A Critical Overview Of Communicative Language Teaching

A Critical Overview Of Communicative Language Teaching

• 1.
  See discussions, stats,and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282877159 A Critical Overview of Communicative Language Teaching Article · July 2015 CITATIONS 0 READS 2,334 1 author: Simhachalam Thamarana Andhra University 27 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Simhachalam Thamarana on 16 October 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
• 2.
  A Critical Overviewof Communicative Language Teaching Mr. Simhachalam Thamarana Research Scholar Andhra University Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh India ABSTRACT In this paper, an introduction to various English language teaching methods is presented atthe outset. Some prominent definitions of Communicative Language Teaching are mentioned along with the origin, theoretical background and major characteristic features. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is one of the best and a recent approach in teaching English as foreign / second language and it has been brought under focus by many linguistics and researchers. This paper also explain who this approach has made language learning more communicative with reference to many researchers conducted studies on this approach. I shall also explain the advantage and disadvantage of CLT in implementation. Finally the conclusion is drawn as per the review of the literature indicated. Key Words: Communicative Language Teaching, Approach, Method, Technique, Procedure. 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 3.
  01. Introduction In thehistory of language teaching, certain methods such as Audio-lingual, Grammar Translation, Suggestopedia and Total Physical Response have come into view. All these methods have been widely and extensively discussed and evaluated by researchers and scholars. Each of them has their own focus, weak points as well as strong points and they are based on a theory. In other words, methods are developed based on theories such as behaviourism, structuralism, constructivism and universal grammar. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is no exception with this regard (Larson – Freeman, 1986; Ellis, 1994). Now a day, the CLT method, which is originated in Britain, is widely used in English as Second Language (ESL) classrooms around the world. According to Barnaby and Sun (1989) and Ellis (1996), CLT is recognised as powerful theoretical model in ELT by many linguists and language teachers as a useful approach to language teaching. In this short review of CLT, I try to define Communicative Language Teaching approach, its theoretical background and some important characteristics. I will also explain main advantages and disadvantages of CLT implementation. 02. Definition of Communicative Language Teaching Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an approach to teaching language which is defined many writers (Cannale, 1983; Cook, 1991; Littlewood, 1981; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Richards and Rodgers 2001; Rivers, 1987). According to Richards, et al. in the Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics defined CLT as “an approach to foreign or second language teaching which emphasises that the goal of language learning is communicative competence” (1992: 65). Other authors in the field have defined and characterized CLT in various ways (Howatt, 1984; Littlewood, 1981; Savignon, 1991; Scarcella and Oxford, 1992). Littlewood explains that “one of the most characteristic features of communicative language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language, combining these into a more fully communicative view” (1981:1). In general, CLT advocates go beyond teaching grammatical rules of the target language, and propose that, by using the target language in a meaningful way, learners will develop communicative competence. The communicative approach is concerned with the unique individual needs of each learner. By making the language relevant to the world rather than the classroom, learners can acquire the desired skills rapidly and agreeably. 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 4.
  03. The originof Communicative Language Teaching Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has its roots in England, which is a primarily English as a Second Language (ESL) environment. In the early 1960s concepts about second language teaching were changing, and the theoretical assumptions behind them were also being rethought. It was during this time of re-evaluation that CLT was born. Galloway says that the communicative Approach could be said to be the product of educators and linguists who had grown dissatisfied with the Audio-lingual and Grammar Translation methods of foreign language instruction. Richards and Rodgers (1986), on the other hand, claim that the origins of communicative language teaching are to be found in the changes of situational language teaching approaches, which influenced the British language teaching tradition till the late 1960s. Meanwhile, Savignon (1991) asserts that the emergence of CLT can be traced to concurrent developments on both sides of the Atlantic, i.e. in Europe and the United States. Educators and linguistics such as Candlin (1981) and Widdowson (1978) saw the need to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency rather than on mere mastery of structures. They felt that students were not learning enough realistic, whole language in those methods, i.e., Situational Language Teaching, Audio-lingual or Grammar Translation method (Richards and Rodgers 1986; Savignon 1987, 1991; Galloway 1993). Students did not know how to communicate in the cultures of the language studies. In respect of this point (Widdowson, 1972). 04. Some major features of Communicative Language Teaching: The communicative approach to language teaching is, relatively, a newly adapted approach in the area of foreign / second language teaching. Communicative Language Teaching is a “hybrid approach to language teaching, essentially ‘progressive’ rather than ‘traditional’…” (Wright, 2000). CLT can be seen to derive from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes, at least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology and educational research (Savignon, 1991). It is generally accepted that proponents of CLT see it as an approach, not a method (Richards and Rodgers 1986; Savignon 1991; Brown 1994). For Brown, for instance, “Communicative Language Teaching is a unified but broadly – based theoretical position about the nature of language and language learning and teaching” (1994: 244-245). Although we have different versions and various ways in which CLT is interpreted and applied, educators in the area, Littlewood (1981); Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983); Brumfit (1984); Widdowson (1978, 1979); Johnson and Morrow (1981); Richards and Rodgers (1986); 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 5.
  Larsen-Freeman (1986); Celce-Murcia(1991) and Johnson (1982) put some of the major characteristics of CLT as follows: (a) It is felt that students need knowledge of the linguistic form, meaning and functions. However, CLT gives primary importance to the use or function of the language and secondary importance to its structure or form (Larsen-Freeman 1986; Johnson 1982). This does not mean that knowledge of grammar is not essential for effective communication, rather systematic treatment of both functions and forms is vital. Stressing on this, Littlewood says “one of the most characteristic features of communicative language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language” (1981: 1). “CLT suggests that grammatical structure might better be subsumed under various functional categories… we pay considerably less attention to the overt presentation and discussion of grammatical rules than we traditionally did” (Brown 1994: 245). Emphasis is also given to meaning (messages they are creating or task them are completing) rather than form (correctness of language and language structure). For Finocchiaro and Brumfit “meaning is paramount” (1983:91) since it helps the learners to manage the message they engage with the interlocutors. (b) Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying communicative techniques” (Brown1994:245). However, at times fluency may have to take on more importance than accuracy because fluency and acceptable language is the primary goal (Finocchiaro and Brumfit1983:93) and accuracy is judged not in the abstract butin contexts. Fluency is emphasised over accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use. It is important, however, that fluency should never be encouraged at the expense of clear, unambiguous, direct communication. And much more spontaneity is present in communicative classrooms (Brown, 1994). (c) Language teaching techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Classrooms should provide opportunities for rehearsal of real-life situations and provide opportunity for real communication. Emphasis on creative role plays, simulations, dramas, games, projects, etc., is the major activities which can help the learner provide spontaneity and improvisation, not just repetition and drills. Another characteristic of the classroom process is the use of authentic materials because it is felt desirable to give students the opportunity to develop the strategies for understanding language as it is actually used by native speakers. In the classroom, everything is done with a communicative intent. 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 6.
  Information gap, choiceand feedback are thought to be truly communicative activities (Johnson and Morrow 1981). (d) Grammar can still be taught, but less systematically, in traditional ways alongside more innovative approaches. Savignon (2002:7) says ... for the development of communicative ability research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of form-focused exercises with meaning - focused experience. Grammar is important; and learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences. Disregard of grammar will virtually guarantee breakdown in communication (Savignon 1991, 2001; Thompson 1996). These writers also say there are some misconceptions about CLT that makes difficult for many teachers to see clearly what is happening and to identify the useful innovations that CLT has brought. One of the persistent misconceptions is that CLT means not teaching grammar although “the exclusion of explicit attention to grammar was never necessary part of CLT (Thompson 1996:10). In CLT involvement in communicative event is seen as central to language development and this involvement necessarily requires attention to form (structure). (e) Communicative approach is not limited to oral skills. Reading and writing skills need to be developed to promote pupils' confidence in all four skills areas. Students work on all four skills from the beginning, i.e. a given activity might involve reading, speaking, listening and perhaps also writing (Celce-Murcia1991). The idea of emphasising the oral skills creates uncertainty among teachers. They misconceived CLT as if it were devoted to teaching only speaking. But, CLT is not exclusively concerned with face to face oral communication (Savignon 2002:7). The principles of CLT apply equally to reading and writing activities that engage readers and writers in the interpretation, expression, and negotiation of meaning. In other words, it is important to recognise that it is not only the speaker (or writer) who is communicating. Instead, communication through language happens in both the written and spoken medium and involves atleast two people. Thompson (1996) further states that, though there is a complaint that CLT ignores written language, a glance at recent mainstream text books shows that reading and writing materials have been given attention too. Students regularly work in groups or pairs to transfer (and if necessary to negotiate) meaning in situations where one person has information that others lack (Celce - Murcia 1991). More emphasis should be given to active modes of learning such as pair or group work in problem- 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 7.
  solving tasks inorder to maximise the time allotted to each student for learning to negotiate meaning. Many people assume group/pair work is applicable in all contexts. However, classroom group and/or pair work should not be considered an essential feature used all the time, and may well be inappropriate in some contexts. Thompson (1996) and Savignon (2002) claim that group and/or pair work are flexible and useful techniques than that suggests and they are active modes of learning which can help the learners to negotiate meaning and engage in problem- solving activities. The use of pair/group work is a physical signal of some degree of control and choice passing to the learners; but that needs to be complemented by real choice (learners need to be given some degree of control over their learning). Therefore, the use of pair/group work needs to be complemented by real choice for the following reasons: (1) they can provide the learners with a relatively safe opportunity to try out ideas before launching them in public; (2) they can lead to more developed ideas and therefore greater confidence and more effective communication; (3) they can also provide knowledge and skills which may complement those of their partners which in turn lead to greater success in undertaking tasks (Thompson 1996). Errors are seen as a natural outcome of the development of the communication skills and are therefore tolerated. Learners trying their best to use the language creatively and spontaneously are bound to make errors. Constant correction is unnecessary and even counter- productive. Correction noted by the teacher should be discreet. Let the students talk and express themselves and the form of the language becomes secondary. If errors of form are tolerated and are seen as a natural outcome of the development of communication skills, students can have limited linguistic knowledge and still be successful communicators (Larsen-Freeman 1986). Evaluation is carried out in terms of fluency and accuracy. Students who have the most control of the structures and vocabulary are not necessarily the best communicators. A teacher may use formal evaluation i.e., he/she is likely to use a communicative test, which is an integrative and has a real communicative function (e.g., Madsen 1983; Hughes 1989). The students’ native language has no role to play (LarsenFreeman1986). The target language is used both during communicative activities and for the purpose of classroom management. The students learn from these classroom management exchanges, too and realise that the target language is a vehicle for communication. Whatever the case may be, the teacher should be able to use the target language fluently and appropriately (Celce-Murcia1991:8). However, for others (e.g., Finocchiaro and Brumfit 1983) judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible. Teachers may provide directions of homework, class work and test directions by using the native language. 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 8.
  The teacher isthe facilitator of students' learning, manager of classroom activities, advisor during activities and a 'co-communicator' engaged in the communicative activity along with the students (Littlewood 1981; Breen and Candlin 1980). But he does not always himself interact with students; rather he acts as an independent participant. Other roles assumed for the teacher are needs analyst, counsellor, researcher and learner. Students, on the other hand, are more responsible managers of their own learning. They are expected to interact with other people, either in the flesh, through pair and group work, or in the writings. They are communicators and actively engaged in negotiating meaning in trying to make themselves understood. They learn to communicate by communicating (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). Above all, since the teacher's role is less dominant, the teaching / learning process is student-centred rather than teacher-centred. In other words, it is the learner who plays a great role in a large proportion of the process of learning. 05. ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE OF CLT (A) Advantages of CLT: The implementation of CLT has brought alot of advantages for Teaching English as a foreign/second language. Unlike audio lingual and grammar-translation methods, Communicative teaching emphasis on “task-oriented, student-centred” language teaching practice and it provides students with comprehensive use of English language, for communication of opportunities (Richards, 2006). Other scholars also suggested some of the major advantages of CLT as follow: (a) It motivates students to improve their ability of using English by themselves since it emphasises on fluency in the target language. Meaning that, it provides students with assignments that allow them to improve their own ideas about what they are going to talk and how they are going to express. This enables the learners to be more confident when interacting with other people and they also enjoy talking more (Brown, 2001). (b) CLT focuses on and aims at communicative competence. Thus, enabling the learners to use the language in a communicative situation to satisfy their needs in real-life communication is a priority in CLT (Richards, 2006). In other words, it brings the real life situation of the native English in to classroom activities such as role-play and simulation (Harmer, 2007). 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 9.
  (c) The majorportion of the learning process is not upon the teacher thus illustrating that CLT classes have moved from teacher-centeredness to learner-centeredness. In other words, much more time issued by the learner that the role of the teacher is just to facilitate the learning process. Thus, the learner should exercise and communicate enough in the CLT class to achieve communicative competence (Brown, 2001). (B) Disadvantages of CLT: There have been various criticisms on the principles of the communicative approach to teaching and learning language: (a) The approach gives priority to meanings and rules of use rather than to grammar and rules of structure. In other words, it is felt that there is not enough emphasis on the correction of pronunciation and grammar error. It is because too much focus on meaning at the expense of form. It is believed that with CLT there is a danger of focusing too much on oral skills and less emphasis is given to reading and writing skills, (Al-Humaidi, n.d.as cited in Keithley, Kumm(2013). (b) The CLT approach focuses on fluency but not accuracy in grammar and pronunciation. According to Hughes (1983) communicative language teaching leads to the production of “fluent but inaccurate learners. What is predicted to happen here is the danger of giving priority to fluency over accuracy in CLT classes. (c) The CLT approach is great for intermediate student and advanced students, but for beginners some controlled practice is needed Students with low levels of proficiency in the target language may find it difficult to participate in oral communicative activities and, if the exams used by any institution are grammar based, communicative fluency may not be appropriate. (d) The monitoring ability of the teacher must be very good. Despite teachers’ best efforts, classroom activities are not actually real-life and it can be difficult to reproduce truly authentic language use and to facilitate genuine interaction. Moreover, a major principle underlying this approach is its emphasis on learners' needs and interests. This implies that much more effort is expected that every teacher should modify the syllabus to correspond with the needs of the learners. (e) CLT is sometimes difficult to be implemented in an EFL classroom due to the lack of sources and equipments like authentic materials and native speaker teachers as 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 10.
  well as largesize of the classes. In addition, suitable classrooms are not available that can allow for group work activities and for teaching aids and materials (Burnaby and Sun, 1989). CONCLUSION Communicative language teaching is one of the latest humanistic approaches to teaching Approaches which gives emphasis to the language use and provides more opportunity to learner to practice the target language inspite of its limitation. Today, the main apprehension of most learners of English as a foreign /second language is whether they are able to use the language independently and fluently in a variety of real life communicative situations such as when someone is on a trip, in a meeting or in a restaurant. If accuracy and correcting grammatical errors are also taken into consideration in CLT, fluency and accuracy are yielded simultaneously through the application this method. Since language is a means of communication and CLT may enable the learners to effectively communicate in real life situation, it is inferred that CLT may fulfil the actual goal of teaching a language which is to improve learners’ communicative competence. WORKS CITED: 01. Harmer, J (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. England: Longman. Howatt, A. (1984). 02. Richards, J., Platt, J, and Platt, H. (1992).Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman 03. Larsen-Freeman, D.(2000).Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford 04. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 11.
  05. Brumfit, C.and K. Johnson K. (1979).The Communicative Approach to LanguageTeaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 06. Robin, C., and Oxford, R. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom.TESL, EJ,1(3). 07. Savignon, S. (2001).Communicative language teaching: context and concerns in teacher education .New Haven, CT: Yale University press.; 08. Brumfit, Christopher (1984). Communicative Methodologyin Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 09. Nunan, D.(1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. New York: Prentice-Hall. 10. Widdowson, H.(1978).Teaching language as communication. London. Oxford University Press. 11. O’ Malley, J. Chamot, A. (1990).Language strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 12. Richards, J. C. Rodgers, T.(2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching”Adescription and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13. Brown, H. (1994). Teaching by Principles – An Interactive Approach to LanguagePedagogy. Prentince Hall. 14. Rivers, W.(1987).Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 15. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991) Grammar pedagogy insecond and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 25,459–480. 16. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press 17. Cook, V. (1991).Second language learningandlanguageteaching.(2need.).London: Arnold. 18. Finocchiaro, M., and Brurnfit. (1983). The Functional Notional Approach: FromTheory to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. 19. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20. Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxford: Pergamon. 21. Johnson, K. and Morrow,K.(1981).Communication in the classroom. Essex: Longman. 22. Canale, M. (1983). “From communicative competence tocommunicative languagepedagogy.” In J. C. Richards R. W. Schmidt (Eds.),Language and Communication (pp.pp. 2-27). Harlow: Longman. 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG -RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP
• 12.
  Web Reference: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/communicative-language-teaching- the-origins-english-language-essay.php 9ROXPH,,,,VVXH9-XO,661 5HIHUHHG 3HHU5HYLHZHG-RXUQDO KWWSZZZLMHOOKFRP View publication stats View publication stats