





































  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.5, No. 1, January 2024 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

40 
 

COMPARING GRAMMAR TRANSLATION METHOD (GTM) 
AND COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING (CLT) IN 
EFL CONTEXT: A QUALITATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW 

Paulomi Rahman Nisha 
University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh 

*paulomi.rahman.nisha@gmail.com 

 

ABSTRACT 

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. 

Keywords: Communicative Language Teaching, EFL Context, Grammar Translation Method 

INTRODUCTION 

The use of the appropriate approach is crucial when teaching English as a Foreign 
Language (EFL). While the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) is very traditional, 
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is one of the newest approaches that EFL teachers 
apply around the world. Both of these methods are highly useful, but there are clear 
distinctions between them in terms of approach and theoretical background. According to 
Wardhaugh (1972), language is a system of arbitrary symbols used for human 
communication. According to Richards & Rodgers (2001) “An approach or method refers to 
a theoretically consistent set of teaching procedures that define best practices in language 
teaching” (p. 15). Delving into the foundations of language teaching, Henry Sweet (1899) 
stated that a scientific study of psychology and linguistic analysis should serve as a base for 
good methodological principles.  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.5, No. 1, January 2024 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

41 
 

Every language instructor has a different story of how they learned languages. During 
their own "apprenticeship of observation," instructors were trained in this manner (Lortie 
1975). Teachers have the option to instruct differently from how they were instructed if they 
are clear about their views. (Clarke, 2003). It is well known that educators bring to teacher 
preparation experiences certain notions about the teaching and learning process derived 
from their years as learners (Lortie 1975). Moreover, teachers have options for how they at 
present consider, and carry out when they use different ways. It is not a given that they will 
decide to change their existing procedure. If they are able and choose to, they will have the 
knowledge and resources necessary to accomplish so.  

This qualitative article is designed to study the comparison between GTM and CLT in 
order to discuss these topics in greater detail. This paper serves as crucial for teachers to 
understand how both methods differ from each other and what approach works best for 
their students in the EFL context. For additional information regarding both methods, a 
thorough analysis of the differences between GTM and CLT is given in the elaboration. 

GRAMMAR TRANSLATION METHOD (GTM)  

Grammar Translation Method (GTM), is the term for the most recognized and 
centuries-old method. This method has a long history of accomplishment in the teaching of 
English. Grammar Translation Method (GTM) has gone by several names, language 
instructors have been using it for a long time. By its mere name, this method—also called the 
translation method—indicates that teaching the target language involves translating it into 
the native languages. This method is based on the idea that translation is the most effective 
way to teach and learn a foreign language.  

Originally, it was initially recognized and identified as the Prussian Method in the 
United States (Kelly 1969). It was formerly known as the "Classical Method" since it was 
primarily applied to the teaching of two classical languages. According to Brown (1994) 
Latin and Greek, among various ancient languages, were taught using classical methods. This 
method was employed to assist students in reading and appreciating literature written in 
Foreign Languages (FL) earlier in the 20th century.  

Richards and Rodgers (2002) define GTM as, “A method of foreign or second language 
teaching which makes use of translation and grammar study as the main teaching and 
learning activities” (p. 231). The underlying premise is that all languages share a basic 
grammar and that the structure of the English language can be best learned by comparing 
the grammar of the native language and the Target Language (TL), neither of which is easier 
to understand and acquire. In the classroom, a native language tends to be used rather than 
the Target Language (TL). The student's native language is used as the educational medium 
in this method. It is employed to compare students' native language with the target language 
and explain new items.  In this method, accuracy is prioritized over fluency.  

It is necessary to demonstrate the benefits of GTM to explore it more effectively. By 
translating each English phrase or word into the student's native language, the teacher can 
instantly help the students grasp it and save time. It also aids the teacher in determining 
whether or not the students have absorbed the foreign language. This approach is simple 
because it moves from the known to the unknown, which makes teaching and learning easier. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.5, No. 1, January 2024 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

42 
 

As a result, it solidifies the memory connection between the foreign symbols and the original 
language. This approach is highly dependable for providing students with comprehension 
practice in reading. GTM prioritizes written language over spoken language and pays very 
little attention to spoken language. The entire process involved shifting from analysis and 
explanation to creating questions and answers.  

A crucial component of teaching languages is dictation. With this method, spoken 
words gradually transition from written forms. For example, learning English words starts 
with the letters of the alphabet. The spellings took precedence over the sound. Students 
learned its spelling before learning the spoken form or how to pronounce a word. As a result, 
the FL English learner relies on spelling to determine how to pronounce words. 

COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING (CLT) 

A number of movements in the US and Europe in the 1970s and early 1980s 
contributed to the rise in popularity of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Situational 
Language Teaching (SLT) dominated the English Language Teaching (ELT) landscape in 
Britain until the late 1960s. Upon its inception in the 1970s, Communicative Language 
Teaching (CLT) was largely seen as the last solution to the communication shortcomings of 
earlier paradigms and the demands of an increasingly interconnected world. Content-based 
instruction, also known as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), became 
increasingly popular in the United States for English language learners as well as in language 
education abroad, especially in Europe as well.  

In Communicative Language Learning (CLL) which is closer to the CLT approach, 
students are expected to interact more with one another than with the teacher, there is often 
no text, and grammar standards are not presented. CLT It is not the subject of a single text, a 
single model that is regarded as authoritative by all. It generally makes use of resources and 
techniques that are suitable for the particular learning environment. Linguists realized that 
communicative competence, not only structural mastery, should be the main emphasis of 
language instruction. The start of the communicative approach can be seen in Chomsky's 
work from the 1960s when he developed the concepts of "performance" and "competence" 
in opposition to the dominant Audio-Lingual method and its tenets. There was a shift in the 
field in the late 1970s and early 1980s from a linguistic structure-centered approach to a 
Communicative Approach (Widdowson, 1990; Savignon, 1997).  

Interaction is emphasized as the primary means to achieve the objective of language 
acquisition in the CLT approach to teaching second and foreign languages. Communicative 
Language Teaching (CLT) attempts to make communicative competence the goal of language 
instruction by utilizing the theoretical framework of the Communicative Approach (Larsen-
Freeman & Anderson, 2011). The communicative approach is predicated on the notion that 
effective language acquisition requires the ability to transmit meaningful content. Learners 
will be able to use the language since they will be using their natural language acquisition 
mechanisms when engaging in authentic communication. Its objective is to utilize real-world 
scenarios that demand communication. CLT does not follow a single theory or approach. Its 
perspectives on education come from various fields, including Second Language Acquisition 
(SLA), educational psychology, and cognitive science. Thus, setting up the classroom as a 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.5, No. 1, January 2024 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

43 
 

place for communication and communicative activities is the main responsibility of the CLT 
instructor.  

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 

This study initiates an in-depth comparative analysis of the Grammar Translation 
Method (GTM) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) within the English as a Foreign 
Language (EFL) context, delving into their distinctive methodologies and assessing their 
effectiveness in language instruction. Based on factors such as the medium of instruction, 
main-focused language skills, the teaching and learning process, motivation, and response to 
mistakes, a detailed comparative analysis will be presented below. 

Medium of Instruction 

Whereas CLT places more of an emphasis on communication and allows students to 
experiment with the language so they can learn it naturally, GTM lessons are taught mostly 
in the students' native language with little to no active usage of the target language. Since L1 
is used in GTM, to interpret the Target Language(TL), native language plays a crucial role in 
the process. Learners will apply to their native language all that they have learned about the 
target language (Harmer, 2007). Additionally, both teachers and students attempt to 
comprehend grammar in their native languages while studying it. The majority of the 
teaching and learning processes are carried out in the native language, which the teacher 
also uses to investigate the grammar of the target language. In CLT the target language is 
used throughout the entire teaching and learning process. (Brown, 2007). Therefore, the aim 
of this approach is to acquaint the students with the target language as well, enabling them 
to communicate effectively and meaningfully. 

Main-Focused Language Skills           

For learners to be proficient in language, they must master four abilities. They are 
speaking, writing, listening, and reading. According to (Harmer, 2007) listening and reading 
are receptive skills, and speaking and writing are productive skills. Reading and writing are 
the two abilities that are prioritized in the GTM method. This implies that students only learn 
one skill—that of obtaining information—and one skill—that of producing and delivering 
information. As a result, this method is less suitable for improving students' language 
proficiency, particularly when learning a foreign language. In contrast, the CLT starts the 
teaching and learning process by teaching the students the four skills. The students are 
typically split up into small groups, and it is via these groups and classes that they learn the 
four talents. Since students utilize the language in class and in their daily lives, even though 
they make a lot of mistakes, they achieve perfect competence and performance using this 
method. Overall, compared to the GTM approaches, the teacher teaches skills to the students 
more thoroughly in the CLT method. 
  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.5, No. 1, January 2024 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

44 
 

The Types/Modes of Interaction  

GTM focuses mostly on teacher-to-student interaction. The majority of the teaching-
learning process originates with the instructor (Brown, 2007; Harmer, 2007). With this 
method, the teacher serves as the primary resource for both instruction and learning, 
providing a one-way demonstration of the subject matter. If any of the students are unclear 
about the meaning of words or the structure of a sentence, they simply ask the teacher the 
question. To help students understand the lesson, the teacher will accomplish this by 
providing the solution right away. In contrast, the teacher and students actively interact 
when using the CLT approach. To achieve the purpose of teaching and learning, the teacher 
serves as a mentor. There is active communication between the teacher and the students as 
well as between the students and the teacher in CLT (Thompson, 1996; Brown, 2007; Hiep, 
2005). Students rarely engage with one another during the teaching and learning process 
when employing the GTM method.  

As a result, students never discuss the subject with one another and only acquire 
information from the teacher. On the other hand, the CLT method places a strong emphasis 
on student engagement (Hiep, 2005). To address the issue and respond to the teacher's 
inquiry, students may interact. Breen and Candlin's (1980) emphasize negotiation in CLT, 
“The role of learner as negotiator – between the self, the learning process, and the object of 
learning” (p. 110). CLT approach is highly beneficial to the learning process because it allows 
the instructor to act as a co-communicator with the learners, increasing the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the teaching and learning process to achieve its objectives, marks (Prabhu 
1987).  

Teaching and Learning Process 

Grammar Translation Method (GTM) mainly involves the student in vocabulary 
memorization, translation of foreign literary and scholarly texts, and translation into the 
native language. Deductive application of grammatical rules is mostly used in the GTM 
method. Hedge and Thornbury (2001) state that GTM not only gives language learners 
access to input but also make grammatical aspects easier to understand, which is particularly 
beneficial for EFL learners. Wilkins (1976) remarks that CLT syllabuses emphasize notions 
and functions over grammatical structures. According to Littlewood (1981), one of the 
distinguishing features of communicative language teaching is its systematic focus on both 
the functional and structural aspects of language.  

Classroom Activities  

Textbooks for GTM mostly comprised definitions of terms and lists of vocabulary. Most 
of the time, the only activities the students do is translations. GTM would provide little oral 
competency, and students were frequently expected to travel overseas and immerse 
themselves to acquire fluency. In contrast, CLT emphasizes the importance of learner-
centered language instruction and provides chances for students to utilize language 
communicatively. Littlewood (1981); Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) in their Guidelines for 
classroom practice propose that, in the course of an activity, the teacher observes, motivates, 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.5, No. 1, January 2024 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

45 
 

and refrains from providing answers to gaps in vocabulary, grammar, and strategy. Instead, 
these gaps are recorded for subsequent discussion and communicative exercises.  

CLT focused on the kinds of task-work, group work, and information-gap activities that 
could serve as a basis for a communicative approach. Addressing the communication needs 
of the learners and the classroom activities are the main priorities. According to Richards 
and Rodgers (2001), “CLT, promotes learning through communication in pairs or small 
groups” (p. 174). Johnson and Johnson (1998) identify that students must be able to create 
and understand authentic messages—that is, ones with real meanings. For this reason, 
information transfer and sharing are emphasized in CLT.  

Motivation  

While comparing the CLT and GTM methods, it can be said that whereas GTM is 
monotonous and involves a one-way transmission, CLT is more communicative and 
cooperative than GTM in terms of improving students' language skills. The primary source 
of the teaching and learning process is the teacher. According to Brown (1994), “the students 
have little motivation to go beyond grammar analogies, translations, and rote exercises” in 
GTM. (p. 53). The students might feel demotivated. On the other hand, the CLT uses a variety 
of teaching strategies to engage students in the class and make them feel at ease and pleased. 
Moreover, CLT is a modern approach that views the teacher and the students as 
collaborators in the learning process. As a result of having the chance to share their ideas, 
interests, and feelings, students feel at ease with the teacher. In addition to being the primary 
source, the instructor can also serve as a co-communicator and facilitator for the students. 
Students also attentively study because, in a CLT classroom, the teacher motivates students 
to achieve the objectives (Brown, 2007).  

Response to Mistakes 

The teacher will correct the students' mistakes directly in GTM. Although the students 
are directly aware of their errors, this method may not be beneficial in the long run because 
it reduces their confidence in their ability to speak in class. Accuracy is seen as essential in 
the GTM method (Harmer, 2007). After all, students fear making mistakes. Moreover, the 
students exhibit great caution in their performance and possess the ability to evaluate 
language, but they lack the confidence and skill to use the language effectively, especially in 
communicative situations.  

It is important that teachers respect the ways in which they do these tasks and 
anticipate that students will manage the results of their choices. (Szabo & Scharle, 2000). The 
teacher will assist students in finding and correcting their mistakes. (Brown, 2007). In 
contrast, CLT is student-centered since it allows the teacher to accept mistakes made by the 
students. Positively, students are confident and do not hesitate to use the language in 
everyday situations. They also feel at ease and content when using it. In summary, the GTM 
method responds to students directly, while the CLT method responds indirectly. Each 
method has benefits and drawbacks of its own. 
  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.5, No. 1, January 2024 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

46 
 

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

The comparative analysis between the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and 
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has unveiled significant differences in 
instructional approaches. Both of the methods differ greatly. From the comparative analyses, 
the major differences between GTM and CLT are evident in the following: 

Table 1. Major Differences Between GTM & CLT 

Criteria GTM (Classical /Traditional) CLT (Latest/ Modern) 

Medium of Instruction Mostly Native Language or First 
Language (L1) is used as a 
medium of Instruction. 

Target Language (TL) or Foreign 
Language (FL) is used as a 
medium of instruction. 

Learning Approach The vocabulary of foreign 
literature is memorized. 

The students learn the Target 
Language (TL) mostly through 
situational and real-world content. 

Role of the Teacher The teacher takes on an 
authoritative role. 

The teacher functions as a 
facilitator. 

Role of Students Students are expected to 
translate and analyze the text of 
a foreign language. 

Students are expected to use the 
language in the real world. 

Pronunciation Little or no attention is given to 
pronunciation. 

Pronunciation is often integrated 
and receives more attention. 

Goal of Learning Focus on presenting deductive 
grammar explanations before 
generating sentences. 

Focus on encouraging students to 
actively engage and interact in the 
target language. 

Skills Focused Places emphasis on reading and 
writing skills. 

Prioritizes all four language skills. 

Interaction The teacher mostly interacts 
with the students (T-Ss) in a 
traditional lecture-based 
classroom. 

The students engage in active 
communication (S-S/ Ss-Ss), 
forming pairs, and small groups 
interacting with the entire class. 

Error Correction The teacher provides direct 
correction of student errors. 

The teacher allows errors and 
guides students in revising them. 

It is evident that while interactive communication activities were prioritized in CLT, 
reading and writing were the first steps in the English language learning process in GTM. The 
use of translation as a teaching tool for First Language (L1) is eliminated from educational 
settings that teach foreign languages. The findings of this study underscore the pronounced 
differences between these two methods. It is evident in the findings that GTM relies on 
memorization, whereas CLT prioritizes real-world content. The findings of this study also 
highlight that GTM features an authoritative teacher role, with students translating and 
analyzing while CLT emphasizes a facilitator role, expecting students to use the language 
authentically. This choice significantly influences learner interaction.  

Moreover, GTM lacks emphasis on pronunciation and focuses on reading and writing. 
CLT integrates pronunciation and prioritizes all language skills. It is also apparent that GTM 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.5, No. 1, January 2024 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

47 
 

involves limited interaction and direct error correction. CLT encourages student interaction, 
allowing for natural language acquisition. For this reason, information transfer and sharing 
are emphasized in CLT activities, which are focused on the kinds of task-work, group work, 
and information-gap activities that could serve as a basis for a communicative approach. The 
systematic focus on both functional and structural aspects in CLT explains the 
comprehensive skill development. Individual interpretation and variance are allowed far 
more than most approaches allow.  

Since CLT first emerged, British language instruction was prepared for a paradigm 
change. People who were looking for a more humane approach to teaching—one that 
prioritized interactive communication processes—found CLT appealing. However, the 
foundation of CLT is the notion that effective language learning requires the ability to convey 
genuine meaning. Learners will be able to use the language since they will be using their 
natural language acquisition mechanisms when engaging in authentic communication. By 
navigating through these findings, a comprehensive understanding emerges—highlighting 
the need for a dynamic and adaptable method that aligns with the goals of language learners. 
The integration of different theories solidifies the implications of adopting the accurate 
method in contemporary language teaching contexts. 

It is noteworthy that both the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and 
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) are well-acknowledged by teachers. Despite the 
perceived outdated nature of GTM when compared to the more contemporary CLT method, 
it persists in some educational settings. The coexistence of these methods suggests that each 
has its relevance within specific national contexts, shaped by unique conditions, contexts, 
and social cultures. Educators, therefore, must exercise awareness and discretion in 
selecting the most effective teaching strategies tailored to the needs of their students. 

CONCLUSION 

Teaching foreign or second languages does not have a single, definitive optimum 
method. A successful educator will not stick to just one method. A technique that works well 
with one class one day may not work well with the same class the next. There is unlikely to 
be any trouble if we recognize students and design our program to meet the demands of the 
class. Overall, teachers are conversant with both the GTM and CLT methods.  

Even though GTM is an outdated method when compared to the CLT method, it is still 
used in some nations. Given that every country has a unique set of conditions, contexts, and 
social cultures, educators must be aware of the best teaching strategies for their students. 
While this study contributes valuable insights into the ongoing discourse on language 
teaching methods, it is imperative to acknowledge its limitations. The findings are based on 
a specific set of conditions and contexts, and the results should be approached with caution.  

For further advanced understanding of language instruction, future research 
endeavors should explore diverse educational environments and consider additional factors 
influencing the choice and effectiveness of language teaching methods. This could include 
investigating the impact of cultural nuances, classroom dynamics, and varying proficiency 
levels of students. Such endeavors will contribute to the continual evolution of effective 
language-teaching strategies and enhance the body of scientific knowledge in the field. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.5, No. 1, January 2024 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

48 
 

REFERENCES 

Breen, M. Candlin, C. N. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language 
teaching. Applied Linguistics.  

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice Hall Regents. 

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principle; An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 
Third Edition. New York: Pearson Longman. 

Finocchiaro, M., and C. Brumfit. (1983). The Functional-Notional Approach: From Theory to 
Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. 

K. Johnson and H. Johnson. (1998). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: 
Blackwell Publishers. 

Kelly, L. (1969). 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. 

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Fourth Edition. Cambridge: 
Pearson Longman. 

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & Principles in Language 
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Richards, J., and Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Richards, J. C., and Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and 
Applied Linguistics. Pearson Education Limited.  

Scharle, Agota & Anita Szabo (2000), A Guide to Developing Learner Responsibility, 
Cambridge University Press. 

Sweet, H. (1899). The Practical Study of Languages. Reprinted London: Oxford University 
Press. 

Thornbury, S. (2003). How to Teach Grammar. Beijing: World Affairs Press. 

Wardhaugh, R. (1972). Introduction to Linguistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 

Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689

