Factors Hindering the Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching Method in English Language Classroom in Nigeria.

This paper focuses on the factors hindering the implementation of communicative language teaching method in English language classroom in Nigeria. Descriptive research method was adopted for the study. An online questionnaire was used to elicit responses form 480 Nigerian English Language teachers. Purposive random sampling was used to choose all the English Language teachers in secondary schools Nigeria. The questionnaire consisted of three sections in line with research questions raised. The results were analyzed using mean and standard deviation. The findings revealed that the prominent factors hindering the implementation of communicative language teaching method in English language classroom in Nigeria are student-related, teacherrelated and institutional-related. The paper concludes that there is a great need for intensive effort from all stakeholders for effective implementation of communicative language teaching method which ranges from developing the learner’s motivation, giving more attention to communicative skills to prioritizing teacher’s proficiency, reducing their workloads, developing effective assessment instrument to evaluate the learners to developing policy on class size and time for teaching, providing adequate materials for communicative activities, organizing effective training on CLT teaching methods, among other things since the goal teaching is communicative competence.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), CLT implementation, student-related factors, teacher-related factors, institutional-related factors, CLT in Nigeria.

1. Al Asmari, A. A. (2015). Communicative Language Teaching in EFL University Context: Challenges for Teachers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(5), 976-984. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abahussain, M. O. (2016). Implementing Communicative Language Teaching Method in Saudi Arabia: Challenges Faced by Formative Year Teachers in State Schools.Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Stirling, UK. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Alharbi, A. O. (2020). Exploring Communicative Language Teaching Principles Alignment of English Textbook in Saudi Arabia Middle School. Arab World English Journal, 11(4), 96-109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alharbi, A. O. (2022). Issues with Communicative Language Teaching Implementation in Saudi Arabia Concerning the Government Policy, Teachers, and Students: Two Decades of Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Arab World English Journal, 13 (2) 412-423. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no2.28 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Butler, Y. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the AsiaPacific Region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31,3657.https://www .cambridge.org/ core/journals/annual-review-of-applied linguistics/article/abs/implementation-of-communicative-andtaskbased language-teaching-in-theasiapacificregion/0F51683045083 89D5F8 BC06EE 5C04FE1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chang, A. N., & Suparmi. (2020). The implementation of communicative language teaching (CLT) and factors hindering teachers from implementing it in high school. Al-Ta’dib, 13(1), 46-56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Choe, H. (2016). Language education policy in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. The New Studies of English Language & Literature, 63, 1-24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Li, D. (1998). It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Nam, G. (2023). Challenges and constraints of implementing communicative language teaching: Teacher-related vs. non-teacher-related factors. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 16(1), 75- 96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge 56 University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Rahmawati, Y. (2019). Teachers’ voices on the challenges of the implementation of communicative approach in regards to the 2013 curriculum. Indonesian Journal of English Education, 6(1), 65-78. DOI: 10.15408/ijee.v6i1.12761 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Qasserras, L. (2023). Systematic Review of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Language Education: A Balanced Perspective. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy Vol 4, Issue 6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Sato, K and Kleinsasser, R.C (1999). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Practical Understandings. The Modern Journal, 83 (4): 494-517. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Yook, C. & Kim, Y. (2017). Reconsideration of communicative language teaching for the Korean EFL context. Studies in British and American Language and Literature, 124, 177-198. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests