• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Linking theory to practice: Implementation of CLT by Taiwanese university teachers of English

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Dissertation
Author: Yu-ju Hung
Abstract:
For the past several decades, Asian teachers of English have been traveling to English L1 countries to do graduate work and return home ready to try new teaching approaches (Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Liu, 1999; Major & Yamashiro, 2004). Among these approaches, Communicative language Teaching (CLT) of English is a teaching innovation that has had sufficient time to be learned by Asian EFL teachers, endorsed by the government, and implemented with varying degrees of success and resistance in Taiwan (Kuo, 1995; Su, 2002; Wang, 2002). By closely examining the degree of implementation of this teaching approach in Taiwan as well as the challenges and forces at work influencing its implementation, it should be possible to learn more about how the best of Western teaching ideas might be adapted to Asian contexts and to develop a more effective model for teacher preparation. To address this issue, this study was framed with the theory of curriculum implementation and aimed to answer the following three questions: (1) How have Taiwanese EFL Teachers implemented CLT in Taiwan? (2) What factors facilitate or inhibit the implementation of CLT? What effects do these factors have on CLT implementation as enacted? (3) How do Taiwanese adapt CLT in EFL classrooms in Taiwan? What are the underlying constructs of the adaptation process? To answer these research questions, this study applied a systematic random sampling method to recruit 71 English teachers from 20 colleges. Also, mixed methods research was used by surveying these participants, examining course syllabi and course materials, and interviewing 20 of them. The findings reveal that nearly all teachers report in their syllabi using some CLT principles with the vast majority (about 80%) confirming use in the survey and interviews. Those who do not implement CLT or have stopped using it mainly teach low level students in very large classes. Even among these teachers, however, some have succeeded in adapting CLT. These teachers are the ones aware of educational policies, sensitive to students' traditional ways of learning, and willing to differentiate their teaching based upon students' proficiency levels.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

Backgro und ............................................................................................................................ 1

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 2

Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................... 4

CHA PTER 2 .............................................................................................................................. 6

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 6

Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................... 6

Introduction of CLT ............................................................................................................... 9

Fundamentals of CLT Concepts ......................................................................................... 9

Development of CLT Frameworks..................................................................................... 9

Clarification of CLT Concepts ......................................................................................... 12

Practice of CLT .................................................................................................................... 13

Initial Practice and Resistance ......................................................................................... 14

Partial Acceptance and Constraints .................................................................................. 17

Adaptation of CLT ............................................................................................................... 20

Obstacles and Reasons ..................................................................................................... 20

Suggestion and Reconstruction ........................................................................................ 24

A Tentative CLT Implementation Model ......................................................................... 25

Co nclusions .......................................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 30

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 30

Research Design and Ins truments ........................................................................................ 30

ix

Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 30

Participants ....................................................................................................................... 30

Sources of Inf ormation .................................................................................................... 32

Data Analyses ....................................................................................................................... 36

Research Question 1 ........................................................................................................ 37

Research Que stion 2 ........................................................................................................ 39

Research Question 3 ........................................................................................................ 41

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 42

FINDING ................................................................................................................................. 42

Research Question 1 ........................................................................................................ 42

Research Question 2 ........................................................................................................ 61

Research Question 3 ........................................................................................................ 80

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 95

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 97

DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 97

Discussions and Implications ............................................................................................... 97

Policy ............................................................................................................................... 97

Culture............................................................................................................................ 109

Teaching ......................................................................................................................... 114

Research ......................................................................................................................... 118

Implications .................................................................................................................... 121

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 122

Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 124

References .......................................................................................................................... 126

Appendix A Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 134

x Appendix B Interview Protocol ......................................................................................... 137

Appendix C Codes ............................................................................................................. 138

Appendix D Textbooks ...................................................................................................... 139

xi

List of Tables

Table 1 Obstacles of Practicing CLT ....................................................................................... 20

Table 2 Obs tacles of Practicing CLT: Administrative Factors ................................................. 22

Table 3 Obstacles of Practicing CLT: EFL Contextual Factors ............................................... 23

Table 4 Obsta cles of Practicing CLT: Cultural Factors ............................................................ 23

Table 5 Documentary Research Tool ....................................................................................... 35

Table 6 Cross- checking List of Five Principles of CLT ........................................................... 38

Table 7 Document Analysis: Communicative Objective ......................................................... 43

Table 8 Document Analysis: Practice of Communicative Objective ....................................... 43

Table 9 Document Analysis – Communicative Role ............................................................... 44

Table 10 Document Analysis – Practice of Communicative Role ........................................... 45

Table 11 Document Analysis – Four - Skill Integration ............................................................ 46

Table 12 Document Analysis – Practice of Four - Skill Integration .......................................... 46

Table 13 Document Analysis: Authentic Material ................................................................... 48

Table 14 Document Analysis: Practice of Authentic Material ................................................. 48

Table 15 Document Analysis: Communicative-function Evaluation ....................................... 51

Table 16 Document Analysis: Practice of Communicative -function Evaluation .................... 52

Table 17 Document Analysis: Practice of CLT Principles ....................................................... 53

Table 18 Document Analysis: Subgroup Comparison of CLT Practice ................................... 54

Table 19 Questionnaire: Practice of CLT Principles ................................................................ 56

Table 20 Questionnaire: English Use of Four Skills ................................................................ 58

Table 21 Inhibitive Factors ...................................................................................................... 62

Table 22 Inhibitive Factors: Comparison of Practicing Group and Not Practicing Group A .. 63

Table 23 Practice of CLT Principles: Comparison of Schools ................................................. 64

Table 24 Practice of CLT Principles: Comparison of Majors .................................................. 65

xii

Table 25 Inhibitive Factors: Comparison of Practicing Group and Not Practicing Group B .. 67

Table 26 Class Size .................................................................................................................. 67

Table 27 Correlation: Class Size and Practice of CLT Principles ............................................ 68

Table 28 Inhibitive Factors: Comparison of Practicing Group and Not Practicing Group ...... 70

Table 29 Inhibitive Factors: Comparison of Related Literatures ............................................. 73

Table 30 Facilitative Factors .................................................................................................... 74

Table 31 Questionnaire: Portion of English Use ...................................................................... 84

Table 32 Resource Allocation: Comparison of English Majors and Non- English Majors .... 107

Table 33 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 121

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background For the past several decades, Asian teachers of English have been traveling to English L1 countries to do graduate work and return home ready to try new teachi ng approaches (1999; Major & Yamashiro, 2004). However, these approaches

are not panaceas

in every context. These new approaches (e.g. Communicative Language Teaching, Whole Language, and Critical Pedagogy) have often been developed in Western ESL contexts, and

have a history of not transferring to Asian contexts with high levels of success (Bax, 2003; Lo, 2003; Shin & Crookes, 2005). Among these approaches, Communicative L anguage Teaching ( hereafter CLT) of English is a teaching innovation that has had sufficient time to be learned by Asian EFL teachers, endorsed by the government, and implemented with varying degrees of success and resistance in Taiwan as well as the other countries in East Asia (Kuo, 1995; Y. Su, 2002; Wang, 2002) . After CLT was developed in the U.K. and the U.S. in the late 1960s (Canale & Swain, 1980), the policymakers in Japan, Korea, China, and Taiwan started to import this approach to compensate for the sole focus of reading and writing in their traditional English education systems in the 1990s (Kuo, 1995; LoCastro, 1996; Yoon, 2004; Yu, 2001), which almost always resulted in students not being able to communicate in English after taking English as one of the compulsory courses in middle schools for six years. Moving away from complete resistance to this innovative Western approach, l ocal practitioners were also r ealizing

that the traditional Grammar Translation approach failed to develop students’ communicative ability.

2 Developing students’ communicative ability has been mandated in the English education in higher education institutes

by

the Ministry of Education in Taiwan (Curriculum Guidelines, 2002) . In the Curriculum Guidelines for Foreign Language Education, the first objective of English instruction

is “to enhance students’ abilities in listening, speaking, reading, and writing and apply these skills to meet the n eeds in daily life ” (p. 76). Conforming to the government policy, CLT was gradually tried out in English class in college level.

Statement of the Problem

The initial practice was not as successful as expected due to various barriers , such as concerns with

teacher

qualifications,

institutional realities, and student resistance . The related studies unanimously suggest ed

that this Western approach could not be adopted

in

non-Western contexts without modification . Adaptation needed to be made to best use this approach (Rao, 2002; Saengboon, 2002; Y. Su, 2002; Sugiyama, 2003). Adaptation at the college level is an important issue because many students arrive with insufficient communication skills despite years of prior st udy of English. The Taiwanese government’s promoting CL T gives rise

to the need

for

qualified English teachers. Therefore, a lot of English teachers in Taiwan decide to participate in Weste rn teacher preparation programs to gain pedagogical knowledge of this approach and enhance their English communicative competence to be capable of teaching

in CLT classrooms. The majority of these teachers gain Doctorate degrees or Master degrees and return to Taiwan to serve as English teachers in college , in which, exce pt for English majors, students are required to take General English in the freshman year and sophomore year. Some universities might even ask students to take more English courses than this basic requirement or provide elective English courses for juniors and seniors due to the emphas i s on English education in Taiwan .

3 Having policy makers ’ support and more qualified teachers, CLT has started to gain popularity in high er education in Taiwan. However, as with the implementation of CLT in other Asian countrie s, the gap between theory and practice is probably still

as wide , if not wider . There are

always

discrepancies between expectations from policymakers and educators

and the results of classroom practice.

Particularly, t he higher education system in Taiwan i s becoming complicated after educational reform. During recent years, the Taiwanese government has enforced

a po licy to establish a large number

of universities with the good intention to offer all the people in Taiwan opportunities to obtain high education and hold at least Bachelor degrees. These newly established universities are mostly previous vocational high schools or junior colleges upgraded to post- secondary level and titled science and technology universities. Unlike traditional universities, whose main focus is to develop students’ academic ability, the primary objective

of these science and technology universities is to cultivate students’ vocational skills and prepare them for future occupations. Therefore, English might be less interesting to t hem when most of them do not anticipate using English in their future jobs. Establishing a

large number of universities further creates the consequence that some schools have difficulties recruiting new students and need to lower admission sta ndards to co mpete for students. Th is phenomenon impact s private schools to a greater extent because these schools usually charge high er

tuition s and are not as prestigious as public schools. As a result, students who enroll in private universities, particularly those newly founded

universities , generally have low er

academic achiev ement. With increasing achievement gaps among schools, the always wide range of proficiency levels among EFL learners is getting worse at the college level . Implementation of CLT in different schools might yield

significantly different

results .

4 In such a complicated educational context, English education faces many issues. Have educational po licies regarding Englis h teaching been updated to cope with these new challenges ? When those English teachers

return from Western countries, are they familiar with t he current situation ? Do they encounter transitional shock when they apply CLT in English classrooms ? Do other long-standing problems , such as large class size, students’ resistance to class part icipation, test effect, and access to authentic materials, uncovered in the previous studies, still exist in current classrooms? What are the effects of these barriers? Do these barriers prevent teachers from implementing CLT either completely or partially ? How do English teachers deal with them and adapt CLT to their teaching in a contextually responsive way? Except for the possible concern resulting from educational reform , what are other underlying constructs of these difficulties ? The answers to these q uestions still remain at issue . Significance of the Study Most

of the literature addresses this issue based on qualitative data and provides a descriptive report of current implementation of one or several instructors or institutions. Also, even though possible barriers have been investigated in previous studies and suggestions have been made, few of them, if any, examine the effects of these barriers and describe an

actual adaptation process. Therefore, to go beyond the previous related studies, the presen t study applies t he theory of curriculum implementation (Snyder, Bolin, & Zumwalt, 1992), specifically the themes of fidelity, mutual adaptation, and enactment: first,

fidelity is examined by looking at the current impleme ntation of each principle

of CLT and factors

that facilitate or inhibit implementation , then

mutual adaptation is explored by observing how CLT has been adapted to

Taiwanese EFL contexts , and finally

enactment is i nvestigated

by exploring the constructs underlying why those factors identified influence the implementat ion and why the decision of adaption has been made.

5 This study applies a mixed method s approach

using both quantitative and qualitative data to assess the degree and nature of CLT implementation in Taiwan on a larger scale , involving 71 partici pants from 20 universities. Random sampling data collection also better represents the higher education population in Taiwan. S yllabi and course materials are examined as well as t he voices of 20 local teachers by

in -depth interviews to reveal a clear picture of current CLT classrooms. Therefore, b y closely examining the degree of implementation of this Western teaching approach in Taiwan as well as the challenges and forces at work influencing its implementation, it should be possible to learn more about how the best of Western teaching ideas might be adapted to Asian contexts and to develop a more effective model for teacher preparation. When a new approach is imp lemented, more realistic help can be offered to prepare teachers ready to teach rather than just telling them what to teach (Gorsuch, 2000).

6 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

T heoretical F ramework

This study is grounded on the theory of curriculum implementation, which

inform s the scope of the study and frames the research questions. The most conventional meaning of curriculum refers to “the planned curriculum that may be embodied in a course of study, a textbook series, a guide, a set of teacher plans, or an innovation program” (Snyder, et al., 1992, p. 427). Implementation is defined as “the actual use of an innovation or what an innovation consists of in practice” (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977, p. 336). Research on curriculum implementation is a recent phenomenon upon which researchers did not focus until the late sixties and early seventies (Snyder, et al., 1992). Fullan and Promfret (1977) reviewed the first decade of research and pointed out four rationales for con ducting curriculum implementation research. First, to know what has changed requires us to conceptualize and measure it directly. Second, identifying

the most problematic aspects of implementing the change reveals why some educational innovations fail. Third, other aspects of the change might be confused or ignored if the actual problematic aspects are not recognized. Fourth, examining implementation enables us to interpret learning outcomes and possibly relate them to aspects of the change. In the next

two

decade s, fidelity , mutual adaptation, and curriculum enactment emerged as three approaches to curriculum implementation (Snyder, et al., 1992). Cho (1998) suggested that these three approaches in a continuum could be understood in connection with positivism, postpositi vism, and constructivism respectively (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In this study, however, these perspectives are not used to place teachers’ practices on a continuum between poles but rather as themes that provide multiple perspectives on these practices in order to obta in as accurate a picture as possible.

7 The main intent of a fidelity perspective is “ to determine the degree of implementation of an innovation in terms of the extent to which actual use of the innovation corresponds to intended or planned use” (Fullan & Pomfret, 1977, p. 340). In the fidelity perspective, the curriculum innovation is designed by experts outside the classroom. Implementation is evaluated based on the degree to which the teachers carry out the innovation. Therefore, the properties of the innovation need to be clearly id entified when researchers develop a checklist or a scale to examine to what extent each characteristic has been implemented. Following this, factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation as planned are also investigated as a reference for future imp rovement (Snyder, et al., 1992). Based on the fidelity perspective, in the present study, five major CLT principles drawn from the literature are used as a scale, in which the part icipants are asked to rate to what degree each of the principles has been implemented. The barriers identified in the related studies are listed for the participants to rate as major problems, potential problems, or not problems. For researchers who hold the perspectives of mutual adaptation and curriculum enactment, it is impossible to implement a curriculum identical to the prescribed curriculum because it

is an abstract document , and actual implementation is a real life re - creation (Marsh & Willis, 2007) . From the perspective of mutual adaptation, innovation should not focus on tech nological change only. Organizational change, such as changes in the structure of the institutional setting, the culture of the school, educational technology, or teacher behavior, should not be ignored. Implementation is not just “adopt” a “model”, but “a process of mutual adaptation in which project goals and methods are modified to suit the needs and interests of participants and in which participants change to meet the requirements of the project ” (McLaughlin, 2004, p. 172). Mutual adaptation researchers are concerned with

what has happened in a given context and what kinds of support adopters needs for implementation. Intensive, descriptive data about the problems of education are expected to be discover ed

8 (Snyder, et al., 1992). Therefore, the participants in this study were

asked to delineate the adaptation process and how they modified

their teaching to address encountered problems. Marsh and Willis (2007) see curriculum implementation

as analogues

to the text of a play and an actual production. Teachers are like directors and actors of a play. Although the text (planned curriculum) is there for them, they still need to interpret (enact) it. From the enactment perspective, curriculum is characterized as “ the educational experiences

jointly created by student and teacher. The externally created curricular materials and programmed instructional strategies … are seen as tools for students and teacher to use as they construct the enacted exper ience of the classroom ” (Snyder, et al., 1992, p. 418) . The educational experiences that students and teachers undergo are emphasized in this perspective (Marsh & Willis, 2007) . Curriculum enactment researchers attempt to discover the enacted

experiences and the effects outside factors have on curriculum as enacted (Snyder, et al., 1992). Accordingly, the effects of each inhibitive or facilitative factor indicated and their underlying reasons are uncovered.

Following the themes of the three perspectives, the present study start s from the fidelity perspective by looking at the current implementation of each CLT principle as well as

factors that facilitat e or inhibit the implementation , followed by the perspective of mutual adaptation, how CLT has been adapted in Taiwanese EFL contexts is explored. Finally, the enactment approach is applied to closely look at why those factors identified influence the implementation and w hy the decision of the adaption has been made. The findings answer the following three

rese arch questions . 1. How have Taiwanese EFL

teachers implemented

CLT ? 2. What factors facilitate or inhibit the implementation of CLT?

What effects do these factors have on CLT implementation

as enacted?

9 3. How do Taiwanese EFL teachers

adapt CLT?

What are the underlying constructs of the

adaptation process? Introduction of CLT Fundamentals of CLT Concepts As opposed to attending solely to structures and forms inst ead of meanings as in the Audiolingual Method in the 1930s and 1940s and the Grammar-Translation Method in the 1940s and 1950s, CLT

was brought up in the late 1960s (Brown, 2001). CLT originated from two central concepts, functions of language and communicative competence (Richards, 1986; Savignon, 1997, 2002) . The British linguist M.

A.

K. Hallid ay proposed that language learning should not be limited in mere structures or forms, but integrate both structural and functional approaches. The function achieved by a certain grammatical structure could be understood only by looking at situations in which the language was used and what the social roles of the speakers were in terms of their interpersonal relations (Halliday, 1970, as cited in Savignon, 1997). Also, arguing against Chomsky’s (1965) theory, which was on ly concerned with the innate ability of human beings, but ignored the social context in which the language was acquired and used , an American sociolinguist, Dell Hymes accentuated the importance of “communicative competence” (Hymes, 1972, p. 281, as cited in Richards, 1986), which emphasized the appropriate language use a speaker needed to know. A communicatively competent speaker knew whether and to what degree something was formally possible and contextually appropriate.

Development of CLT Frameworks

Centering on the CLT fundamental concep ts in the 1970s, the functional approach and communicative competence, several well -known CLT conceptual frameworks were proposed in the 1980s and have been widely applied in language classrooms since then. Canale and

10 Swain’s (1980) theoretical framework for communicative competence includes three competencies. First, grammatical competence refers to knowledge of lexicon, morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics, which enable learners to understand and express the literal meaning of the language accurately. Second, sociolinguistic competence involves sociocultural rules of use and rules of discourse. Sociocultural rules of use indicate how appropriate the utterances are with regard to the sococultural context and the social roles of the speakers. Rules of discourse can be interpreted as the cohesion of the combination of utterances and coherence of communicative functions. Third, strategic competence is used when communication breakdown occurs. Speakers are able to paraphrase what they intend to express with their limited linguistic resources. For example , when strategic competence is applied in sociolinguistic perspective, speakers know how to converse with

a stranger when they are not sure of the stranger’s social status.

Littlewood ‘s (1981) framework divides CLT into pre -communicative and communicative activities. Under the category of pre - communicative activities, structural activities, such as drills or question - and - answer practice, provide learners a chance to acquire the language forms for later communicative purp ose. At this stage, learners are expected to produce acceptable language. The other subcategory is quasi-communic ative activities, which help learners to connect language forms and communicative functions. In communicative activities, learners integrate an d p ut into practice their knowledge acquired in pre - communicative activities. The first subcategory, functional communication activities, requires learners to perform a task effectively with current available resources. The second subcategory, social inter action activities, enables learners to go beyond getting meanings across and are able to produce socially appropriate speech with regards to situations and relationships.

11

In 1983, Savignon (1997) proposed a hypothetical model of CLT, later called the “inv erted pyramid” model (Savignon, 2002). This model specifies four interconnected communicative competences. First,

with

grammatical competence, learners have gained knowledge of sentence- level grammatical and are able to apply this knowledge in meaning negotiation, but not explaining the grammatical rule s . Second, discourse competence refers to connecting a series of utterances to form a meaningful, coherent text. Third, sociocultural competence takes into account appropriateness of language use in relation to the social roles of the speakers, such as the information they commonly share and the function they intend to achieve. Particularly , cultural awareness is pointed out in this category. L earners are more willing to n egotiate meanings when having

sensitivity to cultural variations of language conventions . Fourth, strategic competence refers to c oping strategies that enable learners to continue their conversation even when they are constrained by limited knowledge of language rules or unfamiliar contexts.

The above CLT models (Canale & Swain, 1980; Littlewood, 1981; Savignon, 1997) are three conventional frameworks which CLT researchers and practitioners have been wid ely referring to. Although these frameworks have some differences, they share several common threads, including focusing on both forms and meanings, continuing meaning negotiation with available language knowledge , performing communicative functions, and a ttending to social roles and contexts. Based on these

CLT features , principles regarding

practicing CLT has been

laid out in teacher education references. In Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching , Richards (1986) describes how to implement CLT as follows. First and foremost, learning is centered on the idea that tasks which involve authentic language use and real communication promote learning. The roles assumed for teachers are facilitator s, needs a nalyst s , counselor s, and group process managers. Instead of dominating the class, teachers in CLT classrooms facilitate the communication process, analyze and determine learners’ needs,

12 exemplify effective communication, and organize communicative activiti es. A great variety of instructional materials can be used in CLT classrooms. For example, text- based materials typically include themes, a task analysis for thematic development, a practice situation description, a stimulus presentation, comprehension que stions, and paraphrase exercises. Task -based materials usually provide information about games, information gaps, role plays, and other task- based communication activities. Particularly , t eachers are encouraged to bring into the classroom authentic, from-life materials, such as signs, magazines, and newspapers. Adding to these characteristics, Larsen - Freeman’s (2000) book, Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, emphasizes that CLT classroom should be student - centered . Students are c ommunicators, expected to interact with others and be actively engaged in meaning negotiation. Language functions might be emphasized over forms. Students’ errors are tolerated when the focus of the activity is fluency. The language that students work on goes beyond sentence level to discourse level. All four language skills are emphasized and integrated. Evaluation also includes fluency and accuracy, targeting

on a real communicative function. For example, students might be asked to write a letter to a friend.

Full document contains 156 pages
Abstract: For the past several decades, Asian teachers of English have been traveling to English L1 countries to do graduate work and return home ready to try new teaching approaches (Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Liu, 1999; Major & Yamashiro, 2004). Among these approaches, Communicative language Teaching (CLT) of English is a teaching innovation that has had sufficient time to be learned by Asian EFL teachers, endorsed by the government, and implemented with varying degrees of success and resistance in Taiwan (Kuo, 1995; Su, 2002; Wang, 2002). By closely examining the degree of implementation of this teaching approach in Taiwan as well as the challenges and forces at work influencing its implementation, it should be possible to learn more about how the best of Western teaching ideas might be adapted to Asian contexts and to develop a more effective model for teacher preparation. To address this issue, this study was framed with the theory of curriculum implementation and aimed to answer the following three questions: (1) How have Taiwanese EFL Teachers implemented CLT in Taiwan? (2) What factors facilitate or inhibit the implementation of CLT? What effects do these factors have on CLT implementation as enacted? (3) How do Taiwanese adapt CLT in EFL classrooms in Taiwan? What are the underlying constructs of the adaptation process? To answer these research questions, this study applied a systematic random sampling method to recruit 71 English teachers from 20 colleges. Also, mixed methods research was used by surveying these participants, examining course syllabi and course materials, and interviewing 20 of them. The findings reveal that nearly all teachers report in their syllabi using some CLT principles with the vast majority (about 80%) confirming use in the survey and interviews. Those who do not implement CLT or have stopped using it mainly teach low level students in very large classes. Even among these teachers, however, some have succeeded in adapting CLT. These teachers are the ones aware of educational policies, sensitive to students' traditional ways of learning, and willing to differentiate their teaching based upon students' proficiency levels.