This article reports on a study examining the implementation of communicative language teaching (CLT) in Bangladesh in general and at the University of Dhaka in particular. When CLT was first introduced across Europe, the English as a foreign language (EFL) context in which it would inevitably be applied was not considered. Here university EFL teachers discuss the problems and contradictions associated with adopting this western-forged methodology. One paradox faced by the teachers was that of an essentially learner-centred curriculum in a tradition where the centrality of the teacher is the culturally and socially sanctioned basis of teaching. Although in developing countries we cannot afford simply to retreat to traditional teaching methods, the study suggests the need for an educational agenda set within a new post-colonial framework which acknowledges the importance of the adaptation of CLT and recognises the significance of its applicability in Bangladesh.
AuerbachE. R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical choices. In TollefsonJ. (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BiggsJ. (1997). Teaching across and within cultures: The issue of international students, in learning and teaching in higher education: Advancing international perspectives. Proceedings of the HERDSA Conference, July 1997, Adelaide, South Australia.
3.
BrindleyG. (1991). Becoming a researcher: Teacher-conducted research and professional growth. Singapore: SEAMEO.
4.
BrownR. (2000). Cultural continuity and ELT teacher training. ELT Journal, 54(3), 227–235.
ChowdhuryM. R. (2000). Colourless green ideas: Teaching grammar in the EFL class: A rethinking. Dhaka University Studies, 58(2), 33–53.
7.
ChowdhuryM. R. (2001). To west or not to west? The question of culture in adopting/adapting CLT in Bangladesh. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, 46(1), 183–194.
8.
CrystalD. (1985). Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
9.
DamenL. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Melbourne: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
10.
DuffP. A.UchidaY. (1997). The negotiation of teachers' sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 451–482.
11.
EdgeJ. (1996). Cross-cultural paradoxes in a profession of values. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 9–31.
GravesK. (1996). A framework of course development processes. In GravesK. (Ed.), Teachers as course developers (pp. 12–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
HallS. (Ed.). (1997). Introduction, representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 1–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
HamidO. (2000). A time befitting curricular innovation. Dhaka University Studies, 54(3), 44–57.
16.
HollidayA. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HoqueS. (1999). ELT issues in Bangladesh: An overview. In HunterT. (Ed.), National and regional issues in English language teaching: International perspectives (ELTIP Bangladesh 1999 Conference papers, pp. 93–100). Dhaka: NCTB and British Council.
18.
JiangW. (1994). The relationship between culture and language. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 138–146.
19.
KhanR. (2000). The English foundation course at Dhaka University. An evaluation. Dhaka University Studies, 54(4), 36–63.
20.
KramschC. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
LiD. (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), 677–702.
22.
LiX. (1984). In defence of the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 38(1), 2–13.
