Main Article Content


Teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) differs greatly from teaching English as a first language (L1). To ensure that teaching and learning are successful and efficient, teachers must possess a broad range of pedagogical expertise. Each method needs to be adjusted to the particular educational and environmental setting. The primary objective of this article is to provide comprehensive insights into two prominent language teaching methods, namely the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). While GTM has been historically prevalent, CLT has recently gained widespread popularity. This paper focuses on the understanding of educational practitioners, particularly in the domain of English Language Teaching (ELT) setting, by conducting a comprehensive comparison of GTM and CLT thoroughly, focusing on teaching techniques, characteristics of both teaching methods, and the way the instructor addresses students’ mistakes. Although CLT is recognized as the more realistic and advantageous method in contemporary contexts, it is still acknowledged that GTM possesses certain positive attributes. Additionally, since every country has its own unique set of circumstances, social norms, and background, the teacher must be aware of the most suitable teaching-learning method.


Communicative Language Teaching EFL Context Grammar Translation Method

Article Details

How to Cite
Nisha, P. R. (2024). Comparing Grammar Translation Method and Communicative Language Teaching in EFL Context: A Qualitative Literature Review. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(1), 40-48.


  1. Breen, M. Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics.
  2. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
  3. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principle; An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Third Edition. New York: Pearson Longman.
  4. Finocchiaro, M., and C. Brumfit. (1983). The Functional-Notional Approach: From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
  5. K. Johnson and H. Johnson. (1998). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  6. Kelly, L. (1969). 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
  7. Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Fourth Edition. Cambridge: Pearson Longman.
  8. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  12. Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Richards, J., and Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Richards, J. C., and Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Pearson Education Limited.
  15. Scharle, Agota & Anita Szabo (2000), A Guide to Developing Learner Responsibility, Cambridge University Press.
  16. Sweet, H. (1899). The Practical Study of Languages. Reprinted London: Oxford University Press.
  17. Thornbury, S. (2003). How to Teach Grammar. Beijing: World Affairs Press.
  18. Wardhaugh, R. (1972). Introduction to Linguistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
  19. Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.