Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Strengths and Weaknesses

By Henri Langeveldt

Introduction The focus of this essay is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In doing so, it is important to first clarify the meaning of CLT and it’s place in the ongoing history of language teaching methodology. Geyser (2008), points out that CLT is generally accepted as the most recognized, contemporary approach to language teaching. CLT is considered an approach, rather than a teaching method, and can seem non-specific at times in terms of how to actually go about using practices in the classroom in any sort of systematic way. The real problem when attempting to define CLT is that there are many interpretations of what CLT actually means and involves. It means different things to different people. Or perhaps it is like an extended family of different approaches, and.. as in the case with most families, not all members live harmoniously together all of the time. There are squabbles and disagreements, if not outright wars, from time to time. However, no one is willing to assert that they do not belong to the family (Nunan 2004). One of the things that CLT embraces within its family, according to Harmer (2009), is the concept of how language is used. Instead of concentrating solely on grammar, CLT focuses strongly on communicative competence. Learners are encouraged to apply various language forms in various contexts and situations such as making hotel reservation, purchasing airline tickets, ordering at a restaurant, booking tickets to a show, asking for directions etc. It is this constant exposure to language in realistic situations, which is thought to aid language acquisition. Learners are given a clear reason for communicating in the form of role-plays and simulations. Accuracy of the language is seen to be of less importance than fluency and communicating successfully. Brown (2007) offers the following seven interconnected characteristics as a description of CLT: Characteristics of a CLT Approach

1. Overall goals. CLT suggests a focus on all of the components (grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic) of communicative competence. Goals therefore must intertwine the organizational (grammatical, discourse) aspects of language with the pragmatic (functional, sociolinguistic, strategic) aspects.

2. Relationship of form and function. Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Organizational language forms are not the central focus, but remain as important components of language that enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.

3. Fluency and accuracy. A focus on student’s “flow” of comprehension and production are seen as complementary principles underlying communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to take on more importance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use. At

other times the students will be encouraged to attend to correctness. Part of the teacher’s responsibility is to offer appropriate corrective feedback on learners’ errors.

4. Focus on real-world contexts. Students in a communicative class ultimately have to use the language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts outside the classroom. Classroom tasks must therefore equip students with the skills necessary for communication in those contexts.

5. Autonomy and strategic involvement. Students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning process through raising their awareness of their own styles of learning (strengths, weaknesses, preferences) and through the development of appropriate strategies for production and comprehension. Such awareness and action will help to develop autonomous learners capable of continuing to learn the language beyond the classroom and the course.

6. Teacher roles. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all-knowing font of knowledge. The teacher is an empathetic “coach” who values the students’ linguistic development. Students are encouraged to construct meaning through genuine linguistic interaction with other students and with the teacher.

7. Student roles. Students in a CLT class are active participants in their own learning process. Learner-centered, cooperative, collaborative learning is emphasized, but not at the expense of appropriate teacher-centered activity.

Brown (2007, p.50 – 56) further states that there are a number of concepts that are closely related to CLT. They are:

1. Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is one of the most prominent perspectives within the CLT framework. In Brown (2007, p. 50), Peter Skehan (1998a, p.95) defines task as an activity in which l meaning is primary l there is some communication problem to solve; l there is some relationship to comparable real-world activities; l task completion has some priority; and l the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome.

2. Learner-centered Instruction applies to curricula as well as to specific

techniques and it includes

l Techniques that focus on or account for learners’ needs, styles and goals l Techniques that give some control to the student (group work or strategy

training, for example) l Curricula that include the consultation and input of students and that do

not presuppose objectives in advance l Techniques that allow for student creativity and innovation l Techniques that enhance a student’s sense of competence and self-worth.

3. Cooperative learning involves the above mentioned learner-centered

characteristics and is “team” orientated. Students work in pairs or groups, share information and come to each other’s aid.

4. Interactive learning is at the heart of current theories of communicative competence. Communication has an interactive nature and the communicative purpose of language compels us to create opportunities for genuine interaction in the classroom.

5. Whole language education is a label that is being used to describe the

following:

l Cooperative learning l Participatory learning l Student-centered learning l Focus on the community of learners l Focus on the social nature of language l Use of authentic, natural language l Meaning-centered language l Holistic assessment techniques in testing l Integration of the “four skills”.

6. Content-based instruction (CBI), according to Brinton, Snow and Wesche

(1989, p. vii) in Brown (2007), is “the integration of content learning language with teaching aims. More specifically, it refers to the concurrent study of language and subject matter, with the form and sequence of language presentation dictated by content material.”

After having considered Communicative Language Teaching’s underlying system of beliefs we will know explore the perceived strengths and weaknesses of this approach. The Strengths of Communicative Language Teaching It is clear that CLT is an “umbrella approach” with the objective of communicative competence and can be applied in a variety of ‘more-specific’ methods. As mentioned previously in this essay, CLT places emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language, with the introduction of authentic and meaningful tasks into the learning situation. Geyser (2008) points out that that the introduction of authentic and meaningful tasks into the learning situation is advantageous to the student because it is more student-centered, allows for more meaningful communication and more than often provides for practical linguistic skill building. Although the teacher may present the language in the pre-task, the students are ultimately free to use what grammar constructs and vocabulary they want. This allows them to use all the language they know and are learning, rather than just the “target language” of the lesson. In the context of a Korean Secondary School beginner class, this is very important because of the low level of acquired vocabulary and use of grammar. Having the freedom to use all the vocabulary and grammar constructs they know contributes to an uninhibited conversation class. To avoid an “artificial feel” to the lesson, the teacher must provide a context so that class interactions are realistic and meaningful but with the support

needed to assist students to generate the target language. We need to consider that producing language is a skill and when we learn a skill we practice in improvised settings. For example, long before a medical doctor touches a patient in an operating theatre, he or she has practiced on many dummies and cadavers to hone their technique. Further to meaningful tasks being advantageous, is that the tasks are likely to be familiar (i.e. visiting the convenience store, the doctor, the local fast food restaurant), students are more likely to be engaged, which may further motivate them in their language learning. Motivation as a strength of CLT relates to engaging students in a communicative classroom but also includes confidence building. Belchamber (2007) states that if there is a climate of trust and support in the classroom, then students are more likely to contribute. One way of developing this is to allow pair checking of answers before open-class checking occurs. Another way is to include an opportunity for students to discuss a topic in small groups before there is any expectation that they speak in front of the whole class. In Belchamber (2007), Evelyn Doman suggests, "The need for ongoing negotiation during interaction increases the learners' overt participation..." It is this involvement we need to harness and build on. Many ESL teachers in Korea have asked themselves the question of who we are teaching, what are we teaching, and why. The students (Public schools) do need to know lexical items and linguistic rules as a means of passing their exams, and the Government also wants them to be able to interact in English. The conflict of teaching methodology and conversational English in terms of a Korean context is, however, a study for another time. CLT certainly has its advantages for the teachers who are of opinion that the students are the primary focus. It is timely to review an early definition of CLT. According to Richards and Rodgers (2007), CLT is basically about promoting learning. After all, if the students master the language, they will certainly be able to perform better in exams, if that is their goal. Those who do not see a purpose beyond classroom-related English will at least be better equipped for using the language in a social context. Geyser (2008) stresses that one of the major advantages of CLT is that a teacher can integrate all four the language skills into a curriculum, and even into one lesson, rather than relying solely on activities designed to develop speaking proficiency. For example, begin the class with vocabulary building focusing on pertinent phrases, expressions, and terms of the lesson. Provide students with handouts, or allow student to write down the key vocabulary and definitions, meanings, and associative terms in both L1 and L2. Writing requires more attention than passive listening; it breaks down complex ideas, and reinforces the new information, which increases retention. The point is that you want the students to understand and remember the vocabulary therefore simply presenting new vocabulary without adequate explanation and clarification fails to provide students with the necessary time, thought and reflection to process, digest and retain the new words. Similarly, drawing on four skills; reading, writing, listening, and speaking provides students with the opportunity to work independently to evaluate their progress in understanding, replicating, and reproducing the language forms taught. The teacher may also choose to vary the type of activity from task based, to content based or process based. Richards (2006) states that when using task-based activities, the tasks should be assigned with different outcome based objectives (focusing on fluency, accuracy, content, reading

comprehension, writing, grammar, listening, problem solving and discussion strategies). Belchamber (2007) points out that CLT involves equipping students with vocabulary, structures and functions, as well as strategies, to enable them to interact successfully. The reference to strategies introduces the matter of grammatical versus communicative competence. If the two are viewed as mutually exclusive, then we are likely to champion the one over the other, in terms of approach. While CLT implies the lessons are more student-centered, this does not mean they are un-structured. The teacher does have a very important role in the process, and that is setting up activities so that communication actually happens. There is a lot of preparation, and accuracy practice is the bridge to a fluency activity. As mentioned previously, integrating the four language skills is a major advantage of CLT. For example, teaching reading in an EFL class is a process that starts with the initial development of accuracy. After it is fully developed, reading fluency refers to a level of accuracy and rate where understanding is relatively effortless. Maryanne Wolf (Teaching Fluency) points out that “this means we need to have a dual emphasis on both accuracy and fluency at each stage of our teaching from the identification of letters to reading connected-text stories”. The Weaknesses of Communicative Language Teaching Brown (2007) reminds us that there are many and varied interpretations of what constitute Communicative Language Teaching and not everyone agrees on its definition. It is therefore important to remain aware of the many different versions of CLT and that it is still a term that can be adopted to encompass current language teaching approaches. David Nunan (2004) states that in reality CLT is not a teaching method, but rather comprises of a number of approaches. The teacher must therefore look at CLT as an “umbrella approach” and decide which method in this collection of approaches best suits his or her teaching environment. Harmer (2009) states the CLT approach have been criticized for being prejudiced in favour of the native-language teachers as the activities create an unrestricted range of language forms by learners making it difficult for non-native teachers to be able to respond to the multitude of language problems which may arise. This makes it extremely difficult for teachers who are not very proficient in the second language to be able to teach effectively. According to Richards & Rodgers (2007), dialogues, drills, rehearsed exercises, and discussions (in the first language or L1) of grammatical rules are much simpler for some non-native speakers to contend with. ESL teachers in Korea experience this on a daily basis, as non-native co-teachers are reluctant to participate in the class proceedings because of their perceived lack of English fluency. The CLT approach does not necessarily cater for students who come from cultures with traditional educational systems and different learning styles. Korean learners, for example, come from a traditional educational background where they have been, and still are, taught with grammar-translation methods. These students are used to a strong

teacher-centered classroom and a very formal education environment. These students do not always see the value in learning English through CLT methods such as group work, role-plays, game and other such activities. They feel that they are “wasting their time” because there is not a strong emphasis on grammar. In fact most of them regard “English conversation class” as an opportunity to sleep, do other homework or to watch movies. They are primarily interested in studying English through controlled grammar and vocabulary drills. They do not like uncontrolled practice where they have to ‘chat’ and experiment with the language. They feel that this would not get them to University or College, and therefore they are reluctant to participate in such activities. Another weakness of CLT, and specifically in Korean public schools, is that classes are large and the levels of proficiency vary from intermediate to false beginner to non-existent. In this case the intermediate students loose interest when they are not “challenged” and the lower level students become de-motivated when they are unable to participate in a communicative activity. It is therefore not an easy task for the teacher to create meaningful activities that will hold the attention and interest of all the students. Furthermore, de-motivated or uninterested students become noisy and difficult to control. Further to this, CLT focuses on fluency but not accuracy. During communicative activities students are left to use their own devices to solve their communication problems and this produces incoherent and grammatically incorrect sentences. Most Korean students find this frustrating because they are extremely competitive and live in a society that strives for constant perfection Conclusion Having considered a description of CLT as an approach rather than a teaching method, the strengths as well as the weaknesses, it must be said that the strengths far outweigh the weaknesses. As mentioned previously, Richards and Rodgers (2007) stressed that CLT is about promoting learning. Savignon (2002) states that….” The essence of CLT is the engagement of learners in communication to allow them to develop their communicative competence.” CLT emphasizes the use of real-life situations that necessitate communication. The aim is to develop methods for teaching all four skills through meaningful communication. Tasks are designed to engage learners to focus and complete tasks through interaction and information sharing. The teacher sets up situations that students are likely to encounter in real life. Student’s motivation to learn comes from their desire to communicate in meaningful ways about meaningful topics. Learning through CLT is creative, and is achieved through trial and error.

Reference List

1. Brown, H. Douglas. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Third Edition.

2. Geyser, Jason P. (2008). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Additional Course Readings. TEFL Training College.

3. Harmer, J. (2009). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education Limited. Fourth Impression.

4. Nunan, David. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge University

Press.

5. Richards, Jack C. & Rodgers Theodore S. (2007). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Second Edition.

6. Richards, Jack C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today.

Cambridge University Press.

7. Savignon, Sandra J. (2002). Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns in Teacher Education. Yale University Press.

Internet

1. Wolf, Maryanne. Teaching Fluency. Available at: http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4466

Journal

1. Belchamber, Rebecca (2007). The Advantages of Communicative Language Teaching. The Internet TESL Journal. Volume XIII, No.2. Available at: http://iteslj.org/.

Additional Reading

1. Baily, Kathleen M. (2005). Nunan, David (Series Editor). Practical English Language Teaching: Speaking. McGraw-Hill ELT. International Edition.

2. Helgesen, Marc & Brown, Steven (2007). Nunan, David (Series Editor).

Practical English Language Teaching: Listening. McGraw-Hill. International Edition.