{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017964071856287425, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004606172270842929, 'mean_word_length': 5.277456647398844, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING AND THE CHALLENGES THIS FACES IN THE PEDAGOGIC CULTURE OF SAUDI ARABIAN SCHOOLS

The aim of this paper is to explore the challenges in implementing communicative language teaching (CLT) in the pedagogic culture of Saudi Arabian schools. To achieve this aim, this paper reviews relevant studies conducted from 2010 to 2019. In theory, the CLT approach is premised on several principles [1]. First, the focus on the studied language should not be limited to only one aspect of communicative competence. Second, proficiency and fluency are equally necessary in this approach. Further, the language taught must be meaningful and authentic. Finally, the learners must use language productively. This paper uses theory of pedagogic discourse to compare how CLT is conceptualised, and how it is implemented. Bernstein’s theory of pedagogy offers two foundational concepts: classification and framing. Classification refers to the boundaries between subjects and knowledge. Framing refers to control over this transmission of knowledge. The strength of classification and framing can vary [2]. Using these concepts, this paper argues that CLT pedagogy is designed with weak classification and weak framing. However, CLT in theory may differ from CLT in practice. As reported in the literature, the practice of CLT in Saudi Arabian settings is typically strong in both classification and framing. The literature reviewed suggests that Saudi teachers typically continue with explicit grammar instruction rather than encourage the students to participate in more communicative pedagogies because the teachers’ main concern is to control student behaviour in the classroom. This review also finds that most of the studies report that, in carrying out CLT activities, teachers used strong framing which stopped the students from learning the target language in a productive way as they did not have enough choice over their use of the language in their learning process. This paper poses questions about policies that require the use of CLT in Saudi Arabian classrooms without consideration of the pedagogic cultures in such settings.