Communicative Language Teaching in the Moroccan EFL Classroom



Today, communities are increasingly facing rapid and profound changes and tensions that affect the social, economic, and political aspects of life. The role of education has also become questionable in the millennial era. A matter of fact, 21st century education requires a gradual shift in curriculum construction focusing on the transferable competencies that learners need to develop in instructional settings. In today’s knowledge-based, types of skills and competencies that students need to gain are different from in the past. Emphasizing the communicative competence is one of the most influential developments in language education. The implementation of communicative activities in EFL/ESL classroom prepares learners to use English in the world beyond based on their own needs, interests, and opportunities, and perform in an atmosphere of expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning from psycholinguistic and socio-cultural perspectives. Communicative language teaching (CLT) refers to both processes and goals in classroom learning. It is one of the most influential theoretical developments in language education as it helps redefine the objectives of foreign and/or second language instruction. This paper looks at the phenomenon of communicative language teaching (CLT) in the Moroccan EFL curriculum. It aims to study how CLT has been interpreted and implemented in various contexts examining teachers’ attitudes. The data is gathered using semi-structured interview with EFL secondary level teachers. Based on the findings, respondents reflected positive attitudes showing that the use of CLT approach does enhance oral competency among students as well as learner-autonomy. However, teachers confirm that the EFL curriculum is barely emphasizing communication skills, which requires a curriculum reform and redesign in order to represent the 21st century requirements and values.


communication, curriculum, classroom, oral proficiency, learner-autonomy.

Full Text:



Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. Boston, Massachusetts: Prentice-

Hall Inc.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). « Theoretical bases on communicative approaches to second language

teaching and testing”. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.

(3rd Ed.). Thousand Okas, CA: Sage.

Daisy. (2012, February). “Communicative language teaching: A comprehensive approach to English

Language teaching”. Language in India, 12(2), 249- 265.

Hamid, M. O., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008, September). “Will CLT bail out the bogged down ELT in

Bangladesh?” English Today, 24(3), 16-24.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom.

Oxford: Pergamon Press

Johnson, D. W, Johnson. R. T., and Smith, K. A., (1995), "Cooperative learning and individual student

achievement in secondary schools", In J. E. Pederson and Digby, A. D. (eds.) Secondary schools and cooperative learning: Theories, models, and strategies. New York: Garland Publishing.

Kowalska, B. (1991). Let them talk in English. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.

Liao, J., & Zhao, D. (2012). “Grounded theory approach to beginning teachers’ perspectives of communicative language teaching practice”. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 76–90.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mowlaie, B., & Rahimi, A. (2010). “The effect of teachers' attitude about communicative language teaching on their practice: Do they practice what they preach?”. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1524-1528

Mulat, L. (2003). Teachers' attitudes towards communicative language teaching and practical problems in its implementation. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Addis Ababa.

Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey. Unpublished Masters dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Richards, J. C. (2013). “Curriculum approaches in language teaching: forward, central and backward Design”. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33.

Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Savignon, S. J. (1991). “Communicative language teaching: State of the art”. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2),


Savignon, S. (2002a). Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. London: Yale University Press.

Savignon, S. J. (2002b). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1–27). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shayamlee, S. D. ¬¬¬& Phil, M. (2012). “Use of Technology in English Language Teaching and Learning”: An Analysis. International Conference on Languages, Media, and Culture. Vol33.

Thongwad, W. (2011). “The role of communicative activities in developing proficiency in English speaking in Thailand”. International Journal of Communicology, 1(1), 55–58.

Trim, J. (2012). “The common European framework of references for languages and its background: a case study of cultural politics and educational influences”. In: Byram M, Parmenter L (eds) The Common European Framework of Reference: The Globalisation of Language Education Policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 14–34.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

JELTL (Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics); Web:;

Creative Commons License
JELTL by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Indexed and Abstracted BY: