The Miscellaneous Approach to Language Teaching: A Critical Look at the Single-Method Approach Adopted in the Libyan Schools

Ibrahim Ali Ellabiedi


In spite of all the obstacles and difficulties encountered in the Libyan and similar EFL learning and teaching contexts, teachers are still seeking to find the appropriate approach and methods which may better serve their local contexts. The main problem under investigation is the adoption of the single-method approach, represented in the new teaching methodology (CLT), which the Libyan and many other EFL teachers in different contexts find it difficult to implement in their classrooms. This new paradigm which underpins the new teaching syllabus in the Libyan schools has become a challenge, since the local environment where it is practised does not seem appropriate. Hence, it is worth thinking of another approach which could replace the single-method approach. This paper tries to evaluate current approaches to the methodology of teaching English in the Libyan context. First, I will introduce the context, describing the learners and the classroom, explaining what approaches and methods are followed, throwing some light on the syllabus and the regulations imposed by the ministry of education. Second, I will propose a feasible approach which may better serve the Libyan situation. This approach is based on the assumption that a collection of different methods (the eclectic approach) might help to achieve the goal- finding a more suitable way of teaching which can be useful, more flexible for teachers and, consequently, better serves the Libyan context.


Eclecticism, Approach/ Method, Libyan Context.

Full Text:



Prabhu, N.S. 1990. There is no best method. Why? TESOL Quarterly. 24/2

Richards, J.C. 1990. The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: CUP.

Mwanza, D.S. 2019. The eclectic method to language teaching: clarifications and conceptual extensions. Journal of Lexicography and Terminology. 1/ 2

Hiep, P. H. 2007. Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity. ELT Journal. 61/3.

Sakui, K. 2004. Wearing two pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal. 58/2

Orafi , S. and Borg, S. 2009. Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform. System. 37 (243-253)

Li, D. 1998. "It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine": Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly. 32/4.

Bax, S. 2003. The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal. 57/3.

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.

Medgyes, P. 1986. Queries from a communicative teacher. ELT Journal. 40/2.

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the General People's Committee for Education, 2008, the development of education, the national report of Libya presented to the International Conference on Education 48th Session, Geneva 25-28 Nov. 2008. [accessed Nov. 2010]

Frino, L., Mhochain, R., O'Neill, H. and McGarry, F. 2008. English for Libya, Preparatory 3, Teacher's Book. Reading: Garnet.

Savignon, S.J. 1991. Communicative language teaching: state of the art. TESOL Quarterly. 25/2 (261-277)

Savignon, S.J. 2007. Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century. In Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Third edition. Boston, MA: Heinle.

Harmer, J. 2003. Popular culture, methods, and context. ELT Journal. 57/3.

Gupta, D. 2004. CLT in India: context and methodology come together. ELT Journal. 58/3.

Swan, M. 1985. A critical look at the Communicative Approach (2). ELT Journal. 39/2.

Hu, G. 2005. 'CLT is best for China' – an untenable absolutist claim. ELT Journal. 59/1.

Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: OUP.

Snyder, H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research (Elsevier). 104 (333-339)

Wali, N.H. 2009. Eclecticism and Language Learning. Al- Fatih Journal. 39.

Mwanza, D.S. 2017. The Eclectic Approach to Language Teaching: Its Conceptualisation and Misconceptions. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE). 4/2 (53-67).

Celce-Murcia, M. 2007. Language Teaching Approaches: An Overview. In Celce-Murcia, M. (ED). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Third edition. Boston, MA: Heinle.

Khatib, M., Sarem , S.N., Hamidi, H. 2013. Humanistic education: concerns, implications and applications. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 41, 45-51

Koletnik, M. 2012. Expanding vocabulary through translation – an eclectic approach. Scripta Manent 7/1 (2-12)

Mart, C.T. 2012. The grammar-translation method and the use of translation to facilitate learning in ESL classes. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching. 1/4 (103-105)

Zulprianto. 2012. Looking on the bright side of grammar-translation method. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching. 8/1

Navidinia, H., Akar, M., Hendevalan, J.F. 2019. Using translation in language teaching: exploring advantages and disadvantages from linguistic, humanistic and practical perspectives. International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies. 7/2. (12-18)

Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. 2004. Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 24, 126-145.

Nunan, D. 1998. Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal. 52/2

Long, M.H. and Porter, P.A. 1985. Teachers of English to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly. 19/2.

Brown, H.D. 2007. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. San Francisco: Pearson Education.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Ibrahim Ali Ellabiedi

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.