See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234119397

Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

Article  in  Asian Englishes · June 2004

DOI: 10.1080/13488678.2004.10801130

CITATIONS READS

8 517

1 author:

Guangwei Hu
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
139 PUBLICATIONS   3,765 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research Ethics and Academic Literacy in Second Language Writing View project

Diachronic change in academic writing - a cognitive perspective View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Guangwei Hu on 15 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [National Institute of Education]
On: 22 August 2015, At: 22:55
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5
Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Asian Englishes
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reng20

Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL

Classrooms
a
Guangwei Hu
a
English Language and Literature, National Institute of Education Nanyang
Technological University 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616 Fax: +65–6896–9149
E-mail:
Published online: 11 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Guangwei Hu (2004) Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms, Asian Englishes, 7:1,
42-59, DOI: 10.1080/13488678.2004.10801130

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2004.10801130

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can
be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

Guangwei HU

Abstract: In the last quarter century, English has been accorded increasing attention in
China. It has been widely recognized that raising the national level of English proficiency
is an important link in China’s modernization program. Consequently, efforts to improve
the quality of English language teaching (ELT), especially at the secondary level, have
been stepped up, leading to revamped curriculums, updated syllabuses, new textbooks,
and a reformed examination system. Underlying all these changes has been the intention
to transform pedagogical practices by promoting Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT). The intensive promotion of CLT notwithstanding, pedagogical practices in many
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

classrooms have not changed drastically. This paper examines major pedagogical
approaches to teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) that are currently followed in
China. It focuses on the features of each approach as it is practiced in Chinese EFL
classrooms, its integration or potential conflict with the dominant Chinese culture of
learning, and the extent to which it is implemented. This is followed by a discussion of
several contextual influences on pedagogical practices. The paper concludes by arguing
for the adoption of an “ideological” stance in relation to pedagogical innovations,
especially those of foreign origins.

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the late 1970s, the English language has been accorded increasing
attention in China. It has been widely recognized that English is an important
resource which China can harness in opening up to the world, engaging in
international exchange, acquiring scientific knowledge and technological expertise,
participating in global cooperation and competition, and fostering sustainable socio-
economic progress (Hu 2002a). Thus, to raise the national level of English
proficiency has been perceived as a vital link in China’s modernization program
(Adamson 2001; Ross 1992). This perception has led to a massive drive to expand
ELT in the formal education system and to improve the quality of ELT at all levels
of education (Hu 2002c).
As part of a top-down movement to improve English education in the formal
education system, tremendous efforts and resources have been invested to reform
ELT at the secondary level. Curriculums have been revamped, syllabuses updated,
new textbooks produced, and the examination system reformed (Adamson 2001; Hu
2002a; Li & Wang 2000). These newly introduced changes have been motivated by
a perception of the need to interface with recent developments in the international
landscape of foreign/second language education (Ministry of Education 2000a,

42
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

2000b). The perception is clearly articulated in a tutorial by the Syllabus Revision

Taskforce (2000). According to the tutorial, the changes have been introduced (1) to
incorporate new ideas and developments in education, (2) to apply new theories and
findings in the field of foreign/second language education, and (3) to update
instructional contents, transform pedagogical practices, and reform the system of
assessment. Against this backdrop, CLT has been promoted intensively in the recent
unified syllabuses (Ministry of Education 2000a, 2000b) as a pedagogical
innovation to replace traditional approaches in the classroom.
The intensive top-down promotion of CLT notwithstanding, pedagogical
practices in many Chinese EFL classrooms have not changed fundamentally. In
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

many parts of China, especially the socio-economically less developed regions, ELT
practices based on traditional approaches still predominate. This paper examines
three major pedagogical approaches to ELT that are currently followed in China,
focusing on the features of each approach as it is practiced in the Chinese context, its
integration or potential conflict with the Chinese culture of learning (Cortazzi & Jin
1996b; Hu 2002b), and the extent to which it is adopted. This is followed by a
discussion of several contextual influences on pedagogical practices. The paper
concludes with an argument for the adoption of an “ideological” stance in relation to
pedagogical innovations, especially those of foreign origins.

2. MAJOR ELT APPROACHES

Since formal English instruction began in China in the early 1800s (Adamson
2002; Bolton 2002), various approaches and methods have been adopted, modified,
or nativized (Adamson 2001; Fu 1986; Ross 1993; J. Scovel 1983). Most of these
approaches were experimented with on a small scale and have failed to produce an
extensive or lasting impact on ELT in China (Chen 1988; J. Y. Wu 1983b; Yao
1993). Three, however, have been influential and are shaping the current practices of
ELT in China. They are the Grammar-Translation Method, Audiolingualism, and
CLT.

2.1. The Grammar-Translation Method

The earliest and most widely adopted methodology in China was the Grammar-
Translation Method. Strictly speaking, it was a product of both native and foreign
influences, drawing on Chinese scholarly traditions and foreign practices in the 19th
century (Burnaby & Sun 1989; Hu 2002b; Ng & Tang 1997). It is the single
pedagogical approach that has persisted throughout the history of ELT in China. The

43
 Asian Englishes, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004

approach, as is currently practiced in China, is characterized by systematic and

detailed analysis of grammar, extensive use of translation in teaching and practice,
rote learning of vocabulary, emphasis on written language, and a preference for
explicit metalinguistic instruction (cf. Brown 2001; Celce-Murcia 2001; Richards &
Rodgers 1986). The dominant goals of ELT are viewed as helping students grasp the
linguistic code of English, transmitting the grammar and vocabulary knowledge that
they need to pass various English tests, developing their ability to read in the target
language, and fostering their mental discipline and intellectual development in the
language learning process. The assumption underlying the approach is that a foreign
language can be most effectively learned by first mastering a full set of grammar
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

rules and then applying this knowledge of grammar in exercises that require
manipulation of the morphology and syntax of the target language. Thus lessons are
organized around language points, that is, grammar and vocabulary items (Li 1984;
Rao 1996; Y. Q. Wang 1999). Grammar rules are taught deductively, usually in
Chinese, and meticulous accuracy in applying these rules is emphasized (Hu 2002c).
Language is studied at the sentence level, and the focus of study is on reading and,
to a lesser extent, writing. Successful learning is considered a matter of
memorization.
The Grammar-Translation Method is typically found in the intensive reading
class, a hallmark of ELT practices in China (Cortazzi & Jin 1996a; Maley 1983). In
such a class, the students prepare extensively for a new text in their textbooks by
looking up virtually every new word in a dictionary, writing down their Chinese
equivalents, trying to understand every detail of the text, and marking out difficult
phrases and sentences. The teacher also prepares extensively before the class,
identifying all possible language points in the text, writing a detailed lesson plan full
of explanations and examples, and penciling notes in the margin of the text that will
enable her “to expound every likely grammar point or word meaning which may
arise” (Cortazzi & Jin 1996a:183). In class, the teacher goes over the bilingual list of
new words provided in the textbook, explaining the grammatical features of these
words, presenting antonyms, synonyms, and collocations containing these words,
and giving exemplary sentences to show how these words should be used. In
teaching the target text, the teacher analyzes, or asks the students to analyze,
structurally complex sentences, explains and exemplifies language points in
exhaustive detail, paraphrases or translates difficult sentences, and asks factual
questions to check the students’ comprehension. After part of the text has been
studied in such a manner, the teacher asks the students to summarize or retell the
content of the covered part one after another until they “very nearly, if not literally,
learn every word by heart” (Li 1984:8). Finally, the teacher guides students through
the written exercises of translation, sentence manipulation, blank-filling, etc., to

44
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

consolidate the language points. In this way, the teaching of a short text can span
several lessons.
Although a lesson like this may seem utterly boring and counterproductive to
Western teachers favoring a more communicative pedagogical approach, many
Chinese students expect a foreign language class to be taught in this way and feel
that they can learn “real things” in such a lesson. There are deep-rooted expectations
and beliefs that keep the Grammar-Translation Method alive in numerous
classrooms. In the Chinese culture of learning, the process of learning has been
typically viewed as one of knowledge accumulation that requires deep commitment
and painstaking effort (Rao 1996; C. C. Yu 1984). True knowledge has been widely
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

held to reside in authoritative written texts (Scollon 1999; M. J. Wang 2001). Thus,
teaching is tantamount to the transmission of knowledge from texts (Maley 1983).
Such an essentially “mimetic” or “epistemic” approach to teaching necessitates
teacher-dominated instruction, where:

...the teacher selects points of knowledge from authoritative sources (usually

textbooks and classics), interprets, analyses and elaborates on these points
for the students, helps them connect the new points of knowledge with old
knowledge, and delivers a carefully sequenced and optimally mediated dose
of knowledge for the students to memorize, repeat, and understand.
(Hu 2002b:98)

This type of instruction gives teachers a strong sense of security by virtue of the
great predictability and control over the teaching and learning processes. It is
popular among many teachers also because it can remove factors from the classroom
that may detract from their authority or put them at the risk of losing face (Li 1984).
The Grammar-Translation Method is highly compatible with a number of
learning strategies which are valued by the Chinese culture of learning and into
which Chinese students have been socialized from a young age (Cortazzi & Jin
1996a). These strategies include reception (i.e., receiving and retaining, with an
open mind and without preconceptions, the knowledge imparted by teachers and
textbooks), constant repetition of new or difficult learning materials for greater
understanding, regular review of what has been taught to consolidate learning and to
gain new knowledge, and accurate reproduction of transmitted knowledge on
demand from the teacher or tests (Hu 2002b; Paine 1992; M. J. Wang 2001; C. C. Yu
1984). Other learning strategies encouraged by the Chinese culture of learning are
meticulous attention to the smallest detail of knowledge, memorization with
understanding, mental activeness rather than verbal activeness, and a low tolerance
for partial understanding (Biggs 1996a, 1996b; Hu 2002b; Jin & Cortazzi 1995; Lee

45
 Asian Englishes, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004

1996). Clearly, these strategies are the same ones required by, and enabling learners
to thrive on, the Grammar-Translation Method. It seems that the time-honored
pedagogical approach has taken root in, and is still enjoying strong support from,
many Chinese EFL classrooms largely because of its compatibility with the
traditional Chinese culture of learning.
Currently, the Grammar-Translation Method is the default ELT methodology in
the vast inland, rural areas of China, though it is also widely used in other parts of
China (Y. A. Wu 2001). It is in the former areas where the traditional Chinese
culture of learning is kept relatively intact from external influences and where
English is often learned solely for educational purposes rather than social or
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

vocational uses (Zhao & Campbell 1995). Furthermore, these areas suffer from a
general lack of teaching facilities, instructional resources, and well-trained teachers
who possess an adequate level of communicative competence in English (Paine &
DeLany 2000). In other words, there is a lack of necessary conditions and resources
in these areas for the adoption of a more experiential, communicative pedagogy
(Burnaby & Sun 1989; Hu 2002c).

2.2. Audiolingualism

Unlike the Grammar-Translation Method, Audiolingualism was a totally foreign

approach to language teaching imported into China. It originated in the United
States in the 1950s and began to impact on ELT in China in the early 1960s. It is an
intensive, oral approach to second/foreign language instruction, drawing on
structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology for theories of language and
learning (Brown 2001; Celce-Murcia 2001). From linguistic structuralism, the
approach has appropriated the conception of language “as a system of structurally
related elements for the encoding of meaning, the elements being phonemes,
morphemes, words, structures, and sentence types” (Richards & Rodgers 1986:49).
From behaviorism, it has derived the notion of language as verbal behavior. Thus,
learning a foreign language is assumed to be essentially a process of habit formation
that proceeds on the basis of mastering the structural elements, or building blocks, of
the language and learning the rules that govern their combination.
The following is a summary of the major features of the audiolingual approach
adopted in China, though readers who are familiar with Audiolingualism will
recognize that these features are not unique to China:

・ There is an overwhelming concern with formal accuracy of learner

production because it is believed that good verbal habits are formed by giving

46
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

correct responses rather than by making mistakes. To develop formal accuracy

in students, teachers make extensive use of guided exercises which often
require minimal production so as to reduce the opportunities for students to
make mistakes. They also consistently correct mistakes made by students.
・ The major means to develop fluency of production is formal practice (e.g.,
doing pattern drills, memorizing and reciting texts/dialogues, and reading
aloud), rather than functional practice such as using English to solve problems
or complete purposeful communicative tasks. It is believed that formal fluency
practice involving imitation, repetition, substitution, and memorization is not
only a useful way to familiarize students with the patterns of English sounds
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

and structures but also an effective way to form good verbal habits.
・ Teachers model the target language and tightly control the direction and
pace of learning by carefully structuring the presentation and practice of
structural patterns. New linguistic forms are presented and practiced in the
order of listening, speaking, reading, and writing on the ground that “aural-oral
training is needed to provide the foundation for the development of other
language skills” (Richards & Rodgers 1986:51).
・ Structure-based textbooks and learning materials are used to facilitate
learning. Where it is compulsory to use syllabuses and textbooks that are based
on communicative principles, many teachers teach according to their own
hidden curriculum, “an alternative teaching program in the face of official
dictates” (Medgyes & Nikolov 2002:197), and supplement the official
syllabuses and textbooks with their own structure-based learning materials
(Leng 1997).
・ Contrastive analysis is used extensively to help students understand
differences between English and Chinese and to identify possible areas of
difficulties which deserve special pedagogical attention. Grammar is usually
taught inductively rather than deductively, and students are encouraged to
generalize rules from carefully structured and presented examples of language.

When Audiolingualism was introduced to China, it was well received in tertiary

institutions and quickly spread to other levels of education (Fu 1986; Yao 1993).
Although some of the classroom practices advocated by Audiolingualism (e.g.,
emphasizing speech rather than reading and writing, de-emphasizing grammar
explanations, teaching grammar inductively, and forbidding the use of translation at
early levels) were against traditional Chinese approaches, the language teaching
methodology took root in Chinese EFL classrooms because of other features that
were highly compatible with the Chinese tradition of ELT (e.g., its emphasis on

47
 Asian Englishes, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004

accuracy as a desired outcome, on drilling and memorization as important learning

strategies, on strict control by the teacher over the learning process, and on the
adoption of a structure-based syllabus). Efforts have been made to nativize
Audiolingualism and infuse its practices into the Grammar-Translation Method. This
has been largely successful, and some of its most valued principles, techniques, and
activities are retained in the latest English syllabuses and current textbooks
(Adamson 2001; Adamson & Morris 1997; Ministry of Education 2000a, 2000b).
Two striking problems with Audiolingualism, however, are that students often fail to
transfer skills acquired through pattern drilling to real communication and that
practice activities tend to involve de-motivating, mechanical repetition, substitution
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

and imitation (Hu 2002b).

Presently, audiolingual practices can be found not only in the socio-
economically less developed inland regions but also in the more advantaged coastal
and urban areas of China. However, there are few classes that are taught exclusively
in the audiolingual approach. As mentioned above, some of the audiolingual
practices have been integrated into the Grammar-Translation Method or grafted onto
a more communicative approach to language teaching. Thus there are clear traces of
Audiolingualism in recent textbooks for students in large cities such as Shanghai
(e.g., the New Primary and Secondary English series; see Hu 2002c) and those for
students in inland, rural regions (e.g., the Junior English for China series; see
Adamson & Morris 1997). Generally speaking, the pedagogical approach is most
often used at low levels of language instruction (e.g., primary and junior secondary
English classes) in the hope of developing correct language habits and providing
some opportunities for students to practice oral skills under close control. It is
favored by many teachers because, like the Grammar-Translation Method, it gives
them a strong sense of systematicity, predictability, and hence security.

2.3. Communicative Language Teaching

CLT is the latest innovation in foreign language teaching introduced into

Chinese EFL classrooms. The approach started in Europe in the 1970s and drew on
developments in sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, discourse theory, applied
linguistics, and second language acquisition research (Wesche & Skehan 2002). The
most important difference between CLT and the more traditional pedagogical
approaches is its conception of communicative competence as the primary goal of
language teaching and learning. According to Canale and Swain (1980),
communicative competence consists of grammatical competence (a knowledge of
the linguistic system of the target language), sociolinguistic competence (an

48
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

understanding of the dynamics of communication in social contexts), discourse

competence (the ability to interpret individual elements of discourse in terms of their
interconnectedness and their relationship to the entire discourse), and strategic
competence (the ability to employ various strategies effectively to get
communication done). More recent developments in the notion of communicative
competence and its implications for second language acquisition can be found in
Skehan (1998) and Wesche and Skehan (2002).
Advocates of CLT argue 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” (Richards & Rodgers 1986:71). Therefore,
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

teaching should attend to both the functional and structural aspects of language
(Johnson 1982; Littlewood 1981) and aim at helping students cognize and
internalize form-function-meaning relationships. The learning theory underlying
CLT is humanistic in nature. Richards and Rodgers (1986:72) aptly summarize it in
terms of three key assumptions: (1) that activities involving real communication
promote language learning; (2) that activities requiring language to be used for
carrying out meaningful tasks promote language learning; and (3) that language
meaningful to the learner supports the learning process.
While there are different versions of CLT, Wesche and Skehan (2002:208) give
the following features as common to most communicative classrooms:

・ use of collaborative learning activities such as group and pair work that
require frequent interaction in the target language among learners to pool
information and to solve problems;
・ maximization of learners’ exposure to, and use of, the target language, for
example, through learning non-language subject matter in the target language;
・ use of real samples of language and communicative activities that bear some
sort of relationship with real-world activities to provide opportunities for
learners to learn language in context; and
・ learner-centered instruction that not only takes into account learners’
backgrounds, language needs, and goals but also allows them some role and
creativity in pedagogical decision making.

In addition to these features, most versions of CLT also require teachers and
learners to assume roles different from more traditional ones. That is, teachers are
expected to be facilitators of communication, needs analysts, organizers of
resources, guides of procedures and activities, researchers, and learners, while
learners are required to be negotiators, communicators, discoverers, and contributors

49
 Asian Englishes, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004

of knowledge and information (Richards & Rodgers 1986).

CLT was introduced to China in the late 1970s but failed to receive widespread
support or attention initially (L. M. Yu 2001). To be more precise, there was strong
resistance to it. Ever since its introduction, there has been a heated and continued
debate among both Chinese and Western ELT specialists on the necessity,
appropriateness, and effectiveness of adopting CLT in China (Bell 1995; Burnaby &
Sun 1989; Chen 1988; Hu 2002b; Kohn 1992; Li 1984; Rao 1996; T. Scovel 1983;
Stephens 1997). One important outcome of this debate has been the identification of
a number of constraints on the adoption of CLT in China. These constraints include
a general lack of knowledge of the cultures of English-speaking countries on the part
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

of teachers, who need such knowledge to develop sociolinguistic competence in

their students; huge class size (often more than 50 students in one class), which
makes it very difficult to carry out communicative activities in class (Leng 1997; Liu
1998); limited instructional time (usually 4 to 5 hours a week), which is barely
enough to cover a very heavy curriculum, let alone time-consuming communicative
activities (Cortazzi & Jin 1996b; Ng & Tang 1997); scarcity of teaching resources
(e.g., authentic listening and reading materials); lack of a social environment to
support communicative use of the target language (Hu 2002c); and the Matriculation
English Test, which, until very recently, has encouraged a traditional knowledge-
oriented approach to ELT (Lewin & Wang 1991; Rao 1996). It seems, however, that
the most serious constraint lies in the tension between CLT and the traditional
Chinese culture of learning (Brick 1991; Hu 2002b). Perceptions, activities, and
learning strategies encouraged by CLT (e.g., the “learn by using” philosophy, the
emphasis on personal needs and self-expression, the extensive use of games as
learning activities, flexible reading strategies, constant exposure to large quantities
of new learning materials, peer evaluation, spontaneity, and tolerance for ambiguity
and imprecision) often turn out to be those that are considered unproductive or
discouraged by the traditional Chinese culture of learning.
It is mainly because of the above-mentioned constraints that the influence of
CLT has been restricted largely to the coastal and urban areas of China, which are
economically, socially, and culturally more advantaged. In these areas, there are
adequate teaching facilities, easy access to up-to-date instructional resources, well-
trained teachers with a considerably high level of professional and communicative
competence, frequent opportunity to use English for social and vocational purposes,
ample exposure and amenability to foreign cultural influences, and a weakening
influence of the traditional Chinese culture of learning (British Council 1995; Hu
2002c; Lam 2002). All these constitute a relatively favorable context for the
application of CLT. At present, two versions of CLT are practiced in these areas. The

50
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

first one is what Wesche and Skehan (2002) have called a “weak” form of CLT.
Such a version of CLT aims at helping students forge form-function-meaning
relationships and stresses the provision of opportunities for students to use the target
language for communicative purposes. It is generally implemented within a
predominantly structure-based syllabus or the traditional presentation-practice-
production framework. While presentation and practice of the formal properties of
the target language are still the major concern of classroom instruction, engaging
and lively communicative activities are also incorporated into the production stage
to allow for some spontaneous and natural interaction in the target language. This
form of CLT is more acceptable to most teachers and has become the more widely
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

adopted version. The second version is a “strong” one, in that it integrates the
teaching and learning of English with instruction in non-language subject matter.
This version is widely known as content-based language instruction. Currently, a
number of prestigious schools in several metropolises teach some school subjects
(e.g., mathematics, biology, and computer science) partially in English (Hu 2002c).
While content-based language instruction has obvious advantages over traditional
approaches to language teaching and learning, there are also problems in its
implementation, notably in the areas of materials development, teacher training, and
contextual support (Hu 2002a; Y. A. Wu 2001). Because of the high demands it
imposes, the implementation of content-based language instruction is experimental
in nature and is restricted to only a few large cities such as Shanghai, Beijing, and
Guangzhou.

3. CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES

The current picture of ELT practices in China is a rather complex one. Although
the educational authorities and ELT specialists have been working hard to promote
CLT by introducing new syllabuses, textbooks, and competence-oriented tests, CLT
has not gained wide currency, especially at the secondary level. The philosophy
embodied by CLT is new to numerous secondary-school teachers. Teachers who
follow CLT are still a minority and usually work in better equipped schools in large
cities. It is true that many claim to support CLT, but quite a large number of them
only pay lip service, and some do not even have a clear understanding of the
principles underlying CLT (Leng 1997; Ng & Tang 1997; Wu & Fang 2002). A
majority of teachers still follow the Grammar-Translation Method and/or
Audiolingualism in their classrooms either because of their skepticism about the
superiority of CLT over the traditional approaches or because of a range of cultural,

51
 Asian Englishes, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004

educational, and socio-economic constraints (Tang & Absalom 1998; L. M. Yu

2001). A growing group of teachers, however, are taking an eclectic approach,
drawing on different methodologies and trying to reconcile traditional practices with
more recent innovations to meet the demand of their particular (often diverse)
teaching situations (Adamson 2001; Adamson & Morris 1997; Jin & Cortazzi 1998;
Rao 1996, 1999). That is, they do not commit themselves to any single pedagogical
approach but select, from all the approaches available, what they find to be useful
practices. Such an eclectic approach, it can be argued, represents a more realistic and
a more promising course of action in the Chinese context (J. Y. Wu 1983a, 1983b).
Although an appropriate pedagogical approach is of importance in raising the
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

quality of ELT in China, its successful implementation and effectiveness are

predicated on a whole range of factors in and outside the language classroom. As
Watkins (1996:7) has rightly pointed out, “to try to improve the products of
schooling by changing just one sector...is likely to be counterproductive if other
components of the system remain unchanged.” There are at least three interrelated
groups of factors that impinge on the effectiveness of a pedagogical approach. The
first group, teaching resources, consists of curriculums, syllabuses, teaching
facilities, instructional technologies, teaching and learning materials, and teacher
training. When a pedagogical approach is not closely tied up, or even in potential
clash, with the goals of the curriculum and syllabus that must be followed, there is
no compelling reason for teachers to adopt it. Even if there is a recognized need for
an approach like CLT, without the necessary teaching conditions and instructional
materials to meet its demands, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to implement the
methodology without compromising its effectiveness. Similarly, without appropriate
teacher training and professional support, it is unreasonable to expect teachers to
carry out a pedagogical innovation effectively.
The second group of factors is socially constructed by nature and includes the
perceived value of the target language in society, its social functions, and
gatekeeping institutions such as examinations at various levels. As Gardner (2002)
and Oxford (2002) argue, characteristics of the social environment can affect the
opportunities to use and experience the language as well as learner perceptions,
strategies, and classroom behaviors. Where social use of the target language does
not exist to any significant extent, students have little opportunity to learn the target
language experientially and are not motivated to learn it for communicative
purposes. By the same token, when a high-stakes examination, like the English
Matriculation Test, encourages narrowness and dependency by testing mainly
discrete-point knowledge of English grammar and largely ignoring the ability to use
the target language (Feng 1999; Hu 2002a; Lewin & Wang 1991), teachers and

52
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

students will not concern themselves with developing communicative competence.

The last group of factors has to do with cultural contexts, in particular, the
prevailing local culture of teaching and learning. When a teaching methodology
embodies an educational philosophy alien to the local culture, is based on
assumptions about teacher and student roles incompatible with those found in the
local culture, encourages learning strategies different from those favored in the local
context, and rewards learner qualities and classroom etiquettes contrary to those
valued by the local culture, it is bound to meet with strong resistance and is very
likely to end up in failure. It has been repeatedly borne out that a methodology is
only effective to the extent that teachers and students are willing to accept and
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

implement it with good faith.

4. CONCLUSION

The discussion above raises the question of what is an appropriate stance to take
with regard to pedagogical innovations. A case in point is the official promotion of
CLT in an endeavor to reform ELT in China. Since the late 1980s, there has been an
impressive top-down effort to promote CLT as a solution to the perceived problems
with the traditional classroom practices. The decision to enforce CLT nationwide has
been spurred in part by the high profile that CLT has enjoyed internationally and by
the findings from research done outside China that attest to its effectiveness. Implicit
in the official effort to promote CLT is an “autonomous” attitude to pedagogical
innovation. Such an attitude assumes that a pedagogical approach that is effective
and appropriate in one economic, social, and cultural context also works well in
another (Coleman 1996). The various constraints discussed earlier in relation to the
implementation of CLT, however, make it clear that the “autonomous” attitude is
unwarranted. Rather, those same constraints call for an “ideological” approach to
pedagogical alternatives. Such an approach recognizes socio-cultural diversity and
rejects the notion of universally appropriate ways of teaching and learning. The
“ideological” stance is supported by the frequently observed resistance around the
world to pedagogies of foreign origins (Coleman 1996). To conclude, given various
contextual differences, there is good reason to resist any attempt to improve the
quality of ELT by adopting, in an uncritical and wholesale manner, approaches that
have developed externally and in very different socio-cultural contexts. A more
productive course of action for policymakers, specialists, and teachers to pursue is to
take an eclectic approach and make pedagogical choices that are grounded in a
sound understanding of the factors at work in a specific socio-cultural context.

53
 Asian Englishes, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004

REFERENCES

Adamson, B. 2001. “English with Chinese characteristics: China’s new curriculum.”

Asia Pacific Journal of Education 21:2. 19-33.
Adamson, B. 2002. “Barbarian as a foreign language: English in China’s schools.”
World Englishes 21. 231-243.
Adamson, B. and P. Morris. 1997. “The English curriculum in the People’s
Republic of China.” Comparative Education Review 41. 3-26.
Bell, J. S. 1995. “The relationship between L1 and L2 literacy: some complicating
factors.” TESOL Quarterly 29. 687-704.
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

Biggs, J. B. 1996a. “Learning, schooling, and socialization: a Chinese solution to a

Western problem.” In S. Lau (ed.), Growing up the Chinese Way: Chinese
children and adolescent development. Hong Kong: The Chinese University
Press. 147-167.
Biggs, J. B. 1996b. “Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning
culture.” In D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), The Chinese Learner:
cultural, psychological and contextual influences. Hong Kong: CERC and
ACER. 45-67.
Bolton, K. 2002. “Chinese Englishes: from Canton jargon to global English.”
World Englishes 21. 181-199.
Brick, J. 1991. China: a handbook in intercultural communication. Sydney:
Macquarie University.
British Council. 1995. English Language Teaching Profile of the People’s Republic
of China. Beijing: The British Council.
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to language
pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Burnaby, B. and Y. L. Sun. 1989. “Chinese teachers’ views of Western language
teaching: context informs paradigms.” TESOL Quarterly 23. 219-238.
Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical bases of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing.” Applied Linguistics 1. 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M. 2001. “Language teaching approaches: an overview.” In M.
Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language.
Boston: Heinle and Heinle. 3-11.
Chen, S. Q. 1988. “A challenge to the exclusive adoption of the communicative
approach in China.” Guidelines 10:1. 67-76.
Coleman, H. 1996. “Autonomy and ideology in the English language classroom.”
In H. Coleman (ed.), Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 1-15.

54
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

Cortazzi, M. and L. X. Jin. 1996a. “Cultures of learning: language classrooms in

China.” In H. Coleman (ed.), Society and the Language Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 169-206.
Cortazzi, M. and L. X. Jin. 1996b. “English teaching and learning in China.”
Language Teaching 29. 61-80.
Feng, Y. 1999. “National College Entrance Examinations: the dynamics of political
centralism in China’s elite education.” Journal of Education 181. 39-57.
Fu, K. 1986. Zhongguo Waiyu Jiaoyu Shi [The history of foreign language education
in China]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Gardner, R. C. 2002. “Social psychological perspective on second language
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

acquisition.” In R.B. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied

Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 160-169.
Hu, G. W. 2002a. “Recent important developments in secondary English-language
teaching in the People’s Republic of China.” Language, Culture and
Curriculum 15. 30-49.
Hu, G. W. 2002b. “Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: the case of
communicative language teaching in China.” Language, Culture and
Curriculum 15. 93-105.
Hu, G. W. 2002c. “English language teaching in the People’s Republic of China.”
In R. E. Silver, G. W. Hu and M. Iino (eds.), English Language Education in
China, Japan, and Singapore. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.
1-77.
Jin, L. X. and M. Cortazzi. 1995. “A cultural synergy model for academic language
use.” In P. Bruthiaux, T. Boswood and B. Du-Babcock (eds.), Explorations in
English for Professional Communication. Hong Kong: City University of Hong
Kong. 41-56.
Jin, L. X. and M. Cortazzi. 1998. “Dimensions of dialogue: large classes in China.”
International Journal of Educational Research 29. 739-761.
Johnson, K. 1982. Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Kohn, J. 1992. “Literacy strategies for Chinese university learners.” In F. Dubin and
N. A. Kuhlman (eds.), Cross-cultural Literacy: global perspectives on reading
and writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall, 113-125.
Lam, A. 2002. “English in education in China: policy changes and learners’
experiences.” World Englishes 21. 245-256.
Lee, W. O. 1996. “The cultural context for Chinese learners: conceptions of
learning in the Confucian tradition.” In D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.),
The Chinese Learner: cultural, psychological and contextual Influences. Hong
Kong: CERC and ACER. 25-41.

55
 Asian Englishes, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004

Leng, H. 1997. “New bottles, old wine: communicative language teaching in

China.” English Teaching Forum 35:4. 38-41.
Lewin, K. and L. Wang. 1991. “Access to university education in the People’s
Republic of China: a longitudinal analysis of the structure and content of the
university entrance examinations 1984-1988.” International Journal of
Educational Development 11. 231-244.
Li, X. J. 1984. “In defence of the communicative approach.” ELT Journal 38. 2-
13.
Li, X. J. and L. Wang. 2000. “Testing oral English on a mass scale: is it feasible?
The oral component of the MET in China.” Hong Kong Journal of Applied
Linguistics 5:1. 160-186.
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching: an introduction.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, D. L. 1998. “Ethnocentrism in TESOL: teacher education and the neglected
needs of international TESOL students.” ELT Journal 52. 3-10.
Maley, A. 1983. “Xanadu-’a miracle of rare device’: the teaching of English in
China.” Language Learning and Communication 2. 97-104.
Medgyes, P. and M. Nikolov. 2002. “Curriculum development: the interface
between political and professional decisions.” In R. B. Kaplan (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
195-206.
Ministry of Education. 2000a. Jiunian Yiwu Jiaoyu Quanrizhi Chuji Zhongxue
Yingyu Jiaoxue Dagang [English syllabus for full-time junior secondary
schools]. Beijing: People’s Education Press.
Ministry of Education. 2000b. Quanrizhi Gaoji Zhongxue Yingyu Jiaoxue Dagang
[English syllabus for full-time senior secondary schools]. Beijing: People’s
Education Press.
Ng, C. and E. Tang. 1997. “Teachers’ needs in the process of EFL reform in China-
a report from Shanghai.” Perspectives: Working Papers 9:1. 63-85.
Oxford, R. L. 2002. “Sources of variation in language learning.” In R.B. Kaplan
(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 245-252.
Paine, L. 1992. “Teaching and modernization in contemporary China.” In R.
Hayhoe (ed.), Education and Modernization: the Chinese experience. Oxford:
Pergamon, 183-209.
Paine, L. and B. DeLany. 2000. “Rural Chinese education: observing from the
margin.” In J. Liu, H. A. Ross, and D. P. Kelly (eds.), The Ethnographic Eye:
interpretive studies of education in China. New York: Falmer. 97-122.
Rao, Z. H. 1996. “Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of

56
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

English with traditional Chinese methods.” Research in the Teaching of

English 30. 458-471.
Rao, Z. H. 1999. “Making the communicative approach work together with the
grammar-translation method in a traditional setting.” Guidelines 21:1. 21-33.
Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching: a description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, H. A. 1992. “Foreign language education as a barometer of modernization.”
In R. Hayhoe (ed.), Education and Modernization: the Chinese experience.
Oxford: Pergamon. 239-254.
Ross, H. A. 1993. China Learns English: language teaching and social change in
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

the People’s Republic. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Scollon, S. 1999. “Not to waste words or students: Confucian and Socratic
discourse in the tertiary classroom.” In E. Hinkel (ed.), Culture in Second
Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13-27.
Scovel, J. 1983. “English teaching in China: a historical perspective.” Language
Learning and Communication 2. 105-110.
Scovel, T. 1983. “The impact of foreign experts, methodology and materials on
English language study in China.” Language Learning and Communication 2.
83-91.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stephens, K. 1997. “Cultural stereotyping and intercultural communication:
working with students from the People’s Republic of China in the UK.”
Language and Education 11. 113-124.
Syllabus Revision Taskforce. 2000. Jiunian Yiwu Jiaoyu Quanrizhi Chuji Zhongxue
Yingyu Jiaoxue Dagang Shiyong Xiudingben Peixun Tigang [A tutorial on the
English syllabus for full-time junior secondary schools], retrieved July 21, 2001
from: http://www.pep.com.cn/yingyu/syllabus/guide-to-syllabus.htm
Tang, D. G. and D. Absalom. 1998. “Teaching across cultures: considerations for
Western EFL teachers in China.” Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics
3:2. 117-132.
Wang, M. J. 2001. “The cultural characteristics of Chinese students: a study of
basic attitudes and approaches to their English studies.” RELC Journal 32:1.
16-33.
Wang, Y. Q. 1999. “College English in China.” English Today 15:1. 45-51.
Watkins, D. A. 1996. “Learning theories and approaches to research: a cross-
cultural perspective.” In D. A. Watkins and J. B. Biggs (eds.), The Chinese

57
 Asian Englishes, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004

Learner: cultural, psychological and contextual influences. Hong Kong: CERC

and ACER. 3-24.
Wesche, M. B. and P. Skehan. 2002. “Communicative, task-based, and content-
based language instruction.” In R. B. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 207-228.
Wu, J. Y. 1983a. “Quchang buduan-a Chinese view of foreign participation in
teaching English in China.” Language Learning and Communication 2. 111-
116.
Wu, J. Y. 1983b. “Eclecticism: a Chinese viewpoint.” Language Learning and
Communication 2. 287-294.
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

Wu, X. D. and L. Fang. 2002. “Teaching communicative English in China: a case

study of the gap between teachers’ views and practice.” Asian Journal of
English Language Teaching 12. 143-162.
Wu, Y. A. 2001. “English language teaching in China: trends and challenges.”
TESOL Quarterly 35. 191-194.
Yao, X. Q. 1993. “Foreign languages in Chinese higher education.” Language
Learning Journal 7. 74-77.
Yu, C. C. 1984. ‘“Cultural principles underlying English teaching in China.”
Language Learning and Communication 3. 29-40.
Yu, L. M. 2001. “Communicative language teaching in China: progress and
resistance.” TESOL Quarterly 35. 194-198.
Zhao, Y. and K. P. Campbell. 1995. “English in China.” World Englishes 14. 377-
390.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is based in part on a country report prepared for an international

research project on language education, Pedagogical Practices in English Language
Education (PPELE), which is part of a Six-Nation Education Research Project
(SNERP) involving China, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, and the U.S.A.

58
 Pedagogical Practices in Chinese EFL Classrooms

Guangwei HU
English Language and Literature
National Institute of Education
Nanyang Technological University
1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616

Fax: +65-6896-9149
E-mail: gwhu@nie.edu.sg
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 22:55 22 August 2015

59

View publication stats