Коммуникативтік тіл оқытудың ағылшын тілін шет тілі ретінде үйренушілердің сөйлеу сенімділігіне ықпалы

Introduction

English language proficiency has become one of the most important academic and professional requirements for university students. Of the four language skills (listening, reading, writing, and speaking), speaking is often regarded as the most challenging for learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Speaking requires not only grammatical competence and vocabulary knowledge but also confidence, spontaneity, interactional ability, and psychological readiness to communicate. Many students experience fear, hesitation, and anxiety when they have to speak English in front of others, even when their linguistic knowledge is sufficient.

In many EFL classrooms, particularly in traditional educational contexts, students spend years learning grammar rules, memorizing vocabulary lists, and completing written exercises, yet still struggle to communicate orally. The problem is especially visible at the university level, where students are expected to take part in presentations, discussions, seminars, and other forms of academic communication in English. Many learners avoid speaking tasks because of low self-confidence and fear of making mistakes.

Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) identify foreign language anxiety as a major barrier to active classroom participation: students fear negative evaluation from teachers and classmates, which reduces their willingness to communicate.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is widely promoted as an approach that can address this problem. Unlike traditional teacher-centered methods, CLT focuses on meaningful communication, real-life interaction, and student-centered participation. Its goal is not simply grammatical accuracy but communicative competence: the ability to use language appropriately in authentic situations. According to Littlewood (2014), communicative classrooms give learners opportunities to negotiate meaning, express personal opinions, solve problems collaboratively, and engage in real communication rather than mechanical language drills.

The theoretical foundation of CLT lies in Hymes’ (1972) concept of communicative competence, which holds that language learning must include the social and functional use of language, not only structural knowledge. Richards (2006) later explained that CLT creates classroom conditions in which students learn language through interaction itself. Activities such as pair work, role plays, debates, interviews, information-gap tasks, and group discussions allow learners to use English actively and naturally. Such practices can reduce the fear of speaking because the focus shifts from error correction to successful communication.

Confidence plays a central role in speaking development. MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels (1998) introduced the concept of willingness to communicate (WTC), defined as a learner’s readiness to enter into discourse in a second language. In their model, self-confidence strongly influences whether students choose to speak or remain silent.

Learners with high confidence tend to participate more frequently and take more communicative risks, whereas highly anxious learners participate less. Similarly, Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis proposes that emotional factors such as stress, fear, and low motivation can block language acquisition, while supportive, low-anxiety environments improve learning.

Empirical studies point to the value of CLT for speaking confidence. Al-Garni and Almuhammadi (2019) found that communicative speaking activities significantly improved Saudi EFL students’ oral participation and reduced classroom anxiety, and that students who practiced pair discussions, presentations, and role plays became more willing to speak English publicly. Nazara (2019) reported that Indonesian university students perceived CLT as highly effective for building confidence because they were encouraged to express ideas freely without excessive correction.

Leong and Ahmadi (2017) emphasized that speaking performance depends not only on linguistic competence but also on psychological readiness, and that many students fail at speaking tasks not for lack of vocabulary but for lack of confidence.

Darmi and Albion (2017) showed that oral communication skills improve when students are exposed to communicative tasks rather than teacher-dominated instruction, and Taqi, Al-Nouh, and Akbar (2018) found that both teachers and students viewed CLT positively because it creates more meaningful learning experiences and encourages independent thinking.

In Kazakhstan, English language teaching has increasingly shifted toward communicative competence because of globalization, international academic mobility, and the growing importance of IELTS and other international language assessments. University students are expected to communicate effectively in English for academic and professional purposes. However, many classrooms still rely heavily on traditional grammar-based instruction. As a result, students often show strong reading and writing skills but weak speaking confidence, and they remain passive learners who wait for teacher instructions instead of becoming active participants in communication.

Implementing CLT is not without challenges. Some teachers are not fully prepared to use communicative strategies in practice, and large class sizes, exam-oriented curricula, lack of methodological training, and students’ reluctance to participate actively often limit its success. Some learners also feel uncomfortable in open discussions because they are accustomed to teacher-centered lessons. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that even a gradual integration of CLT strategies can improve students’ speaking confidence.

Despite the growing body of literature on CLT, classroom-based experimental research focusing specifically on university students’ confidence in speaking English remains limited. Many studies focus on fluency, grammar, or test performance, while confidence itself is underexplored, even though students who possess sufficient language knowledge may still fail to communicate because of psychological barriers.

This study therefore investigates the influence of CLT on students’ confidence in speaking English among university EFL learners. It compares traditional teacher-centered instruction with CLT-based speaking lessons over a four-week experimental period, with the aim of determining whether communicative teaching strategies can reduce speaking anxiety, increase classroom participation, and improve students’ willingness to communicate in English.

Research Questions

This study is guided by the following research questions:

1. Does Communicative Language Teaching improve university students’ confidence in speaking English?

2. How do students perceive communicative speaking activities in English lessons?

3. What differences can be observed between traditional teaching methods and CLT-based instruction in terms of speaking participation and confidence?

4. How does classroom interaction influence students’ willingness to communicate in English?

The answers to these questions can contribute to a better understanding of how communicative methodology may be applied in university EFL classrooms and how speaking confidence can be strengthened through practical classroom strategies.

Literature Review

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is one of the most influential approaches in modern English language teaching, especially for developing speaking skills among EFL learners. Unlike traditional methods that concentrate on grammar rules, memorization, and teacher-centered instruction, CLT emphasizes meaningful interaction, authentic communication, and learner participation. Its primary goal is to help students use language effectively in real-life situations rather than merely master isolated grammatical structures.

Communicative competence and CLT

The concept of communicative competence was introduced by Hymes (1972), who criticized the view of language learning that focused only on grammatical competence. Hymes argued that knowing a language involves more than understanding grammar; it also involves knowing how to use language appropriately in different social and cultural contexts. This idea became the foundation of CLT and changed the direction of language teaching worldwide.

Richards (2006) explains that CLT rests on the principle that language is best learned through communication itself. Students should not only study language forms but also practice using language to express opinions, solve problems, ask questions, and negotiate meaning. In communicative classrooms the teacher acts more as a facilitator than as the central source of knowledge, while learners take an active part in pair work, group discussions, interviews, debates, and role plays. Such activities help students develop fluency, confidence, and interactional competence.

Littlewood (2014) similarly argues that communication-oriented teaching creates opportunities for learners to use language for personal expression. He emphasizes that students become more confident when they are allowed to share ideas, make choices, and engage in meaningful interaction rather than simply repeat correct answers. This student-centered environment reduces pressure and helps learners feel more comfortable speaking a foreign language.

Anxiety, the affective filter, and willingness to communicate

Foreign language anxiety is one of the major psychological barriers to speaking. Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) define it as a specific form of anxiety associated with language learning situations, especially speaking tasks. Students often fear making mistakes, being laughed at, or receiving negative evaluation from teachers and classmates, and this fear leads to avoidance: learners prefer silence to participation. Speaking anxiety is particularly common in university classrooms, where students may feel strong academic pressure.

Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter Hypothesis offers a further explanation. According to Krashen, emotional factors such as fear, low self-esteem, and lack of motivation can act as a psychological filter that blocks language acquisition. When students are anxious, they process language less effectively, whereas supportive classroom environments lower the affective filter and create better conditions for learning. CLT may help reduce this filter because it focuses on communication rather than perfection.

Confidence in speaking is closely related to willingness to communicate (WTC), developed by MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels (1998). WTC refers to a learner’s readiness to initiate communication in a second language. Their model identifies confidence as one of the strongest influences on whether students choose to speak. Confident learners are more likely to take risks, ask questions, and participate actively, while learners with low confidence avoid interaction even when their grammar and vocabulary are adequate.

Empirical studies on CLT and speaking

Al-Garni and Almuhammadi (2019) conducted research with Saudi EFL students and found that communicative speaking activities significantly improved oral participation and reduced anxiety. Students who took part in role plays, pair discussions, and problem-solving tasks showed greater willingness to speak English in class. The researchers concluded that communicative practice helps students shift their attention from correctness to meaningful expression.

Nazara (2019) investigated students’ perceptions of CLT in Indonesian university classrooms and found highly positive attitudes toward communicative activities. Students reported feeling less afraid of speaking because they could express ideas freely and interact naturally with classmates, and they also said that CLT made lessons more enjoyable and increased their motivation. This suggests that emotional engagement is an important factor in speaking development.

Leong and Ahmadi (2017) likewise emphasize that speaking performance depends not only on vocabulary and grammar but also on psychological readiness. Their study found that many learners have enough linguistic knowledge but fail to speak because of low confidence. They argue that teachers must create classroom conditions in which students feel safe enough to make mistakes and learn from communication rather than fear correction.

Darmi and Albion (2017) examined the development of oral communication through CLT and found that active classroom interaction significantly improves students’ speaking confidence. When students work collaboratively, ask questions, and respond to peers, they become more engaged and motivated, and this learner-centered interaction helps turn passive learners into active communicators.

Taqi, Al-Nouh, and Akbar (2018) explored teachers’ and students’ perspectives on CLT implementation and found that both groups recognized its importance for speaking development. Teachers believed that CLT improved classroom participation and learner autonomy, while students appreciated the opportunity to practice real communication rather than memorize dialogues. The study also highlighted challenges, including lack of teacher training and students’ initial discomfort with active participation.

Other factors influencing speaking confidence

Besides classroom methodology, vocabulary knowledge plays a role in speaking confidence. Khan et al. (2018) found that learners with stronger vocabulary knowledge are more confident in oral communication because they feel more capable of expressing ideas clearly, whereas learners with limited vocabulary often avoid speaking for fear of being unable to complete sentences. Confidence is therefore influenced by both linguistic and psychological factors.

Mahmud and Wong (2019) studied willingness to communicate among university students and found that self-confidence, classroom atmosphere, and teacher support were the strongest predictors of speaking participation. Students were more willing to speak when they felt emotionally supported and when mistakes were treated as part of learning rather than as failure. This is consistent with the principles of CLT.

Öztürk and Gürbüz (2014) found that speaking anxiety is particularly high among university students because of the pressure of public speaking: presentations, oral exams, and classroom discussions often create fear of embarrassment. Their study suggests that communicative practice can help reduce this anxiety by making speaking a normal daily classroom activity rather than a formal test situation.

Savaşçı (2014) explains that many students are reluctant to use English in speaking classes because they are afraid of losing face in front of their peers, especially in cultures where mistakes are strongly associated with failure. CLT may address this issue because it encourages collaborative learning and focuses on communicative success rather than error counting.

Yaman and Kavasoğlu (2013) found that communication strategies such as paraphrasing, asking for clarification, and using simple expressions improve students’ confidence because learners realize that they do not need perfect English to communicate successfully. This practical realization is one of the main benefits of CLT.

The Kazakhstani context and the research gap

In Kazakhstan, the importance of English speaking competence continues to grow because of the internationalization of higher education and increasing opportunities for academic mobility. Students preparing for IELTS, exchange programs, and international employment need strong oral communication skills. However, many university classrooms still prioritize grammar exercises and written tasks, so students often have theoretical knowledge without confidence in real communication.

Although many studies confirm the benefits of CLT, experimental research focused specifically on speaking confidence among university EFL learners in Kazakhstan remains limited. Most previous studies examine speaking fluency, grammatical accuracy, or exam results rather than confidence itself, yet confidence is often decisive in whether students actually use English in real life. This study addresses the gap by investigating, through a classroom-based experiment, how CLT influences students’ confidence in speaking English.

By comparing traditional teaching with communicative instruction, it aims to provide practical evidence for improving speaking lessons in university EFL classrooms.

Methodology

Research Design

This study employed a quasi-experimental design to investigate the influence of Communicative Language Teaching on students’ confidence in speaking English among university EFL learners. A mixed-methods approach combined quantitative and qualitative data to give a fuller understanding of the research problem. The study compared two instructional approaches: traditional teacher-centered instruction (control group) and CLT-based instruction (experimental group).

The experiment lasted four weeks, with three 50-minute speaking sessions per week. Both groups were taught the same speaking topics to ensure consistency, but the teaching methods differed substantially.

Participants

The participants were 20 university students majoring in English language education. Their proficiency level was intermediate (B1–B2 on the CEFR). They were divided into two equal groups:

• Control group: 10 students (traditional teaching method)

• Experimental group: 10 students (CLT-based instruction)

Participants were selected through convenience sampling. They had similar academic backgrounds and had been studying English for at least three years at university level.

Instruments

Four instruments were used for data collection:

• Speaking confidence questionnaire. A 10-item Likert-scale questionnaire, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” measured students’ confidence, anxiety, and willingness to speak English.

• Speaking observation checklist. The teacher used an observation sheet to record classroom participation, including frequency of speaking, initiation of interaction, and response to peers.

• Pre-test and post-test speaking tasks. Students performed short speaking tasks before and after the experiment. Performance was evaluated on fluency, confidence, and participation, not on grammatical accuracy alone.

• Teacher reflection notes. After each lesson, the teacher recorded observations of student behavior, engagement, and emotional responses during speaking activities.

Procedure

The study was conducted in three stages.

Stage 1: Pre-test

At the beginning of the experiment, both groups completed a speaking task and the confidence questionnaire. This stage established the initial level of speaking confidence.

Stage 2: Treatment

Control group (traditional method):

• Teacher explanation of the topic

• Vocabulary lists and memorization

• Reading dialogues from the textbook

• Individual oral answers

• Focus on grammatical correctness

• Teacher-led correction of mistakes

Experimental group (CLT method):

• Pair work and group discussions

• Role plays based on real-life situations

• Information-gap activities

• Problem-solving tasks

• Opinion-sharing discussions

• Student presentations

• Minimal teacher interruption during speaking

The CLT classroom encouraged students to communicate freely without fear of making mistakes. The teacher acted as a facilitator, guiding interaction rather than dominating it.

Stage 3: Post-test

After the four weeks, both groups completed the same speaking task and questionnaire again. The results were compared with the pre-test data to measure change in speaking confidence.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data from the questionnaires and speaking assessments were analyzed by comparing percentages between pre-test and post-test results. Qualitative data from the observations and teacher reflections were analyzed thematically to identify patterns in student behavior, confidence development, and classroom interaction.

Findings

The results showed clear differences between the control group and the experimental group in speaking confidence and classroom participation. Questionnaire results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, speaking task results in Table 3, and observation results in Table 4.

Pre-test Results

At the beginning of the experiment, both groups showed similar levels of speaking confidence. Approximately 80% of students in each group said they felt nervous when speaking English in front of others, and most students in both groups reported fear of making mistakes, hesitation when speaking English, dependence on teacher support, and limited participation in speaking activities (Table 1).

Table 1

Pre-test Speaking Confidence of the Experimental and Control Groups

Note. Figures are as reported from the pre-test questionnaire and speaking task. “Most students” indicates that the characteristic was reported as typical of the group without a specific percentage.

Post-test Results

After four weeks of instruction, clear differences emerged between the groups (Table 2). In the experimental group, 90% of students reported increased speaking confidence, whereas only 40% of the control group reported an improvement. In the control group, 60% still experienced speaking anxiety.

In the experimental group, students became more active during lessons: they initiated conversations, asked questions, and joined group discussions without teacher prompting, and the classroom atmosphere became more interactive and dynamic. In the control group, most students remained passive during speaking tasks and their responses were short and memorized. The control group therefore made limited progress in speaking confidence compared with the experimental group.

Table 2

Post-test Questionnaire Results by Group

Note. With 10 students per group, each student represents 10 percentage points.

Table 3 presents the pre-test and post-test speaking task scores of both groups on the three assessed criteria.

Table 3

Pre-test and Post-test Speaking Task Scores by Group

Note. Values are group means (rubrics) on the scale used in the study.

Classroom Observation Results

Observation data were consistent with the questionnaire results and indicated higher engagement in the CLT group (Table 4). In the experimental group, students interacted frequently with peers, used English spontaneously, participated more in group tasks, and showed positive emotional engagement such as laughter, enthusiasm, and active discussion. In the control group, communication was teacher-centered, student interaction was minimal, students were reluctant to volunteer answers, and they depended on written preparation.

Table 4

Classroom Observation Results by Group

Note. Based on the teacher’s observation checklist.

Teacher Reflection

By the third week, the teacher noted a clear change in the experimental group. Students became more relaxed and less focused on grammatical perfection, concentrating instead on expressing meaning.

One important observation was that students gradually shifted from a “fear of mistakes” to a “focus on communication.” This shift is a key indicator of increased speaking confidence.

Limitations

The findings should be interpreted with caution. The sample was small (10 students per group) and selected by convenience, the intervention lasted only four weeks, and the quantitative analysis was limited to percentage comparisons without inferential statistics. Because each group contained only 10 students, each student accounts for 10 percentage points, so reported percentages should be read as approximate indications of the general trend.

Several post-test measures were reported for only one of the two groups (Table 2), which limits direct comparison. The questionnaire data are self-reported, and the observation checklist and reflection notes were recorded by the teacher, which may introduce subjectivity. The results therefore suggest, but do not establish, that CLT improves speaking confidence, and larger-scale studies with statistical testing are needed.

References

Al-Garni, S. A., & Almuhammadi, A. H. (2019). The effect of using communicative language teaching activities on EFL students’ speaking skills. Arab World English Journal, 10(1), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no1.12

Darmi, R., & Albion, P. (2017). Enhancing oral communication skills through communicative language teaching. English Language Teaching, 10(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n5p1

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin.

Khan, R. M. I., Radzuan, N. R. M., Shahbaz, M., Ibrahim, A. H., & Mustafa, G. (2018). The role of vocabulary knowledge in speaking development of Saudi EFL learners. Arab World English Journal, 9(1), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no1.28

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

Leong, L. M., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’ English speaking skill. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.1.34

Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where are we going? Language Teaching, 47(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000134

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x

Nazara, S. (2019). Students’ perception on EFL speaking skill development through communicative language teaching. Journal of English Teaching, 5(2), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v5i2.1311

Öztürk, G., & Gürbüz, N. (2014). Speaking anxiety among Turkish EFL learners. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.25615

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.

Savaşçı, M. (2014). Why are some students reluctant to use L2 in EFL speaking classes? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2682–2686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.635

Taqi, H. A., Al-Nouh, N. A., & Akbar, R. S. (2018). Perspectives on communicative language teaching in Kuwait. English Language Teaching, 11(8), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n8p90

Yaman, Ş., & Kavasoğlu, M. (2013). Communication strategies and speaking confidence. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 765–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.121