication and compensates for breakdowns in communication. Beale (2002, in NCLRC, 2004) explains that strategic competence is knowing how to recognize and repair communication breakdowns, for example, asking the question, how do I know I\u2019ve misunderstood or when someone has misunderstood me?<\/span><\/p>\n

At the level of language theory, CLT has a varied theoretical base which identifies that language is a system for the expression of meaning; that the primary function of language is for interaction and communication; that the structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses; that the primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features, but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse (Canale in Beale, 2002).<\/span><\/p>\n

The implication of the aforementioned discussion on principles, theories underpinning the CLT approach is that, it gives language teachers a direction in making proper decisions in the teaching and learning process. It is clearly presented that CLT calls attention to communicative competence and its underlying aspects as goals in language teaching. The theoretical framework designed in Fig. 1 is reflected in the discussions presented under this section. The framework has the following components: Language Teaching\/Learning principles and theories, communicative competence and its aspects, and communicative language teaching as the participatory approach. This study adapted Chris Conley\u2019s framework on conceptualizing content. The framework is shown in bidirectional arrows, which indicate the interrelatedness of each component with other components. It is presented in view of CLT and its theories.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the end of the investigation, the researcher aims to design an action plan for an in-service teacher-training program as part of the faculty development program to support the implementation of the CLT approach at St. Paul University in Dumaguete.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

GRAMMATICAL<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

LEXICAL<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

FUNCTIONAL<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

PRAGMATIC<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

DISCOURSE<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

INTERACTIONAL<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

STRATEGIC<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0APPROACH<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

LANGUAGE TEACHING<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

SOCIOLINGUISTICS<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\"ELTWeekly_Tichie<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Fig. 1.\u00a0 A Schematic Diagram of the Theoretical Considerations<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

of Communicative Language Teaching<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

With language teaching as the context, communicative competence becomes the primary goal of language teaching and learning. Communicative competence and its linguistic and pragmatic aspects are regarded as theories underpinning the CLT approach. Through this framework, the present study is directed as to what aspects are reconsidered in the process of investigating the extent of implementation of CLT in the English 1\/101 program at St. Paul University Dumaguete.<\/span><\/p>\n

Statement of the Problem<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This study attempts to gauge how CLT approach is incorporated in the English 1\/101 syllabus design, materials, activities, lesson presentations, lesson contents and assessment procedures. It also looks into how language form is taught in the CLT approach. In the course of investigating these elements, the study also identifies possible constraints to the implementation of the CLT approach, and how English 1\/101 classrooms reflect the learner-centered education. This study endeavors to find answers to the following questions:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 What is the profile of the teacher respondents in terms of<\/span><\/p>\n

a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 degree,<\/span><\/p>\n

b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 number of years teaching English, and<\/span><\/p>\n

c.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 in-service teacher trainings attended?<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How is the CLT approach reflected in the English 1 syllabus in terms of:<\/span><\/p>\n

a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 goals and objectives,<\/span><\/p>\n

b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 content, and<\/span><\/p>\n

c.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 language form instruction?<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Does teacher-student interaction reflect CLT?<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What are the perceptions of teachers on the implementation of CLT in terms of:<\/span><\/p>\n

a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 content of the lesson,<\/span><\/p>\n

b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 materials used,<\/span><\/p>\n

c.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 types of activities,<\/span><\/p>\n

d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 presentation of lesson, and<\/span><\/p>\n

e.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 assessment procedures?<\/span><\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What are the perceptions of students on the implementation of CLT in terms of :<\/span><\/p>\n

a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 content of the lesson,<\/span><\/p>\n

b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 materials used,<\/span><\/p>\n

c.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 types of activities,<\/span><\/p>\n

d.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 presentation of lesson, and<\/span><\/p>\n

e.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 assessment procedures?<\/span><\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What are the problems encountered by teachers in implementing the CLT approach in terms of:<\/span><\/p>\n

a.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 possible factors present in SPUD that constrain the implementation;<\/span><\/p>\n

b.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 possible implications of these factors in the implementation of CLT?<\/span><\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What activities for English teachers can be proposed to facilitate the implementation of CLT in the local setting?<\/span><\/p>\n

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Related Literature<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Communicative Syllabus Design<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

This review covers the essentials of curriculum and syllabus design by looking into its definition and the design stages covered in this study concerning the goals and objectives, content organization, implementation, and grammar instruction. Current literature tells that there has been a growing interest in the communicative approach compared to linguistic competence, and due to the shifts and changes in perspectives, Kaur (1990) says that in planning language programs, there has been a switch of emphasis from content, that is, grammar and lexis, to objectives which consider many variables other than linguistic features.<\/span><\/p>\n

Taking a closer look at the definitions of curriculum and syllabus, several proponents share their thoughts about the distinctions of these terms. After reviewing the literature on second language syllabus development, Shaw (in Kaur 1990) draws the following conclusion:<\/span><\/p>\n

Curriculum includes goals and objectives, content, processes, resources, and means of evaluation of all learning experience planned for learners both in and out of the school and community, through classroom instruction and related program . . . . On the other hand, syllabus is a statement of the plan for any part of the curriculum excluding the element of curriculum evaluation itself (p.2).<\/span><\/p>\n

Breen and Candlin (2002) point out that a communicative curriculum describes language learning as learning to communicate as a member of a particular socio-cultural group. The purpose of a communicative curriculum identifies communication demands on the learner and the learner\u2019s initial contributions. In other words, these areas should be considered in planning a communicative curriculum. Nunan (in Celce-Murcia 2006) defines curriculum as the large messy concept which can be looked at in a number of ways. It includes all of the planned learning experiences of an educational system.<\/span><\/p>\n

Several ideas about the distinctions between curriculum and syllabus can provide language teachers a clearer of the two concepts. Similarly, distinctions have been made between curriculum design and syllabus design. According to Nunan (in Celce-Murcia 2006), curriculum design involves people who make teaching and learning possible: administrators, teachers, students. On the other hand, the selection, sequencing, and justification of the curriculum content are elements of syllabus design.<\/span><\/p>\n

The criteria mentioned above serve as guide for language syllabus designers particularly language teachers, for these are the things that they should evaluate before making a decision. A language syllabus needs curricular decisions, and designing one entails a complex process.<\/span><\/p>\n

The aforementioned essentials of syllabus designing offer a great deal of excitement not only in this study but also in the field of language teaching in general. In spite of the diverse points of view the literature review has presented so far, there is a major goal that can be drawn from these diverse thoughts and that is, in whatever way a syllabus is designed and implemented, it should be learner-centered.<\/span><\/p>\n

Grammar Teaching in a Communicative Approach<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

An important issue that should be considered in this study is the grammar or language form instruction. Whether grammar should be taught explicitly or implicitly is what comprises this issue. This part of the review includes discussion concerning explicit and implicit grammar teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Brown (1994), grammar is defined as a system of rules governing conventional arrangement and relationship of words in a sentence. In addition, Brown posits that grammatical competence is necessary for communication; however, it is not sufficient. Larsen- Freeman (1991 in Brown, 1994) points out that grammar is one of the three interconnected dimensions which is composed of forms and structures of language, but these forms would just be meaningless if they are not integrated with the other dimensions which are semantics and pragmatics. These definitions signify that grammar should not be taught in isolation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Grammar has a place in communication but it has to be enhanced with communicative activities. Musumeci (1997) posits that grammar has a role in communicative language teaching. Since all languages are characterized by structures, forms, syntax—which are grammar concerns—then language does not exist without it.\u00a0 Clearly, the goal of language learning in the communicative classroom is to acquire the grammar of the second language to enable learners understand and make meaning so that they will become proficient users of the second language. Research shows that explicit grammar teaching alone cannot enhance such competence and thus grammar should be taught in meaningful ways.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lynch (in Beale 2002) points out that the study of grammar reveals how language works and it emphasizes the important aspect in both English acquisition and learning. Robin (2003) stresses that teachers must juggle three important elements in teaching explicit grammar: first is the goal and time of instruction, in which teachers consider those who take grammar for granted; second is the structure of the target language, which emphasizes that grammar should not drive the curriculum; and the third element is the style of the learner, which considers how learners can effectively learn grammar.<\/span><\/p>\n

Noonan (2004) states that explicit knowledge is conscious knowledge of grammar rules learned through formal classroom instruction. In contrast, implicit knowledge is unconscious, that is an internalized knowledge of a language that is available for spontaneous speech. Fotos (in Celce-Murcia, 2006) terms these two general types of knowledge as declarative (explicit) and procedural (implicit). Declarative\/Explicit knowledge is thought to consist propositions (language-based representations) and images (perception-based representations). It is knowledge \u2018about\u2019 something. In contrast, the procedural\/implicit knowledge is knowing the \u2018how\u2019 to do something and is usually unconscious.<\/span><\/p>\n

Brown (1994) presents his idea some of which are similar to the aforementioned principles such as 1) keeping the explanation brief and simple by also allowing the use of mother tongue if the learners can hardly get the explanations; and 2) trying to consider varying cognitive styles among learners. Ur (1996) also agrees to the idea that learners should be provided with many contextualized examples of the structure in order to understand them, and those learners\u2019 situations should be considered.<\/span><\/p>\n

No matter what issues of grammar teaching arise, grammar permeates all language skills, and the objective of teaching grammar is accuracy in the oral and written language for communicative purposes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Language Program Assessment and Evaluation<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Evaluation and assessment have been distinguished in many ways. One may have the perception that it is better to use the term assessment than evaluation since the latter connotes control or regulation whereas assessment merely implies procedures and descriptive observation. In this study, the term assessment is primarily used; however, some concepts of program evaluation are also considered.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Brown (1995) language evaluation is the on-going process of information gathering, analysis, and synthesis. Its purpose is to improve the other elements of the curriculum framework. Gronlund (in Nunan 1992) defines evaluation as a systematic process of determining the degree to which instructional objectives are achieved by the learners. Nunan (1992) believes that assessment and evaluation can be related though they differ in ways in which evaluation is considered as a broader concept than assessment.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rea-Dickens and Germaine (1998) state that program evaluation can be determined in two categories: 1) general purposes and 2) specific, topic-related purposes. The general evaluation purposes may be done for three principal reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n

Accountability<\/i>. This evaluation purpose tells the curriculum movers the results of judgments as to whether something good or bad has happened during the implementation. For this purpose, decisions such as whether to continue or discontinue the curriculum implementation may\u00a0 be brought out. The present study certainly informs the current CLT implementation at SPUD. Consequently, the data gathered somehow help in determining both sides of the implementation, that is, positive or negative.<\/span><\/p>\n

Curriculum development and betterment.<\/i> This evaluation purpose encompasses information from the teachers and other ELT professionals since they are the prime movers in the curriculum renewal and development process. The teacher has major contributions to make in assessing the classrooms. This idea is related to what Breen and Candlin (2002) present in their paper concerning the roles of teachers. They emphasize the teacher\u2019s role of researcher and learner. For curriculum development and betterment, teachers have the primary resources at hand. From the information teachers search out, they become learners of their own classrooms.<\/span><\/p>\n

Self-development of teachers and other language-teaching professionals<\/i>. This evaluation purpose refers to an illuminative evaluation because it involves consciousness-raising activities that will inform the teachers and the practitioners of what really is happening in their own contexts. The in-service teacher training program that this study proposes, will be useful for teacher professional development.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second category of evaluation purposes is the topic-related purpose. For this category, there are key factors evaluators point out that evaluation should not be limited to the examining of learner\u2019s abilities; when evaluating a program the procedure is as important as the outcome; the program\u2019s success or failure can be explained in terms of the conditions affecting the implementation; and other sources of information such as aspects of the teaching and learning process should be considered in the evaluation.<\/span><\/p>\n

The aforementioned elements are significant since this study includes assessment of English 1\/101 syllabus, its content, goals and objectives, materials used, activities conducted, lesson presentations, and assessment procedures, and the program as a whole. In this regard, this study has a broader perspective about the purposes and principles of program assessment concerning<\/span><\/p>\n

Materials, Activities, Assessment Procedures: The CLT Approach<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

This section stresses fundamental works about materials, activities, assessments procedures reflecting the CLT approach. Finnochiaro and Brumfit (in Brown, 1994) have compiled this list of CLT features as a means of comparing CLT to the Audiolingual Method. The following list serves as the standard in describing whether the elements mentioned in this section reflect the CLT approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are also three pedagogical principles that developed round CLT: 1) presentation of language forms in context; 2) significance of genuine communication; and 3) need for learner- centered teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n

On Materials: There has been a wide-ranging variety of materials that support the communicative approaches to language teaching. The Community Language Learning (CLL) practitioners of CLT regard materials as ways of shaping the quality of classroom interaction and language use. Consequently, these materials have a primary role of communicative language use.<\/span><\/p>\n

One type of material is the Realia. Brown (1995) says, \u201cThere is nothing like an \u2018object\u2019 lesson. Objects–food items, cosmetics, tools, and other materials–always add some significant reality to the classroom\u201d (p. 153).The Council of Europe specifies that many proponents have advocated the use of \u2018authentic\u2019, \u2018from-life\u2019 materials in the classroom. Language\u2013based realia includes:<\/span><\/p>\n

Magazines: Pictures from this material can be used for description, comparison, writing mysteries, or movie plots. Students can bring in recipes and teachers can ask them to write transitional phrases.<\/span><\/p>\n

Newspapers : The advice column is useful to work with modals. The students may write their answers to the questions asked in the advice column. Students can also be asked to phone each other and ask questions based on an advertisement ( Rueckert, 2006).<\/span><\/p>\n

Catalogs: This material can be used for vocabulary picture, poster, or dictionary. Students can also talk about preferences and colors. They can also make a list of all the activities they usually do in that room ( Rueckert, 2006).<\/span><\/p>\n

Levin and Nolan (in Patron, 2005) assert that in enhancing the students understanding and student interest in the teaching learning- process, teaching along with the use of authentic instructional tasks should be employed together. Richards and Rogers (in Gloria, 2007) state that the role of instructional materials in CLT approach is to prompt the quality of classroom interaction and\u00a0 language use.<\/span><\/p>\n

On Activities and Techniques.\u00a0 The Council of Europe presents the types and teaching activities that are compatible with the communicative approach. Classroom activities of this type is unlimited provided that they enable learners to attain communicative objectives, engage them in communication, and require the use of such communicative process such as information sharing, negotiation of meaning, and interaction. Moss and Ross-Feldman (2004) define communicative activities as any activities that encourage and require learners to speak with and listen to other learners. They further explain that communicative activities have real purposes: to find information, break down barriers, talk about self, and learn about culture. Thus, communicative activities should be integrated even if the goal is to develop the linguistic competence of the learners.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ur (1996) describes some characteristics of a successful communicative activity: learners should do much of the talking; participation should be even in such a way that all is given the opportunity to speak; motivation should be high such that learners are eager to speak because of the interesting topic; and language should be of an acceptable level in which learners express themselves in relevant utterances because they understand it. On the other hand, Ur also shares that there are also problems with speaking activities such as inhibition, and for this reason, students end up with nothing to say.\u00a0 They have low or uneven participation and use their mother tongue a great deal.<\/span><\/p>\n

William Cheng\u2019s (2004) article on CLT theories and practice emphasizes the importance of communication in interaction. Tremblay (in Cheng, 2004) points out the four characteristics of communicative activities: 1) The activity involves at least two people; 2) these two people talk to each other; 3) each is interested in what the other is doing; 4) each reacts either verbally or non-verbally to what the other says.<\/span><\/p>\n

The above discussion focuses on details about how the CLT approach is reflected in each of the elements of a syllabus. This discussion informs and guides this study in assessing the extent of CLT implementation in a local setting.<\/span><\/p>\n

Related Studies<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

CLT in Japan<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

In Japan, Batt (2002) reviewed one study entitled \u201cThe Communicative Orientation of Virtual Language Teaching in Schools.\u201d This study aimed to identify the nature of communicative orientation in upper primary and junior secondary Japanese language classrooms in telematic mode and find out whether there was\u00a0 interaction observable in Japanese language telematic classrooms that promoted second language acquisition. The first objective of the study identified the relative emphasis placed on interaction and form-focused instruction while the second identified whether the feature of interaction that SLA researchers suggest promote evidence in telematic context. The study was a classroom-centered research that provided real classroom interaction. Salaberry (2001, cited in Batt ) says that:<\/span><\/p>\n

The findings of this research are vital bases for professional practice, if for no other reason than through classroom investigations we can verify or disconfirm the effectiveness of specific or general approaches to instruction and curricular content, and identify and understand the nature of interactive communication in the classroom.\u2019 (p. 2)<\/span><\/p>\n

CLT in Puerto Rico<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Nogueras (2007) presented her study on \u201cSelf-Esteem and Oral Communicative Language Proficiency\u201d in the Puerto Rican Teaching-Learning Process. The study aimed to investigate the global self-esteem of the ESL students participating in the study; the students\u2019 self-esteem in the ESL classroom; the level of oral communicative language proficiency the students have; and the relationship among global self-esteem, self-esteem of ESL students and the oral communicative language proficiency. The findings in this study reveal that family, teachers, peers, and community play a vital role in developing the self-esteem of the learner. Through positive influence by the aforementioned factors, the students are eager to actively and productively participate in the language learning process. The implications of the study are that parents, teachers and community should be aware of this importance, and that the learning environment created by these factors are internalized through the affective aspects of learning, otherwise the students are negatively affected.<\/span><\/p>\n

CLT in Taiwan<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

In Taiwan, Huang and Liu (February, 2000) conducted a study titlted \u201cCommunicative Language Teaching in a Multimedia Language Lab.\u201d The study aimed to identify 1) the similarities and differences of language teaching and learning between a traditional classroom and a multimedia lab under communicative framework; 2) changes in the roles of teachers and students when they are in different teaching environment from the traditional classroom; and 3) the implications of the CLT approach in a multimedia computer language lab in teaching. Data were obtained through classroom observation and group interviews of selected students. The focus of the interview was on the students\u2019 attitudes towards CLT approach and the multimedia lab. The students were also briefed about the nature of the interview. Results show that teaching in the multimedia lab presents a large impact on the student-teacher communication. Students find the student-computer communication relatively new for them.<\/span><\/p>\n

CLT in China<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

In China, an experimental project on the application of the communicative approach to college English Reading class was conducted. The study sought to investigate whether communicative approach could help students acquire their vocabulary while reading through communicative activities, and develop their ability to use the language and stimulate interest in learning English. There was a pre-treatment questionnaire that asked about the students\u2019 perception of the reading strategies and discourse structures. There were three steps considered in conducting the communicative activities in class: 1) warm-up activities in which group discussions, pair work and individual presentations, changing partners and circle discussions were organized to be familiar with the topic that are going to read; 2) reading activities where students and teachers analyzed discourse structures; 3) follow-up activities where teachers asked questions about the topic and got feedback from the students. Clearly, the activities were organized such that the students could participate in the interaction. The findings of the study that\u00a0 proved that the CLT approach was being used was drawn from achievement scores in final examinations, tape record of the process and the feedback. Students in classes with the grammar translation approach said that they were like robots and they never had the chance to use the English language. Most of the students liked the CLT approach while others doubted about it.<\/span><\/p>\n

CLT in the Philippines<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Gloria (2007) sought to investigate the extent of implementation of the CLT approach at Silliman University High School in Dumaguete City. Gloria sought to evaluate the implementation of CLT in terms of curriculum, syllabus, classroom assessment and evaluation used by the language teachers in the school. The instruments used for data gathering were teacher interviews, student survey, classroom observations, and content analysis of syllabus, lesson plan, and teaching materials. Although CLT was implemented in both weak and strong forms, findings generally show that the language curriculum in\u00a0 Silliman University High School Department is delivered mostly through the\u00a0 CLT approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

Patron (2006, cited in Gloria, 2007) sought to evaluate the implementation of the Project in Basic Education (PROBE) in 11 different PROBE pilot high schools in the province of Negros Oriental. It was evaluated in terms of in-service education and production of supplementary materials. The study showed that the teachers were able to use the creative teaching strategies and materials recommended by PROBE. Teachers highlighted the importance of authentic materials which they also emphasized that their ability to use these types was rated as \u2018good\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Camay (2000, in Gloria, 2007) focused on achieving the communicative competence through story telling models. The subjects of the study were the first year architecture students at San Carlos University. The students\u2019 communicative competence was compared before and after the introduction of storytelling models It was found out that the grammatical, sociolinguistics and strategic competencies of the students were rated as \u2018satisfactory\u2019 while their discourse competence revealed a significant increase. Furthermore, the interest of the students as well as their experiences should be regarded because the more they are interested in the topic, the more they became very participative.\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Research Methodology<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Research Design<\/span><\/p>\n

This study is exploratory, qualitative and statistical in nature. The research design utilized a non-experimental method, yield both qualitative and simple quantitative data. Data gathering processes included the following: 1) Pre-study survey on the present English 1\/101 program which was done through interviews with administrators. 2) Teacher and student surveys on their perception of the CLT implementation in English 1\/101 in terms of content, materials, activities, lesson presentations, and assessment procedures, the results of which were validated through focused group discussions conducted with teachers and students. FGD, a qualitative procedure, is a group discussion of approximately 6-12 persons guided by a facilitator, during which group members talk freely and spontaneously about a certain topic Classroom observations from which classroom discourse, specifically teacher-student or student-student interaction, was analyzed with the use of COLT (Communicative Orientation to Language Teaching) observation scheme and the Sinclair and Coulthard conventions. In the process of investigation, this study also looked into problems and constraints teachers have encountered in implementing the CLT approach, with the use of a survey questionnaire for teachers. Based on the results and findings, an action plan for in-service training for the English teachers is proposed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Research Environment<\/span><\/p>\n

This study was conducted among all English 1 teachers and selected students of St. Paul University in Dumaguete at the tertiary level. SPUD is one of the four universities located in Dumaguete City. The sisters of St. Paul of Chartres who came to establish the school founded it in 1904. It earned its university status in 2003. SPUD has three colleges: College of Arts and Education offering such programs as\u00a0\u00a0 Bachelor of Arts (AB), Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED), Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED); College of Business Education offering Bachelor of Business Administration and three other courses, and College of Nursing. The Basic Education unit runs the elementary and high school departments. The two colleges, College of Nursing and College of Business Education were the center of the research study since these two are the ones handling Basic Communication Skills 1 (also English 1 or English 101).<\/span><\/p>\n

Research Respondents<\/span><\/p>\n

The respondents of the study were the English 1\/101 teachers and selected students from the College of Nursing and the College of Business Education. The College of Business Education runs four programs: Business Administration (BA), Hotel and Restaurant Management (HRM)\/Tourism, Computer Science (CS)\/ Information Technology (IT), Accountancy (BSA), and Associate in Computer Science (ACS). The teacher-respondents were the entire population of English 1\/101 teachers, but the student-respondents were selected through stratified sampling. Sloven\u2019s formula was used to determine the sample size of the student-respondents.<\/span><\/p>\n

Data-Gathering Process<\/span><\/p>\n

Below are the steps and\/or procedures followed when gathering the data for this paper.<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 A pre-study survey on the English 1\/101 program was conducted through interviews with administrators;<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The teachers and students surveys which concern the perception of CLT implementation in English 1\/101 in terms of content, materials, activities, lesson presentations and assessment procedures were administered, results of which were validated through focus group discussions (FGD) with teachers and students .<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 A classroom observation from which analyses of teacher-student or student-student interactions were made. Data were gathered for two weeks during which classes were observed for about ten meetings. Data gathered from classroom observations were analyzed for student-teacher or student-student interactions in the classroom and to do this, the researcher used the COLT (Communicative Orientation to Language Teaching) Observation Scheme and the Sinclair & Coulthard Conventions.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In the process of investigation, this study also looked into problems and constraints encountered by teachers in implementing the CLT approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

Research Instruments<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Questionnaire: There were two sets of questionnaires used in the study: one for the teacher-respondents and another for the students. The teacher\u2019s questionnaire was structured into four main parts:<\/span><\/p>\n

Part 1, the Teacher-Respondents\u2019 Profile asked for the educational attainment, number of years teaching English, and In-service Teacher Trainings attended (adapted from Patron, 2005).<\/span><\/p>\n

Part 2, on Syllabus Design and Implementation dealt with goals and objectives, content, and grammar instruction; (adapted from Gloria, 2007).<\/span><\/p>\n

Part 3, on Assessment on the Implementation of CLT concerned Content of the Lesson, Materials Used in Class, Activities Conducted in Class, Lesson Presentations, and Assessment Procedures (adapted from Nunan, 1991; Brown, 1994; and Weir, 1993).<\/span><\/p>\n

Part 4, on Problems Encountered by Teachers in Implementing the CLT approach included a checklist of the possible factors that hinder the implementation of CLT and possible factors that help teachers implement CLT successfully\u00a0 (adapted from Jarvis and Atsilarat, 2004).<\/span><\/p>\n

The second set which was for the student-respondents concerned their assessment of the implementation of the CLT approach. It considered the content of the lesson, materials used in class, activities conducted in class, lesson presentations, and assessment procedures.<\/span><\/p>\n

MP4 Player: This was used for recording classroom interactions among teachers and students especially during classroom observations and also in the FGD with teachers and students.<\/span><\/p>\n

Video Camera: Classroom observations were also video recorded to\u00a0 capture salient movements and activities in the classroom, which could be very beneficial in doing the discourse analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n

COLT Scheme Framework: COLT stands for Communicative Orientation to Language Teaching. It is has two parts: The first part describes classroom events and consists of five major parts (the activity type, participant organization, content, student modality, and materials). The second part relates to communicative features and verbal exchange between the teacher and the students or students and other students. This consists of the following parts: the use of target language, information gap, sustained speech, and reaction to code a message, incorporation of preceding utterance, discourse initiation, and relative restriction of linguistic form.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sinclair and Coulthard conventions: The conventions of this framework were to describe the language functions manifested in the acts of the teachers and students during interaction in the class.<\/span><\/p>\n

Focus Group Discussions: FGD involves 6-12 persons in a group discussion. This is guided by a facilitator, in which the participants talk spontaneously about a certain topic. The FGD is more than a question and answer interaction.\u00a0 This discussion includes techniques such as focus research, formulating appropriate questions, help understand and solve unexpected problems and explore controversial topics.<\/span><\/p>\n

Statistical Treatment of Data<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The following statistical tools were used to treat the data for presentation, analysis, and interpretation:<\/span><\/p>\n

Percentage:<\/span><\/p>\n

Formula:<\/span><\/p>\n

Percentage =\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Part <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0x 100<\/span><\/p>\n

Whole<\/span><\/p>\n

Weighted Mean. Used to treat data on the extent of implementation of CLT in English 1\/101 as perceived by teachers and students.<\/span><\/p>\n

Formula:<\/span><\/p>\n

WX\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 =\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2211 f x<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2211 f<\/span><\/p>\n

Where:<\/span><\/p>\n

WX\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 =\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Weighted Mean<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2211 f x\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 = \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sum of all the products of f and x;<\/span><\/p>\n

where f is the frequency of each option \u00a0and x is the weight of each option.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2211 f\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 =\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sum of all subjects<\/span><\/p>\n

Conceptual Framework<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The present study seeks to assess the extent of implementation of the CLT approach in the English 1\/101 at SPUD. Data gathered are analyzed based on the conceptual framework (Fig. 2). This framework is adapted from Tyler\u2019s Structural Cycle on the curriculum development system and Carroll\u2019s curriculum triangle.<\/span><\/p>\n

The concept of the curriculum triangle considers the needs of students, the program designed to address such needs, and the assessment procedures employed to assess the effectiveness of the program and students\u2019 learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

The running lines circling English 1\/101 signifies flexibility of the program- to mean it is open to periodic review and revision.<\/span><\/p>\n

The three circles show the three major components involved in this study such as the input, the process and the output. The aforementioned components are discussed as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

The input refers to the CLT implementation in English 1\/101 at St. Paul University Dumaguete. The focus of this assessment study is the implementation of English 1\/101 at SPUD.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the process of assessment on the extent of CLT implementation, this study looks into the syllabus design, materials used in class, activities conducted in class, lesson presentations particularly in grammar, and assessment procedures.<\/span><\/p>\n

As part of the assessment on the extent of CLT implementation, data are gathered through:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 survey on teachers\u2019 description of the existing English 1\/101 syllabus in terms of the bases for formulating the goals and objectives, organizing the content, and grammar presentation techniques;<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 survey on teachers\u2019 assessment on the extent of CLT approach in CLT ;<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 survey on students\u2019 assessment on the CLT approach implementation. The assessment includes how the CLT approach is manifested in the contents of the lessons, materials used, activities conducted, lesson presentations, and assessment procedures. To validate the survey results, focused group discussions (FGD) with the students and teachers are conducted; and<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 classroom observations in which the researcher analyses the nature of student-teacher interaction using the COLT observation scheme and the language functions in the exchanges between students and teachers using the Sinclair and Coulthard conventions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, this study also looks into the problems and constraints encountered by teachers in implementing the CLT approach in their respective classes. The output of the study is the design of an action plan for an in-service teacher training program (INSET).\u00a0 The in-service teacher training aims to ensure quality language instruction, strengthen English language skills, and acquaint participants with more recent development in CLT methodologies, classroom resources, pedagogical skills and career development materials.<\/span><\/p>\n

The bidirectional arrows show that the major components such as the input, the process, and the output inform each other. The continuous circle depicts a cyclical process of curriculum development.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"ELTWeekly_Tichie<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Fig. 2: Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework of the Study\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Survey Results of the English 1\/101 Teacher Respondents<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

This section presents data from the survey conducted particularly with the English 1\/101 teacher respondents. The data are categorized in terms of the following: 1) the teacher respondents\u2019 profile; 2) the English 1\/101 syllabus; 3) the teachers\u2019 perception on the implementation of CLT; and 4) the problems encountered by teachers in implementing the CLT approach. The statistical data are supported with comprehensive and descriptive transcripts of ideas shared by the English teachers during the Focus Group Discussion (FGD). This activity as used in this study has two clear objectives adapted from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC): 1) to obtain\u00a0 comprehensive information on concepts\/perceptions and ideas of the student and the teacher respondents on the extent of implementation of the CLT approach in English 1\/101 at SPUD; and 2) to discuss the concepts\/perceptions ideas of the English 1\/101 teachers and the students with regard to the extent of implementation of the CLT approach in terms of syllabus design and implementation, lesson content, activities conducted, materials used, lesson presentations and the types of tests that they had in their English 1\/101 classes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The FGD activity was conducted on December 5, 2007 at 4:45 in the afternoon at the SPUD Defense Room. The participants were the English 1\/101 teachers of the College of Business Education and the College of Nursing, the facilitator, and the researcher herself. The activity started with a short prayer led by the facilitator, Mrs. Eufemia Montecillo, an English 2 teacher. After the prayer, she presented the FGD objectives and its purpose. She also explained to the participants what kind of information was needed and how the\u00a0 information would be used in the study. During this session, the discussion centered on the teachers\u2019 assessment on the extent of CLT implementation in their English 1\/101 classes in terms of: a) content of the lesson, b) materials used in class, c) activities conducted in class, d) lesson presentations, and e) assessment types\/procedures. The teacher respondents were also asked to describe the design of the English 1\/101 syllabus they are using, and the problems they encountered in the implementation of CLT.<\/span><\/p>\n

The FGD with students substantiates their responses to the questionnaire. The activity was conducted on December 10, 2007 at 4 o\u2019clock in the afternoon at the Mary Anne d\u2019 Tilly (MAT) conference room in St. Paul University Dumaguete (SPUD). The participants were the selected College of Business Education (CBED) and the College of Nursing (CON) students in the first year level. The CBED was represented by the BBA1a, BBA1b, HRM, BSA, CSIT, ACS and Tourism students while the CON was represented by sections A to F. The CBED had the most number of student representative students. The same procedures as those in the FGD with the teachers were observed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Profile of Teacher-respondents<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The survey was conducted among two English 1\/101 teachers in the College of Business Education (CBED) and College of Nursing (CON). Both have earned a degree of Bachelor of Arts in Secondary Education major in English.\u00a0 The English 101 teacher in the CBED department has a Master of Arts degree in Educational Management and she has been teaching English for thirty years. On the other hand, the English 1 teacher in the CON department has a Masters of Education degree major in English as a Second Language and has been teaching English for six years. <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Table 1: Teacher Respondents Profile: In-Service Trainings Attended<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
TITLES<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 1<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 2<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/del><\/span>Teaching English as a Second Language<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Current Methods in English Language Teaching and Testing with Emphasis on \u201c Communicative Approach\u201d<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Theories and Methodologies in Language Teaching<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Critical Thinking Strategies<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Teaching Global English Proficiency: The Call Center Way<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Six Thinking Hats: A Method in Setting Directions for Critical Thinking<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Teaching Genre According to Context-Text Model of Language Use<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Beyond the Text: Using Extended Discussions of a Story<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Text Types or Genres<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A Well-Constructed and Formatted Classroom Test: a Factor in Improving student Learning and Performance<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Persuasive Exposition: A Debate<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Discussion: Genre Based Approach<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
OTHERS<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
English for Specific Purposes (ESP)<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Teaching Reading<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 1 shows a list of in-service trainings attended which promote communicative language teaching (CLT) skills. It can be seen that Teacher 2 has attended all the trainings listed and added two others, while Teacher 1 attended only five. These five are the in-service trainings common to both teachers.\u00a0 De Lima (2001) states that in the world of English as Foreign Language (EFL), there has been a focus of attention to teacher trainings.\u00a0 Major issues include teacher background and competence, content of the teacher training, political influences, cultural appropriateness, and the process and methodologies of the trainings. This statement implies that English teachers need to be exposed to in-service trainings particularly on methodologies of CLT to achieve communicative goals in their teaching, with emphasis on the most essential characteristics of a language teacher, i. e. communication as well as delivery skills. Li (2006) emphasizes that there is a need for teacher education programs to change in terms of methodologies.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Table 2a: Syllabus Design and Implementation: Goals and Objectives<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
QUESTIONS<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 1<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 2<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
What are the bases in formulating the objectives of the English 1\/101 syllabus?<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Needs analysis<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Educational policies from the government<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Curriculum revision initiated by SPUD<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mission and vision of the school<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Others: Revisions by CHED<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Needs of students to improve \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/ins>communication<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
What was the primary aim of the English 1\/101 syllabus?<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
To understand conversational English<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
To develop oral language skills<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
To master the structures of English such as sentence patterns, etc.<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Others: To deal simultaneously with new concept, words, and expressions<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To communicate effectively<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/b>With regard to the primary aim of the English 1\/101 syllabus, the two teacher respondents agreed that the following aims are reflected in the syllabus: to understand conversational English, to develop oral language skills, and to master the structures of English.<\/i> Teacher 2 added two other aims: to deal simultaneously with new concepts, words, and expressions <\/i>and to communicate effectively.<\/i> Breen and Candlin (2002) view learning to communicate as a member of a certain socio-cultural group as the central process of language learning. Yalden (in Chung , 2005) emphasizes that the syllabus should be designed according to the notion that learners are communicators. The syllabus must seek to provide the learners with the target language system. This implies that second language learners should be provided with objectives that develop their ability to express their thoughts and communicate in the target language.<\/span><\/p>\n

During the focus group discussion with the teachers, they were asked to share experiences they had with their English 1\/101 students in the first semester. One teacher asked for clarification as to how needs analysis was conducted and was told that needs analysis should consider several factors such as the present time, the kind of students, availability of resources, and the course duration.<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 2b: Syllabus Design and Implementation: Content<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
QUESTIONS<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 1<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 2<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
What was the nature of the syllabus you are following?<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Notional\/ functional<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Skills- based<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Text-based<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Content-based<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Structural<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Task- based<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Situational<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
How are the contents of the syllabus organized?<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 1<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 2<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
By following the contents of the book<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
From simple to complex task<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Based on common situations such as \u2018 at the park\u2019, \u2018at the beach\u2019, etc.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
From simple to harder grammatical structures<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Based on different functions such as identifying, reporting, etc.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

It is worth noting that Teacher 2 marked all types of syllabus listed, which can signify that she uses a multi-dimensional syllabus. Both teachers agree that the syllabus contents should be organized from simple to complex tasks and from simple to harder grammatical structures. Also, both teachers think that organizing syllabus content according to the contents of a book they may be using is not good practice.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Brumfit (in Kaur, 1990) posits three types of analyses to specify the content. These analyses reflect the different views of the nature in which language is learned. To sum it up, the three types of analyses have to be considered by language teachers to understand what needs to be specified in the content of the syllabus.<\/span><\/p>\n

During the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) the English 1\/101 teachers follow a multi-dimensional syllabus or the integrated syllabus. According to them, the organization of the content of the syllabus follows from simple to complex tasks and from simple to harder grammatical structures because they believe that the students need first to know the simpler concepts or do the simpler tasks before proceeding to more complex ones. They also emphasize that the content also depends on the kind of students they have. However, Breen and Candlin (2002) caution that sequencing the contents from \u2018simple\u2019 to \u2018complex\u2019 may be very deceptive in the sense of understanding the relationship between a text and its meaning. <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Table 2c: Syllabus Design and Implementation: Language Form Instruction and Materials<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Scale:\u00a0 5 – ALMOST ALWAYS USED; 4 – USUALLY USED; 3 – SOMETIMES USED; 2 –\u00a0\u00a0 GENERALLY USED; 1 – ALMOST NEVER USED<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
QUESTIONS<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nScale<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 1<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 2<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/span>How frequently do you use the following techniques in presenting grammar to class?<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/del><\/span>5<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

4<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

3<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

2<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

1<\/span><\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/span>reporting , lectures about structures<\/span>\u00a0<\/ins><\/span>role-plays, dialogs, dramas, debates<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

games<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 <\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

none<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

watching videos<\/span><\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/del><\/span>none<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

reporting, lectures about structures<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

games, role-plays, dialogs, dramas, debates<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

none<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0none<\/del><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\u00a0<\/b><\/span>\u00a0<\/del><\/b><\/span>\u00a0<\/del><\/b><\/span>\u00a0<\/del><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/del><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/del><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

How frequently do you use the following materials in presenting grammar points in class?<\/span><\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/del><\/span>5<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/del><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/ins><\/span><\/p>\n

4<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

3<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/del><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

1<\/span><\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/del><\/span>none<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

none<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

journals; non-linear visuals such as charts, graphs, grids, maps, diagrams<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

television and radio newscasts<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

magazine articles<\/span><\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/del><\/span>short stories; personal experiences<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

magazine articles<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/del><\/span><\/p>\n

journals<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/del><\/span><\/p>\n

none<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

television and radio newscasts; non-linear visuals such as charts, graphs, maps, diagrams<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

With reference to the materials used in presenting grammar points, it is also shown that short stories, personal experiences and magazine articles <\/i>as almost always used and usually used <\/b>while journals, magazine articles and non-linear visuals are rated as sometimes used, generally used, or almost never used <\/b>materials in presenting grammar points to class. Wyss (2002) posits some guidelines to engage learners in functional activities. In presenting a lesson, the teacher has to consider the cyclical process of learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the statements given by the teachers during the FGD, most of the techniques that they used in presenting grammar lessons are lecture and reporting. They also emphasize that the activities and the materials depend on the kind of students they have, and the subject matter of the day. Communicative activities such as telling a short story, sharing of beautiful experiences, games were incorporated in teaching grammar.\u00a0 There were also authentic materials that were used like magazines, newspapers, brochures and others to facilitate the discussion but the other teacher respondent said that the use of visual aids were easier to control. The teacher respondents pointed out that some of the activities were not employed in English 1\/101 classes because they were not applicable in the class.<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 3a: Teachers Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Content of the Lesson<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Contents of my lessons emphasize learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.50<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. My lessons introduce authentic texts into the learning situation.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Contents provide opportunities for learners to focus not only on the language but also on the learning process.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.50<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Contents enhance my learners\u2019 personal experiences as one important element to classroom learning.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.50<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. My lessons attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the classroom.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
4.00<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Contents of my lessons have objectives that allow my students to interact with me and their classmates.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
4.00<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Contents of my lessons consider the cultural background of my learners.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
4.00<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n3.64<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>Table 3a above illustrates that features 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 <\/b>indicate that contents of the lessons in English 1\/101 always<\/b> reflect the CLT approach. In the overall rating, the teacher respondents rated this category 3.64<\/b>, which means that CLT features are always<\/b> reflected in the content of the lesson. The data shows that the content of the lessons mirrors CLT characteristics. Nunan (1991) presents the characteristics of CLT which include interaction in the target language as the focus of learning, opportunities provided for learners focused on the learning process itself, enhancement of personal experiences and integration and activation of classroom language learning outside the classroom.\u00a0 FGD results <\/b>show that the content of the lessons reflect the CLT approach, according to the teachers. However, the teachers stressed that they seldom used authentic texts for a few reasons such as, not applicable to the class, time consuming, difficult to control, class size is big and more expensive. Despite this observation, the rest of the CLT features are present in the content of the lessons. Breen and Candlin (2000) state \u201clanguage curricula have often been traditionally defined by their content\u2026 the communicative curriculum would place content within the methodology and provide it with the role of servant to the teaching\u2013learning process\u201d (p. 102).<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 4b: Teachers Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Materials Used in Class<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I use authentic materials as take-off points for my class discussions and class activities.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.00<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I ask my class to bring authentic materials such as newspapers, magazines, articles, etc.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.50<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I provide my students with materials that allow them to interpret situations and express meaning.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.00<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I make sure that materials I use for my students facilitate communicative practice of the English language.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I am certain that materials I am using require the students to interact and communicate when working with it.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I use charts, objects, and maps in introducing grammar structures.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.50<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n2.50<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CLT features <\/b>2, 4, 5, and 6 are usually <\/b>reflected in the materials being used in class. On the other hand, features 1 and 3 are seldom<\/b> reflected in the aforementioned area. In general, the materials being used by the English 1\/101 teachers in class are rated 2.50 <\/b>to mean usually<\/b> reflect CLT approach. The features presented above show what kinds of materials the English teachers used and how these materials facilitate learning. Materials have primary a role in communicative language use. Breen and Candlin (2002) affirm that students should be exposed to authentic texts and these texts must facilitate second language learning.\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

During the FGD , one of the teacher respondents pointed out that some materials are brought to class, like the newspaper, after discussing its parts. But seldom does she provide the students with materials to allow them to interpret situations considering the type of learners or students she has. She usually asks her students to bring the materials.\u00a0 Moreover, the other teacher respondent says that she does not focus on materials but in communication. Widdowson (in Richards 2002) argues that it is not important if classroom materials themselves are derived from authentic texts or other forms of input, as long as the learning processes they facilitate is authentic.<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 4c: Teachers\u2019 Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Activities Conducted in Class<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I prepare activities that are suitable for realistic interactions among students.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I see to it that the activities maximize student involvement such as role-plays, drama, and debates.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I ask my students to write essays, short stories, and poems.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.50<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I let them listen to authentic listening tasks and they give their reactions to it.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
1.50<\/span><\/td>\nNever<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I ask them to read articles from authentic text and they give opinions to it.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.50<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I make sure that the activities have single focus.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.00<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n2.42<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 4c <\/b>indicates that features 1 and 2 are usually<\/b> reflected, while 3, 5, and 6 are marked as seldom <\/b>reflected, and 4 as never<\/b> reflected in the activities conducted by English teachers in class. As a whole, the teacher respondents rated 2.42, which<\/b> means that CLT features are seldom<\/b> reflected in the activities in class. Richards (2002) explains that classroom activities such as those mentioned above are unlimited provided that they enable learners to attain communicative objectives, engage in communication, and use such in the communicative process. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/b>\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Table 4d: Teachers\u2019 Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Lesson Presentations<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I include both oral and written forms, and emphasize both form and meaning.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I vary the activities in class, alternating rapid and slow-paced activities to suit the needs and nature of my students.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I provide my students with contextualized examples of the structures.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I give lessons with clear, concise directions using students L1 judiciously such that this will be comprehensible to my learners.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I use appropriate jokes, anecdotes, and stories to motivate my students.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.50<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I present lessons on structures to develop the discourse skills of my students.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n3.08<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The data presented in Table 4d show that most of the CLT features are usually<\/b> reflected in the lesson presentations of the English 1\/101 classes. CLT features 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are marked as usually <\/b>reflected features and 5 marked as always<\/b> reflected in the lesson presentation. In the overall rating, the teacher respondents rated 3.08 <\/b>which would mean that CLT features are usually reflected in the lesson presentations of the English 1\/101 teachers.<\/span><\/p>\n

During the FGD, the teachers are more expressive. They showed how they deal with their students in the area of presenting the lessons. Presentation of language forms is one of the three pedagogical principles that developed around CLT. Other than this, are the context and the importance of genuine communication. \u00a0Language forms are first presented under the guidance of the teacher, then practiced in a series of exercises with the teacher\u2019s supervision (Beale, 2002).\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Table 4e: Teachers\u2019 Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Assessment Types\/Procedures<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I give tests in reading that involve skills such as interpreting tables and graphs.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
1.50<\/span><\/td>\nNever<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I provide reading texts for students to interpret meaning.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.00<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I conduct performance testing such as debates, role-plays, and speeches to assess communication skills.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.50<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I prepare listening tests that include listening for gist, determining the speakers\u2019 attitude, listening to get info.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.00<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I give writing tests that include skills in describing, narrating, and arguing.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. My assessment criteris consider both accuracy and fluency of language use.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.00<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. I give speaking tests that involve realistic ineteraction such as telephone conversations, buying goods in a shop, etc.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
1.50<\/span><\/td>\nNever<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/span>Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n2.67<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 4e shows that features 1 and 7 are marked as never <\/b>reflected, features 2 and 4 are seldom<\/b> reflected, while 3, 5, and 6 are usually<\/b> reflected in the assessment types and procedures conducted in the classroom. As regards the overall rating, the teacher respondents rated this category 2.67<\/b> which means that CLT is usually<\/b> reflected in the types and procedures of assessment they employ in class. Weir (1993) emphasizes that as much as possible, real-language testing should be incorporated in language testing. He added that it is necessary that criterial features of real-life use of language should be included in the tests so that the students can perform authentic activities. During this discussion, the \u00a0<\/del>teachers stressed some of the problems in administering communicative or performance testing such as that it is time consuming and expensive. This statement should be reconsidered as Underhill (in Fulcher 2000) states: \u201cthere is no real-life situation in which we go around asking or answering multiple choice questions (p. 484).\u201c<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 5a: Problems Encountered by Teachers in Implementing CLT Approach <\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
    \n
  1. Have you encountered any problems when implementing CLT in your classroom?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
Frequency<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n%<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 YES<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n2<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n100<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 NO<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n0<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n0<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 TOTAL<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n2<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n100<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 5a illustrates that 100% of the teacher respondents encountered problems when implementing CLT in the classrooms. The data shows that implementing a certain approach to language teaching is not an easy task to do. It entails several factors to be considered before it can be made possible.\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Table 5b: Problems Encountered<\/span> by Teachers in Implementing CLT Approach: Possible Problems Encountered <\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/span>Problems\/Factors <\/b><\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/b><\/span>Teacher 1<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/b><\/span>Teacher 2<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The students are not comfortable with CLT.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The students need accuracy rather than fluency.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The students\u2019 English proficiency level is too low.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
You are not ready to give up your authoritative role.<\/ins><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
You mind if your students question or challenge your knowledge.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The students\u2019 responsibility in doing communicative tasks is low.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/del><\/span>Class size is too big.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Time is limited.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Materials do not facilitate CLT approach.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The examination format is not totally CLT based.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
You are not certain what CLT expects you to do.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 5b reflects the possible factors or problems that hinder the implementation of the CLT approach in the English 1\/101 classes. Both of the teacher respondents agree that big class sizes and the limited time<\/i> are the possible factors that hinder the implementation of the CLT approach.\u00a0 Teacher 1 verified some other possible factors or problems such as students\u2019 English proficiency level is low and the materials do not facilitate CLT approach. <\/i>Whereas teacher 2 checked some other problems such as the students\u2019 need for accuracy rather than fluency and she is not certain what CLT wants her to do.\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Table 5c: Factors for Successful CLT Implementation<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Factors Affecting the successful CLT Implementation<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 1<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nTeacher 2<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/del><\/del><\/span>When you were a student, your teacher used CLT.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
You have received trainings in your school.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
You have been using CLT for a long time.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/del><\/span>You have been receiving support from your administrators.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>\u221a<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/del><\/span>There is proper coordination among English teachers in implementing CLT.<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CLT implementation at SPUD has had some positive feedback also to the English teachers. This section presents the constructive side of the implementation of the CLT approach at SPUD. According to the data presented above (Table 4c), the teachers noted that successful implementation of the CLT approach is due to some factors such as having received CLT trainings in school, CLT being used by their English teachers before, having been using CLT approach for a long time, and having been receiving support from the administrators.<\/span><\/p>\n

FGD shows the comments and suggestions of the English teachers concerning the implementation of the CLT approach. The teachers emphasize that the use of the CLT approach is not given importance. They also point out that administration should be supportive by providing materials, good visual rooms, seminars and workshops to upgrade the English teachers. Other subject area teachers are also asked to encourage the students to speak English during their classes as a way of helping the students to develop their communication skills <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Survey Results of the English 1\/101 Student Respondents<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Table 6a: Student Respondents\u2019 Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Content of the Lesson<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Contents of our lessons emphasize learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.28<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Our lessons relate real texts that are applicable to our learning situation.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.17<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. The topics of our lessons do not only focus on grammar but also include how we learn to use it.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.60<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. The contents enhance our personal experiences.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.05<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. \u00a0Our lessons attempt to relate language we learn in class by making it possible outside the classroom.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.07<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. The objectives of the lesson allow us to interact with our teacher and our classmates.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
3.19<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. The contents of our lessons consider our cultural background.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.58<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n3.13<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 6a shows that CLT features number 1 and 3 are always<\/b> reflected in the contents of the lesson, while features numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are usually<\/b> reflected in the contents of the lessons presented by their English teachers. The overall mean of 3.13 <\/b>indicates that the contents of the lessons always <\/b>reflect the CLT approach. It has been said that language that is meaningful to the learners supports the learning process (Johnson & Littlewood 2000). Wilkins (in Kaur 1981) emphasizes that language syllabuses contain specifications of the content of language teaching which are structured and sequenced with the aim of successful and effective teaching and learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

During the students FGD presents the students\u2019 assessment on the Content of the Lesson<\/i>. It indicates that the content of the lessons prepared by the English 1\/101 teachers usually reflect the CLT approach. The S2 participants, under teacher 2, believe that the contents of the lessons emphasize learning to interact in English since there was interaction between the teacher and the students. They also emphasize that they have learned from their teacher who usually shares real life experiences. Their topics do not only focus on the usage but also allow them to speak the English language in other subject areas. The objectives of their lessons were presented explicitly. The topics relate to the students\u2019 cultural background since these are applicable to their context. On the other hand, the S1 participants, under teacher 1 emphasize that the contents of their lessons allow them to interact in English particularly during the reporting. They point out that they had reporting and outlining the parts of speech in their grammar class. The topics of their lessons allow them to use the English language they learned in class in the real world or outside the classroom confines. The objectives allow them to interact with the teacher and their classmates during the reporting activities in particular. Some of the topics do not consider their cultural background although they can easily relate to them. Both the S1 and S2 participants agree that the content of the lesson usually reflect the communicative approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 6b: Student Respondents\u2019 Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Materials Used in Class<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Our teacher used materials like news articles, advertisements, songs, etc. <\/ins>as take off points for discussion and activities.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.50<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. Our teacher would ask us to bring authentic materials such as newspapers, magazines, manuals, brochures, and ads.<\/span><\/td>\n2.34<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. The materials allow us to interpret situations and express meaning.<\/span><\/td>\n2.66<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4. Our teacher makes it sure that materials help us to communicate English.<\/span><\/td>\n3.09<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5. The materials require us to interact and communicate among our classmates when working with it.<\/span><\/td>\n2.97<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6. Our teacher uses charts, objects and maps during grammar lessons.<\/span><\/td>\n2.29<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n2.64<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 6b shows that CLT features 1, 2, and 6 are seldom reflected in the materials that are used in class, while CLT features numbers 3, 4, and 5 are usually reflected. The over-all assessment of the student respondents on the materials used in class is 2.64, <\/b>which means that most of the features above are usually reflected in this category. According to some practitioner of CLT, materials influence the quality of classroom interaction and language use and thus, these materials have a primary role in promoting communicative language use. Some of the materials mentioned above are examples of either task-based <\/ins>activities or realia. These three kinds of instructional materials promote communicative practice.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this category, the students give their assessment on the materials used in class.<\/i> According to the S2 students, they were able to use authentic materials such as articles from magazines, newspapers, and advertisements. These materials were used to introduce the day\u2019s lesson and activities. Yang and Cheung (2003) suggest that teachers should use authentic materials in presenting their lessons. Brown (1995) says that \u2018object\u2019 materials like object-food items, cosmetics, tools, and other materials add a significant reality to the classroom. The S2 students stress that the materials they used in class allow them to interpret situations, interpret meaning, and interact in English; however, they rarely interact with their classmates since it was done individually. The learner-centered classroom allows communication between the students and the teacher, or among the students (Peer 2005). In contrast, with the S2 students, the participants state that they never used authentic materials like those mentioned above in their English 1 class but in English 2 (Writing in the Disciplines) class.<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 6c: Student Respondents\u2019 Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Activities Conducted<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Our teacher prepares activities that are suitable for realistic interactions such as dialogs, mock-interviews, etc.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.65<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. The activities maximize our involvement like doing role-plays, skits, dramas, etc.<\/span><\/td>\n2.37<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. Writing essays, short stories, and poems are some of the activities we do in class.<\/span><\/td>\n2.57<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4. We are asked to listen to an authentic listening task like radio interviews, t.v. interviews, etc and we are asked to comment on it.<\/span><\/td>\n1.92<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5. We are given reading materials such as articles from newspapers, magazines, and are asked to give our opinion\/stand on it.<\/span><\/td>\n2.16<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6. Our teacher focuses on the activities that have single focus.<\/span><\/td>\n2.48<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n2.36<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 6c shows that CLT features number 1 and 3 are usually indicated in the activities, while features number 2, 4, 5, and 6 are seldom reflected in the activities conducted in the English classes. In general, the student respondents rated this category 2.36,<\/b> which means that the features mentioned above are seldom indicated in the activities that were conducted in class. The FGD with students regarding this area presents their assessment on the activities conducted in class.<\/i> It indicates that some of the activities that the students performed in class were dialogs, mock-interviews done through game shows and talk shows. Moss and Ross-Feldman (2004) defines communicative activities as any activities that allow learners to speak and listen to other learners. Writing activities were practiced in assignments, quizzes and projects. In other words, the activities conducted by the teachers seldom reflect the communicative approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 6d: Student Respondents\u2019 Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Lesson Presentation<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1. Our teacher includes both oral and written forms and emphasizes meaning.<\/span><\/td>\n3.39<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. Our teacher varies the activities in class, alternating rapid and slow-paced activities to suit the needs and nature of our needs.<\/span><\/td>\n2.97<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. Our teacher provides with examples of situations to understand grammatical structures.<\/span><\/td>\n3.37<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4. Our teacher gives lessons with clear, concise directions in dialect if necessary for us to understand.<\/span><\/td>\n3.06<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5. Our teacher uses appropriate jokes, anecdotes, and stories to motivate us.<\/span><\/td>\n3.21<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6. Our teacher presents lessons on structures to develop our ability to put words together as a whole.<\/span><\/td>\n3.19<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n3.20<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 6d indicates that CLT features number 1 and 3 are always<\/b> reflected in the lesson presentations while features number 2, 4, 5, and 6 are usually<\/b> reflected in the lessons presented by English teachers. With 3.20 <\/b>as the overall rating, this means that most of the CLT features presented above are usually reflected in the lesson presentations done by the English teachers in class. Ur (1996) posits that communicative grammar teaching implies explicit grammar syllabus, pro-active as well as reactive teaching, brief explanations in the classroom and a range of mainly meaningful and communicative grammar exercises.<\/span><\/p>\n

Results of the FGD, illustrates their assessment on the lesson presentation<\/i>. Based on the aforementioned statements from the participants, some of the writing activities that they had in class were mostly structural like change the correct form of the verb, etc.<\/i> although sometimes they were also asked to write or say something about an article. According to the participants the lessons focused more on structures or grammar with communicative activities such as saying something about a certain place or a certain person, telling stories and anecdotes, and writing sentences and paragraphs on their own.<\/i> The instructions and directions were expressed in the dialect whenever necessary. Brown (1994) points out that judicious use of the students\u2019 first language may be necessary where feasible and translation may be used where students need or benefit from it. In this case, the participants agree that the lessons presented by the teacher usually reflect CLT.<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 6e: Student Respondents\u2019 Assessment on the Implementation of CLT: Assessment Types and Procedures<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CLT Features<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nWx<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nD<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  1. Our teacher gives us exercises\/tests such as interpreting graphs and tables.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/td>\n
2.69<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. Our teacher provides us texts such as poems, stories, and articles for meaning interpretation.<\/span><\/td>\n2.51<\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. Our teacher employs performance tests such as role-plays, debates and speeches to test our communication skills.<\/span><\/td>\n2.44<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4. We are asked to listen to radio\/ watch videos, newscast, interviews to get appropriate information.<\/span><\/td>\n2.08<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5. We are asked to write essays, questions for interviews, and instructions to express, to direct, and to narrate.<\/span><\/td>\n2.41<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6. Our tests is scored based on correctness in grammar and correctness in speaking the language.<\/span><\/td>\n3.34<\/span><\/td>\nAlways<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7. Our teacher gives us speaking tests which include realistic interaction such as telephone conversation, buying goods in the market, etc.<\/span><\/td>\n2.47<\/span><\/td>\nSeldom<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Section Mean<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/td>\n2.56<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nUsually<\/b><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>Table 6e shows that CLT features number 1 and 2 are usually reflected in the assessment types and procedures, while features number 3, 4, 5, and 7 are seldom reflected in the aforementioned category and feature 6 indicates that it is always reflected in the assessment types and procedures employed by the English teachers in their classes. The overall assessment of this category is 2.56 which means that these CLT indicators are usually reflected in the assessment types and procedures employed by the English teachers in class. Kayi (2006) provides guidelines on how to test speaking skills of learners. Some of these guidelines state that the teacher should try to involve each student in every speaking activity, indicate positive signs when giving comments on a student\u2019s response, prompt the students to speak more by providing eliciting questions, provide written feedback, and not correct students\u2019 pronunciation mistakes very often while they are speaking. The aforementioned guidelines also imply CLT characteristics.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the FGD, the students pointed out that their teachers seldom give them tests such as interpreting tables and graphs, listening or watching radio, TV newscast, interviews to get appropriate information, and writing questions for interviews, instructions for expression and direction.<\/i> However, their teachers also employ, though not all the time, some communicative tests such as debates, speeches, essay or paragraph writing.\u00a0 Weir (1993) advises that as much as possible in language testing, it is best to include real-language use tests addressing the aim of teaching students to communicate through the target language.<\/span><\/p>\n

Summary of the Teacher-Student Interaction in the English 1\/101 Classrooms<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The previous sections show the transcriptions of texts from video-taped English 1\/101 classes at St. Paul University Dumaguete. These transcriptions are used in analyzing the nature of interaction between a teacher and the students with the aid of the adapted Sinclaire and Coulthard Coventions and the Communicative Orientation to Language Teaching (COLT) Scheme.<\/i><\/b> Within the teacher-student interaction, the researcher also analyzes the classroom activities, acts, and classroom language. The participants are the target respondents themselves. The transcriptions and observations can provide the answer whether the CLT approach is reflected in the classroom interactions of the aforementioned groups. (Please see appendices for the complete transcripts<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

Transcript # 17 shows that some of the CLT characteristics are reflected in the classroom activities. However, the teacher uses lecture type of lesson delivery. The content focuses on form with communicative practices that give students some opportunity to speak. The teacher works with the whole class. The activity is drawn from the assignment to bring pictures from magazine or newspaper. In the first part of the lesson, the teacher informs or leads the class to the main topic of the day. But in the later part, she conducts communicative activities when she asks the students to describe the picture using adjectives. The range of the topic is narrow such that the students are able to grasp it. The topic on \u2018modifiers\u2019 is lifted from the syllabus made by the teacher. The students are involved both in listening and speaking. Listening in the sense that, they listen to what has been shared by their classmates and teacher. In addition, speaking, because they are asked to say something about the picture they brought to class. <\/ins>The types of materials used in class are realia such as newspapers, catalogs, brochures and magazines. The materials are authentic in nature since they are not designed for classroom use. The purpose of those materials used in the classroom is to facilitate communication between the teacher and the students and is used as aids in describing. In classroom language, the teacher maximizes the use of the target language, although some of the students have difficulty in speaking the language but she encourages them to speak the language. Information is not so predictable in the sense that the teacher keeps reinforcing elicitations by giving examples. The teacher does not usually give the information right away. The transcript shows that in some parts, the teacher needs to prompt the students with questions so that they participate and express themselves more. Most of the utterances are restricted to a single sentence or even just a word. The interlocutors give their reactions both in linguistic and non-linguistic forms. The teacher does this more than the students. She incorporates the preceding utterance into her contribution.<\/span><\/p>\n

Transcript # 18 illustrates that the CLT approach is reflected in the classroom activities but not much in the classroom language. In the classroom activity, the teacher reads a story to the class about people in a camping activity. The teacher works with the whole class. In some parts of the lesson, she acts as the facilitator but sometimes, she tends to direct the students. The content focuses on grammar, particularly on modifiers. There is a communicative activity conducted especially when the teacher asks the class to write a short composition, comparing themselves with their parents. At first, it is broad because there is no processing of the story at all for comprehension purpose, though it is used as a springboard of the main topic, the modifiers. The students at this point are engaged in listening and writing tasks. The teacher uses a story from a book, which serves as the take-off point in presenting the grammar lesson. She also emphasizes vocabulary. In the classroom language, the teacher usually does direct translation. She tends to define difficult words for the students by translating it in the students\u2019 first language. The information is not predictable, and it allows the students to really think of the required information but the teacher had to provide them a situation. During the discussion with the teacher, the students usually limit their answers in clauses, one or two words and consequently, the teacher prompts them so that they can say more words and express themselves more. However, in the writing activity, they are compelled to write more since it is a composition of one to two paragraphs. So in this case, the discourse is extended. The students at this time are somewhat passive.<\/span><\/p>\n

Transcript # 19 shows CLT characteristics in some parts of the classroom activity and classroom language. The activity type is drawn from the reading activity that the teacher previously assigned to the students. The teacher works with the whole class again. There is a teacher-student interaction. The focus of the content is on language form particularly on verbs and modifiers. The teacher incorporates some communicative activities to enhance skills in writing and speaking. The topic is broad at first because the students do not know what to do with the materials but later they are able to follow the instructions. The students are given the opportunity to select their own articles. The content of the lesson is part of the teacher\u2019s syllabus. The students are involved in all the skills: listening, writing, reading, and speaking because the teacher requests them to read, while others are listening, and they are asked to share their reasons for choosing the articles. In addition, in the last part of the lesson, the students are asked to write by summarizing the articles. Authentic materials such as newspapers, magazines, and brochures are used during the activity. The teacher emphasizes the use of the target language. The given information becomes predictable because the teacher uses prompts for the students to be able to speak more. The students react during the sharing of personal thoughts and experiences.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Transcript 20, the CLT approach is not much reflected both in the classroom activity and the classroom language. The activity type is lecture. The teacher\u2019s dominant role is to direct the students. The content mainly focuses on forms and there are no communicative activities incorporated. No authentic materials are used. The use of the target language is not maximized because the learners\u2019 utterance is limited to one or two words. On the other hand, Transcript # 21 shows a communicative grammar teaching approach. The lesson focuses on subject- verb agreement with communicative practice. The purpose of the activity is also to enhance the learners\u2019 critical thinking skills. The target language is maximized. The students are compelled to speak because the information is unpredictable. Communicative activities are employed in the sense that the teacher prepares thought-provoking questions. However, there are no authentic materials used except the illustration presented by the teacher on the board.<\/span><\/p>\n

Transcripts # 22, 23, 24, 25 are combinations of teacher-student and student-student interactions. The common activity type that is used during these classes is the reporting activity. The students are given different topics by the teacher at the beginning of the semester. They are organized in groups according to topics. The contents of the lesson focus more on linguistic forms. Some of the activities that the teacher employs in the class are drills on forms. The students in these classes interact with each other through the reporting activity. With regard to materials used, there are no authentic materials; the students prepare visual aids to facilitate the flow of the presentation. The teacher encourages the students to speak English not only inside the classroom but also outside the classroom confines. During the teacher-student interaction, the teacher calls the students not just to give one or two word answer but also to provide grounded explanations of their answers.<\/span><\/p>\n

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusions<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

From the primary assumption of this study, that CLT approach is implemented at St. Paul University Dumaguete (SPUD) to the findings of the study, the researcher concludes that the CLT approach is implemented in English 1\/101 at SPUD. Its goals and objectives which aim to enhance the four skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking, and develop language strategies, effective communication techniques, academic study thinking skills, critical thinking skills and problem solving, which are indicative of the communicative approach. The contents, however, focus on linguistic structures although communicative practices are incorporated. The presentation of the lesson involves lectures with teacher-student interactions.<\/span><\/p>\n

The focus group discussion (FGD) validates the respondents\u2019 responses to the questions in the survey forms. It is important since the FGD made the data more descriptive and justifiable. The statistical data show that both the teacher respondents and the student respondents agree that the CLT approach is usually implemented in their English 1\/101 classes in terms of the content, materials, activities, lesson presentation and in the assessment types. However, during the discussions of the items in the surveys, both parties have their own justifications, reasons, and explanations to the specified responses. Most of these justifications are indicative both of the internal and external constraints of the implementation.<\/span><\/p>\n

For the classroom interaction as seen in the transcripts presented in the previous chapters, it can be concluded that the communicativeness of the interaction varies according to the roles and functions carried out by the learners and the teachers as reflected both in the classroom activities and in classroom language. There are instances when the teachers facilitate the interaction by providing prompts and elicitations. Sometimes teachers tend to direct the students especially in giving instructions. The students are the participants and the contributors. Classroom activities involve the presentation of language forms with an average use of communicative practices and authentic materials and a minimal use of pair work or group work. For the classroom language, the requested information is sometimes easy to predict without the teachers\u2019 guidance. The students sometimes use their L1 when answering, and interactions occur in both natural and classroom discourse.<\/span><\/p>\n

Howat (in Richards 2002) defines two versions of CLT: the strong version and the weak version. Briefly, in the strong version, grammar or structure or language form is taught incidentally in the context of meaningful communication. On the other hand, in the weak version, form is taught primarily and some communicative tasks are performed in the context of imaginary situation to practice the grammar lesson.\u00a0 The CLT implementation at SPUD can be generally considered as the weak version of CLT. While communicativeness is reflected in the goals and objectives of the syllabus, in some of the activities, and on occasional use of authentic materials, instruction is mostly focused on language forms but only minimal use of communicative practice. There is heavy discussion on linguistic forms rather than the use of communicative activities. The teachers and the students interact with each other but mostly of the classroom discourse variety.<\/span><\/p>\n

The related studies cited show the same factors affecting the implementation of the CLT approach. In Japan, teachers stress the fact that the implementation of CLT is not easy because there are various situational constraints. Roles of the family, teachers, peers, and community are vital in developing the students\u2019 self-esteem and oral communication in Puerto Rico. In Taiwan, there is an emphasis on implementing CLT in a multimedia laboratory that relates to what the teacher respondents of this study say concerning the use of visual rooms and easy access to them.\u00a0 China\u2019s study on CLT focuses on students\u2019 perception about communicative activities in class, the results of which are similar to the present study concerning grammar teaching with communicative activities.<\/span><\/p>\n

The implementation of CLT at SPUD is fairly supported by the administration and the English teachers. However, there is insufficient knowledge of what CLT really is and how CLT works in language programs. The undeniable fact is that, in every implementation, problems and constraints cannot be avoided. Due to these problems and constraints in the implementation, this paper proposes an in-service training program (INSET) for the English teachers of SPUD. This INSET program provides trainings and workshops on good quality language instruction that promotes communicative competence as a goal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Click here to access the Appendices.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Recommendations and Implications<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

With the findings and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations and implications are presented:<\/span><\/p>\n

The SPUD Administrators<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Playing a vital role in the implementation of CLT, the administration should continue its support by giving more importance to the CLT approach. The administrators should also be well-informed of the nature of the CLT approach. Administrative support is evident in sending teachers to seminars and workshops related to their fields of teaching. This implies that the English teachers will be more equipped to make innovations in their teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 With sufficient knowledge about the CLT approach, the administrators should collaborate with their syllabus makers to intensify the degree of implementation and must make sure that characteristics of CLT are reflected in the syllabus, materials, activities, lessons, and in the assessment types. This will provide a strong foundation in the implementation.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As regards the implementation constraints shared by the teachers concerning class size, the administrators should consider reducing class sizes. The duration of class hours in English 1\/101 should also be reviewed.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Teachers need more access to CLT library materials (i.e. books, journals), the acquisition of which the administration should facilitate. These will benefit both the teachers and the students.<\/span><\/p>\n

The English 1\/101 Teachers of SPUD:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The English 1\/101 teachers as the syllabus makers should coordinate with each other so that they will have a venue for improving the English 1\/101 syllabus design, and they should be open to suggestions from other English teachers with regard to its implementation.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The English teachers should use authentic materials more.\u00a0 If necessary, the teachers should coordinate with the administrators to acquire some of\u00a0 these materials.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The English teachers should strive for balance between accuracy and fluency in obtaining the goals and objectives of their classes. Grammar should be taught in the context of communicative activities. Thus, giving equal importance to both form and function.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is advisable that teachers conduct needs analysis or diagnostic activities at the start of the semester so that they can plan and organize their materials and activities accordingly, thereby meeting the language and communication needs of students more effectively.<\/span><\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The teachers should employ more language performance tests and other assessment procedures to have more valid testing procedures. Doing so will give them feedback on their teaching and students\u2019 learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The teachers should provide maximum opportunity for students to speak the target language by planning activities, preparing materials, and creating an atmosphere conducive to group work in which learners can do collaborative and communicative tasks. The learners will be engaged in talking, probing, questioning, and listening.<\/span><\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The teachers are encouraged to maximize their use of authentic materials so that the students will have a feel of the real world of English use.<\/span><\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Error correction, particularly in pronunciation, should be well-timed to avoid embarrassment and confusion. Teachers should provide more speaking practice and correct errors or mistakes in a communicative manner.<\/span><\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The teachers should encourage each other to do peer-evaluation for the purpose of upgrading one\u2019s strategies, methods, materials and types of assessment. They should also unite in dealing with problems in the classroom.<\/span><\/p>\n

Teachers should find time to engage in classroom research to inform themselves about their own teaching and their students\u2019 learning. Doing research is also a very effective way of professional development.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other Subject Area Teachers<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Since the students are involved in classroom interactions, whether in their English classes or other subject areas, subject area teachers should encourage the students to use English in responding to or interacting with them or with their peers in their classes. Also, since English is the medium of instruction in this country, subject area teachers (except Filipino)\u00a0 should also model the use of English\u00a0 so that the students will get used to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Subject area teachers should expose the students to more collaborative tasks so that these students could express themselves in English with other students.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The activities and materials they use in class should include real-world scenarios to ensure authenticity and these materials and activities should promote the communicative approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The subject area teachers in tandem with the English teachers should conduct a collaborative research with regard to learning concerns of the students especially those that involve the use of English.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other Researchers<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Other researchers are encouraged to investigate the effectiveness of CLT or how it could be used more effectively in different contexts.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Other researchers interested to replicate this study may consider refining and improving the methodology employed.<\/span><\/p>\n

REFERENCES<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Bibliographic Sources:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Breen , M. and Candlin, C. (2002). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language\u00a0<\/i>teaching: <\/i>Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by principles an interactive approach to language pedagogy.\u00a0<\/i>New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.<\/span><\/p>\n

Brown, J.D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program\u00a0<\/i>development<\/i>. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bruder, M.N., and Paulston, C.B. (1976). Teaching English as a second language: Techniques\u00a0<\/i>and Procedures.<\/i> Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers, Inc.<\/span><\/p>\n

Celce-Murcia, M. ( 2006). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. <\/i>3rd<\/sup> ed. United\u00a0States: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Cook, G. (1989). Language Teaching: a Scheme for Teacher Education. Discourse. Great\u00a0Clarendon, Street Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ellis, R. (1999). The study of second language acquisition. <\/i>Great Clarendon Street, Oxford:\u00a0Oxford University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fucher, G. (2000). The communicative language testing. System. <\/i>UK: English Language\u00a0Institute, University of Surrey.<\/span><\/p>\n

Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: a guide for teachers. <\/i>Boston, MA: Heinle and\u00a0Heinle Publishers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. <\/i>London: Longman Publishing.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2000). How languages are learned. <\/i>2nd<\/sup> ed. Great Clarendon\u00a0Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. <\/i>Edinburgh\u00a0University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning.<\/i> United States: Cambridge\u00a0University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rea-Dickens, P. and Germaine,K. (1998). Evaluation. <\/i>Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ur, P. ( 1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory.<\/i> Cambridge University\u00a0Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Weir, C. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. <\/i>Great Britain: Prentice Hall.<\/span><\/p>\n

Unpublished Source and Not a Conference Paper:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Gloria, J. (2007). The extent of implementation of Communicative Language Teaching approach\u00a0<\/i>at Silliman University High School Dumaguete City.<\/i> Unpublished master\u2019s thesis. Silliman\u00a0University, Dumaguete City.<\/span><\/p>\n

Patron P. (2005). An evaluation of the Project in Basic Education (PROBE): a basis for\u00a0<\/i>constructivist workshop design and guide for supplementary materials production.\u00a0<\/i>Unpublished dissertation. Silliman University, Dumaguete City.<\/span><\/p>\n

Periodicals:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Cheung,C and Yang, A. (2003, July). Adapting textbook activities for communicative\u00a0teaching and cooperative learning. English Teaching Forum, 41,<\/span>\u00a0 pp.16-20.<\/span><\/p>\n

Deckert, G. (2004, January). The communicative approach: addressing frequent failure.\u00a0English Teaching Forum, 42,<\/span>\u00a0 pp.12-17.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hiep, H.P. (2005, April). Imported communicative language teaching implications for\u00a0local teachers. English Teaching Forum,<\/span> 4,\u00a0 pp.9-15<\/span><\/p>\n

Hui, L., Yi, J., & Xin, J. ( 2004, October). Morning discussion as a communicative\u00a0activitiy. English Teaching Forum, 42<\/span>,\u00a0 pp.10-15.<\/span><\/p>\n

Corporate Aurhors:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

National Communication Lrearning\u00a0 Resource Center (NCLRC). (2004). Washington, D.C.<\/span><\/p>\n

SILL International. (1999). Theories of learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

Web Sources:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Armacost, J. and Selim, B. \u201cProgram assessment handbook: guidelines for planning and\u00a0implemention of program and student learning outcomes\u201d. (2004).<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/iaaweb.ucf.edu\/pr\/acad_program_assessment_handbook_rev022704.pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n

Batt, D. The communicative orientation of virtual language teaching in schools. (2003).<\/span><\/p>\n

http\/\/www.odlaa.org\/publications\/2003\/proceedings\/pdfs\/battc.pdf<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Beale, J. \u201cIs communicative language teaching a thing in the past?\u201d (2002).vol. 37(1).<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/ www. jasonbeale.com\/essaypages\/clt_essay.html<\/span><\/p>\n

Belchamber, R. \u201c The advantages of communicative language teaching\u201d.(2007). vol. XII<\/span><\/p>\n

(2). http:\/\/ iteslj.org\/articles\/belchamber-CLT.html<\/span><\/p>\n

Cheng, W. \u201cCommunicative language teaching: theory and practice\u201d. (2004). CUHK.<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/ sunzi1.lib.HKU.hk.\/ hkjo\/view\/33\/3300090.pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n

Chung, S.F.. \u201c A communicative approach to teaching grammar: theory and\u00a0practice\u201d. (2005).The English Teacher. <\/i>Vol 34. http:\/\/ www.melta.org<\/span><\/a>. my\/ET\/2005\/<\/span><\/p>\n

de Lima, D.. \u201c English-as-a- foreign language teacher training program: an overview\u201d.\u00a0(2001). Linguagem & Ensino. <\/i>vol.4, no.2 (143-153). http:\/\/ rle. Uc pel.<\/span><\/p>\n

tche.brl\/php\/edicoes\/v4n2\/i_diogenes.pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n

Galloway, A.\u201d Communicative language teaching: an introduction and sample\u00a0activities\u201d. (1993). Center for Applied Linguistic.<\/span><\/p>\n

Huang, S., and Liu,H.F. \u201cCommunicative language teaching in a multimedia language\u00a0lab\u201d. ( 2000). Vol. VI (2). http:\/\/ iteslj.org\/articles<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Jarvis, H. and Atsilarat, S. \u201cShifting paradigms: from a communicative to a context\u00a0based approach.\u201d (2004).UK: International House Hastings.<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/ www.asian-efl-journal.com\/dec04_HJ&SA.pdf<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jin, L., Singh, M., and Li,L. \u201c Communicative language teaching in China:\u00a0Misconceptions, applications and perceptions\u201d.(2005). http:\/\/www.aare.edu.au\/05<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

pap\/jin05646.pdf<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kaur, A. Considerations in language syllabus design. (2001). The English Teacher.<\/i> Mara\u00a0Institute of Technology. vol.19.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kayi,H. \u201c Teaching speaking: activities that promote speaking in a second language\u201d. (2006).The Internet TESL Journal.<\/i> vol.12, no.11. http:\/\/ iteslj.org.\/Artcles\/Kayi-Teaching Speaking.html.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lane, D. \u00a0\u201cCommunication competence defined\u201d. (2000)<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/comuncomp.perspective.mht.<\/span><\/p>\n

Liao, X.Q.. \u201c How CLT became acceptable in secondary schools in China\u201d. (2000). vol.\u00a0VI (10). http:\/\/iteslj.org\/articles\/Liao-CLT<\/span><\/a> in China html.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lynch, R. \u201c Authentic, performance-based assessment in ESL\/EFL reading instruction\u201d. (2003).http:\/\/ www.asian-efl-journal.com\/pdf<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., and Son, J.B. \u201cFraming communicative\u00a0language teaching for better teacher understanding\u201d. (2007). vol. XVIII (3).<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.iier.org.auliier<\/span><\/a> 17\/ mangubhai.html.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moss, D. and Ross-Feldman,L. \u201cTeaching for communicative competence interaction in\u00a0the ESOL classroom. (2003).http:\/\/ www. Cal.org.\/caela\/digests\/<\/span><\/p>\n

Musumeci, D. The role of grammar in communicative language teaching: a historical\u00a0perspective.(2004). http:\/\/www.mhhe.com\/socscience\/foreign\/conf\/grammar.html.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nogueras, C.H.R.. \u201cSelf-esteem and communicative language proficiency in the Puerto\u00a0Rican teaching learning process\u201d. ( 2007). vol. 2 (1).http:\/\/bibliotecalut. suagm.edu.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Noonan,F.J. \u201c Teaching ESL students to \u2018Notice\u2019 grammar\u201d. (2004). vol. X (7)<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/iteslj.org\/techniques\/Noonan-Noticing<\/span><\/a> html.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nunn, R. \u201cDesigning holistic units for task-based learning.\u201d (2006).Abu Dhabi: Petroleum Institute.http:\/\/www. www.asian-efl-journal.com\/\/sep.2006<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Okita, Y Managing in-service trainings: a Japanese case study. . (1996). Forum. <\/i>vol.34, no.2 (18). http:\/\/exchanges.state.gov\/forum\/vols\/vol34\/no2\/p.18.htm#author_106<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Peer, K.S. \u201cThe learner-centered syllabus: from theory to practice in allied health education\u201d (2005). The Internet Journal of Allied Health Science and Practice. <\/i>vol.3 no.2.<\/span><\/p>\n

Power, T. \u201cCommunicative language teaching. English Language Teaching and\u00a0Leanring. \u201c(2007). http:\/\/www.btinternet.com\/-ted.power\/esl0104.html<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Richards,J.C\u00a0 \u201cTheories of teaching in language teaching. (2005).http:\/\/sunzi1.lib.hkuhk\/hkjo\/view\/10\/pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n

Richards, J.C. \u201c Communicative language teaching today\u201d. (2007).\u00a0www.cambridge.com.mx\/site\/extras\/jack-CD<\/span><\/a>. pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sakui, K. \u201c Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan\u201d. (2004). vol. 58 (2).\u00a0ELT Journal. Oxford University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

Savignon, S. \u201cCommunicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom\u00a0pracrice\u201d. (2007). www. yalepress.yale.edu\/yubooks\/exerpts\/030009167_.pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n

Wyss, R. \u201c Familiarizing learners with communicative language teaching classroom\u00a0approaches.\u201d (2002).TESOL Matters.<\/i> vol.12 no.3.http:\/\/www.robertwyss@virgilio.it<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Young, K.M. \u201cTeacher perceptual comparisons towards two specific communicative\u00a0and whole language dimensions in ESL instruction. (1999).USA: College of Education,<\/span><\/p>\n

KSU.vol.5 no. 7.http:\/\/itesjl.org.\/articles\/kim-comparisons<\/span><\/a>. html.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other web sources:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/aeonline.coe.utk.edu\/PDFramework\/Instructional%20approaches\/<\/span><\/a>comm.ESOL. pdf.<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/ftp.vobs.at\/ludescher\/Aternativemethods\/communicative_language_teachinghtm<\/span><\/a> # CLT.<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/coe.sdsu.edu\/eet\/articles\/comlangteach\/index.htm<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.abacom.com\/-nathan\/clt.htm<\/span><\/a> Tenese Adult Education Professional Development.<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/en.wikepedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&return=Communicative_Language_Teaching.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Author\u2019s Note This manuscript is inspired by the researcher\u2019s initiative to recognize how Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach works in the language classrooms in St. Paul University Dumaguete. All the sources that substantiate the body of literature of this paper are carefully identified and acknowledged. The main sections of the paper are presented but the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","omw_enable_modal_window":"enable","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[466],"tags":[1786],"class_list":["post-3970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-elt-research-papers","tag-tichie-ann-econg-baena","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3970"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3970\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}