Authors

  • Dinara Allaberganova
    Uzbekistan state world languages university

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71337/inlibrary.uz.ijai.73915

Abstract

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a widely-used approach to language instruction whose hallmark is interaction as a medium of learning. CLT attempts to enable learners to use the language in real life situations rather than focusing on teaching grammatical structures. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an increasingly utilized method oriented towards the practical application of language in day-to-day activities and aims at achieving maximal efficacy in language fluency and confidence among students. This research investigates its effects on educational performance, paying particular attention to issues such as inadequate classroom control and evaluative impediments, and suggests recommendations for effective practice.

 

 

background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 748

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING AND ITS INFLUENCE ON STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT

Allaberganova Dinara Kayrat kizi

Student of Uzbekistan state world languages

university at Faculty of English philology

E-mail:

allabergenovadinara893@gmail.com

Supervisor:

Dilfuza Khudaykul kizi Iskandarova

ESL teacher of Uzbekistan State World

Languages University at Faculty of

English philology,Tashkent, Uzbekistan

F-mail:

d.iskandarova@uzswlu.uz

Abstract:

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a widely-used approach to language

instruction whose hallmark is interaction as a medium of learning. CLT attempts to enable

learners to use the language in real life situations rather than focusing on teaching grammatical

structures. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an increasingly utilized method

oriented towards the practical application of language in day-to-day activities and aims at

achieving maximal efficacy in language fluency and confidence among students. This research

investigates its effects on educational performance, paying particular attention to issues such as

inadequate classroom control and evaluative impediments, and suggests recommendations for

effective practice.

Key words:

language learning, communicative competence, student engagement, fluency,

motivation, classroom challenges, teaching methodology, CLT strategies.

Introduction

The focus on language training has dramatically evolved from classical systems that

emphasize grammar and rote learning to actively engaging strategies. Earlier limitations in

teaching methods led to the formation of CLT which centers communication as the fundamental

purpose in learning a language. Through the development of life connections, this approach

forms language skills that can be applied and have practical significance. The research examined

the use of CLT techniques in raising the language proficiency and assimilation level indicators of

students. It considers the impact on student motivation, self-evaluation, and participation,

alongside the concern teachers face regarding how to implement CLT in the curriculum.

Methods of enhancing the use of CLT in classroom teaching are also described.

Linguists began to highlight the importance of "communicative competence," which

includes the capacity to utilize language successfully in social circumstances beyond vocabulary

and syntax, in the 1970s. This is when CLT first emerged. Academics such as Hymes [1972]

argued that language teaching should go beyond strict grammatical rules. Research has shown

that CLT improves language acquisition by engaging students in meaningful conversations

[Richards & Rodgers, 2001]. Compared to students taught using traditional methods, individuals

who actively participate in role-playing, conversation, and problem-solving are more confident


background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 749

and fluent. Littlewood [2014] argues that students who participate in CLT develop greater

communication skills and a deeper understanding of language use. In addition to the advantages

of CLT, there are also disadvantages. Some teachers struggle with managing the varying abilities

of numerous students, large class sizes, and limited resources. Assessing students'

communicative abilities can be challenging because standardized tests sometimes focus more on

grammatical correctness than on authentic language use [Savignon, 2002].

Methodology

This study employs a mixed-methods approach to evaluate how CLT impacts student

performance. • The study participants included 300 students and 20 language teachers from

various academic institutions.

• Data collection: A standardized survey was conducted to assess students' opinions on the

effectiveness of CLT. Interviews with teachers also provided information about the practical

challenges and benefits of using CLT in the classroom analysis. The survey data were

statistically analyzed to identify recurring trends, and the interview materials were categorized

into main themes.

Results

The research results indicate that CLT enhances students' language learning experience.

Some significant discoveries are as follows:

• Improved fluency: According to 78% of students, participating in frequent interactive activities

helped

them

become

more

at

ease

when

speaking.

85% of participants reported that CLT-based training was more enjoyable and engaging than

standard

teaching

methods,

indicating

higher

levels

of

engagement.

• Increased motivation 72% of students said CLT made language learning more engaging and

practical.62% of teachers cited managing large classrooms and analyze discourse proficiency as

challenges.

Discussion

Consistent with previous research, the findings suggest that communicative language

teaching (CLT) significantly improves students’ engagement and fluency. By CLT, students are

given ample chances to join in real-world conversations, which in turn promotes better language

retention. These genuine interactions foster active learning and motivate students to apply

language in meaningful contexts, thereby improving their understanding and retention of

linguistic forms. However, despite the advantages of CLT, it faces many obstacles which prevent

it from reaching its full efficacy.

Crucial challenge is the difficulty of providing individual opinion to students, especially in

huge classes where individual attention is limited. That limitation can make this difficult for

teachers to meet the specific needs of students and to correct errors in a timely and effective

manner. In addition, the strategies associated with the communicative approach based on talk

and action do not always fit with the traditional methods of assessment. As with most CLT

methods, the standard tests and evaluation systems that focus on the learners' knowledge of

grammar and vocabulary do not measure the skills in conversational fluency and pragmatic

competence which CLT intends to develop.

For overcoming those difficulties and make sure that CLT is implemented more effectively,

it is significant for educational academies to analyze alternative testing procedures. Portfolio

assessment, allows students to show their progress over time through a variety of tasks and

feedback, can provide a more holistic picture of language development. The objectives of CLT

are better served by performance-based assessments, which evaluate students' language use in


background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 750

authentic contexts. Schools and colleges can more effectively promote a communicative

approach and correctly measure and foster student involvement and language proficiency by

implementing these alternative assessment techniques.

Recommendations

To maximize the benefits of CLT, the following recommendations are made:

Special training on classroom management and CLT should be provided to teachers.

1. Smaller class sizes: Smaller student-teacher ratios provide more individualized teaching and

feedback.

2. Non-standard assessment methods: Students’ communication capabilities could be measured

through alternative assessments like role-plays, presentations, or peer review. 3. Technology

Integration: Online materials and language-learning programs can better classroom

instruction and provide plenty more facilities with which to listen and speak. 4. Encouraging

real life communication: Trainers are required to conduct conversations, language clubs

Conclusion

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a method that enhances fluency, confidence,

and motivation among language learners by focusing on real-life contexts. It encourages active

use of language through problem-solving, opinion-sharing, and argumentation, promoting

competence and metalinguistic knowledge. However, CLT faces challenges such as large class

sizes and rote memorization of vocabulary and grammar. To overcome these, education systems

should adopt modern teaching methods emphasizing communicative means, and teachers should

shift their mindset and acquire additional resources to effectively utilize CLT.

The list of used literature:

1. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). "Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing." Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

2. Hymes, D. (1972). "On communicative competence." In Selected readings in

sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Education.

3. Hien, L. T. (2021). Communicative language teaching in teaching esl for university students.

Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(6), 49-57.

4. Hart, D., Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (1987). Communicative language tests: Perks and perils.

Evaluation & Research in Education, 1(2), 83-94.

5. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

6. Littlewood, W. (2014). "Teaching communicative languages: A growing concept for a

changing society." Language teaching, 47(3), 291-318.

7. Maryslessor, A. O., Barasa, P. L., & Omulando, C. A. (2014). Challenges teachers face in

the use of the communicative language teaching approach in the teaching listening and

speaking lessons in Lugrari District, Kenya.

8. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

9. Rodgers, T. S., & Richards, J. C. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10. Savignon, S. J. (2002). "Interpreting communicative language instruction: Issues and

situations in teacher education." The Yale University Press.


background image

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23

American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025

Journal:

https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai

page 751

11. Sayera, A. (2019). The Communicative approach in English language teaching. Бюллетень

науки и практики, 5(4), 471-475.

12. Wong, C. Y. (2012). A Case Study of College Level Second Language Teachers'

Perceptions and Implementations of Communicative Language Teaching.Professional

Educator, 36(2), n2.

References

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). "Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing." Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Hymes, D. (1972). "On communicative competence." In Selected readings in sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Education.

Hien, L. T. (2021). Communicative language teaching in teaching esl for university students. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(6), 49-57.

Hart, D., Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (1987). Communicative language tests: Perks and perils. Evaluation & Research in Education, 1(2), 83-94.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Littlewood, W. (2014). "Teaching communicative languages: A growing concept for a changing society." Language teaching, 47(3), 291-318.

Maryslessor, A. O., Barasa, P. L., & Omulando, C. A. (2014). Challenges teachers face in the use of the communicative language teaching approach in the teaching listening and speaking lessons in Lugrari District, Kenya.

Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rodgers, T. S., & Richards, J. C. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Savignon, S. J. (2002). "Interpreting communicative language instruction: Issues and situations in teacher education." The Yale University Press.

Sayera, A. (2019). The Communicative approach in English language teaching. Бюллетень науки и практики, 5(4), 471-475.

Wong, C. Y. (2012). A Case Study of College Level Second Language Teachers' Perceptions and Implementations of Communicative Language Teaching.Professional Educator, 36(2), n2.