You need to write a reflection paper on the article "Communicative Language Teaching" by Spada (2007).
Please do not forget to include the following points in your article reflection paper:
a) your own interpretation of CLT and your own perspective as a prospective teacher concerning the necessary infrastructure as to the optimum implementation of the method in line with the conditions in Turkey in the EFL context (i.e., the English proficiency level of EFL teachers in Turkey, the system and the existing policies of education in Turkey, EFL learners’ expectations from English classes at secondary and high school level, the attitudes of EFL learners of Turkish with different levels of proficiency towards learning English, the aims of English classes)
b) your own perspective on the various CLT-related misconceptions as a prospective English teacher
c) your perspective on the prevalence of the misconceptions stated in the article among Turkish teachers of EFL
d) the current status of CLT in Turkey including the challenges and difficulties facing EFL teachers concerning the implementation of it
e) the future status of CLT in Turkey
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
FLE324 REFLECTION PAPER 3
ReplyDeleteEsranur Efeoğlu 1620012
My knowledge of CLT was pretty limited to the brief description of the approach in the first methodolody course in my second year in the university. After reading Spada’s article entitle “Communicative Language Teaching: Current Status and Future Prospects” my awareness over the interpretation of this method have raised.
Rather than simply regarding it as a “meaning-focused, learner-centred, communication method” I interpret CLT as the effective integration of skills which promote meaningful communication. Whether it is the weak or the strong version, the aim of CLT is developing learners’ language fluency so that the communication will be easier. However, as a prospective teacher, I have serious doubts about the necessary infrastructure in Turkey regarding the EFL context. In order to carry out a successful CLT activity, the students’ level of foreign language should allow them to carry out the communicative tasks without frequent difficulty. The students can sometimes use their L1 in order to carry the tasks but I guess that would lead the manipulation of the flexibility sooner or later. Because of the fact that speaking skills are not given emphasis in our education system, it is not reasonable to expect much from the students unless we –as teacher- try to change some fo the already fixed perspectives on foreign language learning. Again another problem is the discrepancy between how the cirruculum requires teachers to teach and how the teacher wants to teach. If a teacher spends her/his class with communicative activities instead of giving out the rules and directing the drills, she/he is likely to be criticized by the school administration,other teachers, parents or even the students.
I believe the biggest misconception about CLT only focuses on listening and speaking practices and that CLT avoids the usage of L1 in EFL classroom. It is not reasonable to think that a foreign language teaching can be deprived of reading and writing as the language itself is a whole that embraces even more than just the basic concepts of four skills. Furthermore, CLT lets students to use their L1 if at some point they have difficulty in task because “the use of L1 enable students to continue with the task and in process to move forward in achieving their linguistic goals” as Spada(2007) states.
I haven’t had any chance to observe any EFL classes so far to give a verdict on what is the degree of implementation of CLT in Turkey and I did not attend any CLT classroom as a learner either. It is most probably because of the
several constraints of our educational sytem as I previously stated, and also the conception that such an approach will probably take much time and spmetimes be a burden on teacher. The biggest challenge is that to take a tep and seriously implement it into the classroom, though. In the future, as more and more prospective teachers are equipped with the necessary knowledge of approaches and their advantages/disadvantages, I believe it will be easier to make use of CLT and many others. Because of the fact that the primary function of a language is to communicate and that L2 learners in Turkey generally learn English for that purpose, it is probable that CLT will have a bigger influence over the educational designs in Turkey.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCommunicative language teaching has a variety of interpretations and implementations since it was introduced and using this method in ELT classrooms has created a hot debate for many years. The article, ‘Communicative Language Teaching’ by Spada, deals with communicative language teaching thoroughly and explains beliefs, misconceptions, strengths and weaknesses of communicative language teaching.
ReplyDeleteI regard communicative language teaching as an approach to L2 instruction, characterized by mostly student-centered approach, giving attention to both form and meaning and including implicit correction on errors. However, according to this article, communicative is defined in 2 different ways. It has two versions which are called as strong and weak forms of CLT. While strong version of CLT exclusively focuses on meaning and does not pay attention to the form, the weak version gives same value to both form and meaning. When these 2 forms of CLT are taken into consideration, using weak version of CLT in ELT classrooms can be more logical because as Savignon’s study shows, students fail to reach high levels of development and accuracy in many aspects of language when strong version of CLT is used. I agree with that notion because I believe that grammatical structures or rules cannot just be learned unconsciously. As teachers, we should also use explicit teaching in some situations like when our students fail to understand a point we have mentioned. Thus, both explicit and implicit knowledge should be integrated in language teaching. After exposure to that ample amount of explicit knowledge, students’ knowledge can turn into implicit knowledge for a better learning and acquisition of the language and students will be exposed to all components of the language such as fluency, accuracy, grammar, vocabulary.
Another issue expressed in the article is the misconceptions of CLT. Many teachers believe that CLT is an approach which focuses exclusively on meaning. However, this is just related to strong version of CLT and weak version of CLT focuses both on form and meaning. When it comes to the student-centered issue, I believe that both the teacher- centered activities and learner-centered activities should be combined for effective language learning. Another misconception about CLT is that it should not include corrective feedback. When a student makes a mistake, the teacher should correct the mistake by reformulating, not just directly correcting the mistake. However, in the researches done in the recent years, there is evidence to support the claim that explicit forms of correction are most effective in CLT classrooms. The other most striking point addressed in the article is that CLT only means listening and speaking practice. However, it should be taken into account that weak version focuses both on the form and the meaning, so reading and writing are also vital for language learning. The final misconception is that teachers should ban using L1 in CLT classrooms. However, L1 can be used when necessary in the classroom, that is to say, considering the aim of instruction in the classroom; L1 can be maximized or minimized in some situations. Nevertheless, as we talk about language learning classes, we should try to maximize the use of L2 in the classroom to expose our students to ample amount of input.
When it comes to the implementation of this approach in Turkey, I think that there will be some problems in the implementations of it. For example, crowded classrooms can be challenging for the teachers. In that sense, student-centered instruction may lead to some distractions in the classrooms and students may give each other incorrect input during the classroom activities and teacher may not be able to monitor them. However, with the increasing numbers of schools, this problem can be prevented and CLT can be really successful in language teaching if applied suitably.
There is a on-going debate about the concept and validity of ‘communicative language teaching’. As far as I know about, I really like this method and as a prospective teacher, I want to use this method in my classroom in the future. When I think about it, such terms as ‘learner centered, focus on meaning rather than language structure, communication group work… come to my mind. However, there is no certain definition of CLT. There are lots of proposals and definitions about it. Even second language instructors and foreign language instructors define this concept differently. According to second lang. instructors, CLT just focuses on meaning not form or structure, but foreign language instructors claim that it is a combination of formal and functional aspects of language. Applying this method in Turkey is very much difficult. Our education system doesn’t allow teachers to apply this method. CLT is based on communication and it requires too much speaking, while our education system expects teachers to teach only structure by giving rules directly and expects them to focus on language form rather and meaning. So, unless curriculum changes, it is very slightly possible to apply this in Turkey.
ReplyDeleteOne of the misconceptions is that CLT only focuses on meaning. However, CLT doesn’t exclude form, instead, it includes meaning or communication as well as form. Another misconception is no explicit feedback on learner error. The reason behind this is that many teachers think that through time and practice, all errors will be corrected. CLT supports the indirect and implicit correction, the aim for this is not to interfere with communication. Recast is used CLT but research shows that explicit feedback is more effective rather than recast. Learner centered teaching is another misconception. At this point, I agree with them. in CLT all activities are almost learned centered, this is not bad, but there should be also teacher centered activities especially for young learners who need guidance of instructor. Another misconception is that CLT is heavily based on listening and speaking skills. This can be true to some extent however, as I have said before, it doesn’t exclude form it just includes communication as well, so by teaching form, teacher can also use other skills such as reading or writing. Avoidance of L1 is another argument on this issue. the logic behind this is that the more input you get in target language, the more successful and native like you become in target language. However, strictly forbidding of L1 is not good, I think. Sometimes, especially for young learners, it would be better to use L1 to explain something, since it is more time saving and make the topic more easily comprehensible.
As I have mentioned before, implementation of this method in Turkey is very difficult. The curriculum, education system, even material sources doesn’t allow it to manifest effectively. It requires qualified curriculum, teachers, variable resources and technology. In today’s Turkey, it is not so much easy to implement it. However, as far as I observe, people are becoming more conscious on this issue and in the future, it will become more common in our education system.
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is an approach to the teaching of second and foreign languages that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language. CLT places great emphasis on helping students use the target language in a variety of contexts and places great emphasis on learning language functions. CLT is usually characterized as a broad approach to teaching, rather than as a teaching method with a clearly defined set of classroom practices.
ReplyDeleteI think,in CLT there should be an emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.The teachers should also include the introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation in the future.Moreoever, the CLT teachers in Turkey should give importance in linking classroom language learning with language activities outside the classroom.
However,in CLT method,the teachers pay insufficient attention to the context in which teaching and learning take place.Often, the communicative approach is deemed a success if the teacher understands the student. But, if the teacher is from the same region as the student, the teacher will understand errors resulting from an influence from their first language. Native speakers of the target language may still have difficulty understanding them. This observation may call for new thinking on and adaptation of the communicative approach. The adapted communicative approach should be a simulation where the teacher pretends to understand only what any regular speaker of the target language would and reacts accordingly.
In the future, I believe that there will be more benefical methods used in the lessons. CLT will also improve and will be much more effective than now.
BETÜL SAN
1620301
Communicative Language Teaching
ReplyDeleteCommunicative language teaching (CLT) is an approach to the teaching of second and foreign languages that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language. The implementation of the CLT techniques is unfortunately not very common in Turkish educational curricula. The biggest problem arises from the examination system in Turkey. As most of the examinations are based on writing and multiple choice tests, an approach that supports the idea of getting full comprehension by only speaking is not much demanded by the teachers. For the future of CLT in Turkey, the best thing to be done would be changing the examination system itself by adding some additional parts those tests speaking skills. Another solution might be increasing the importance attributed to fluency of the speaking not on the accuracy.
Clt, actually, is a quite successful method to help L2 learners who to achieve prospering speaking skills and to be able to communicate in the target language. As it focuses mostly on oral communication, it is more useful for the ones who learn it for this aim. Because of this reason, CLT methods and techniques are mostly preferred by some private English courses that serves for the businessmen, immigrants or the ones who will have a direct interaction with the English speaking people or countries. For these places CLT can be a good solution to help these learners to use the target language effectively in their daily lives.
However, for the people who do not have much to the with speaking, who don’t plan to go abroad anytime or who don’t consider of making any kind of career related to this area it might be redundant to apply to CLT techniques. Understanding the English advertisements or brochures, any English songs or films might be the only aim of these kind of people. For these situations, emphasizing receptive skills would be more beneficial. That is why CLT has not gained the importance it deserves by the people so far. As the number of the people who learns a second language for communicative reasons is lower compared to the others, the respect given to CLT is less that estimated and expected one.
Duygu Çandarlı 1549070
ReplyDeleteFLE 324 Section 2
Reflection Paper 2
In this paper, I aim to do a critical analysis of the article “Communicative Language Teaching: Current Status and Future Prospects” by Spada (2007) by adding my own interpretation of CLT, my perspective on the misconceptions of CLT, the current and future status of CLT in Turkey.
There have been various definitions and interpretations of CLT in the literature so far. In the recent years, as CLT is undergoing a transformation according to some L2 educators, the words, such as, balance, integration and equilibrium have appeared with CLT. In my view, CLT is not just a buzzword in ELT world, but a philosophy of language teaching. My own interpretation of CLT is that it is a combination of form and meaning-focused instruction with a focus on genuine communicative practice, which emphasizes both fluency and accuracy.
My own interpretation of CLT is close to the weak version of CLT which is compatible with the British applied linguists’ conceptualization. However, the strong version of CLT and the different ways in which CLT has been interpreted have resulted in quite a few misconceptions of CLT and skepticism on the part of L2 teachers. The major misconceptions are that CLT means just listening and speaking practice and avoidance of the learners’ L1 for me. Firstly, many L2 teachers presume that listening and speaking automatically result in the mastery of reading and writing skills, too. Actually, comprehensible input and interaction hypothesis are interpreted as a mere focus on listening and speaking. Nevertheless, experimental research suggests that it is not the case. The key word is integration, which means equal focus on all four skills in language teaching. In fact, the skills cannot be treated in isolation from each other. Extensive reading is particularly important for language acquisition, which is compatible with Krashen’s comprehensible hypothesis. Teachers should encourage learners to do extensive reading for pleasure, which can help students to acquire linguistics features and infer that reading in general can lead to pleasure. The second biggest misconception is avoidance or even sometimes prohibition of the learners’ L1. It is a well-known fact that some high school English teachers in Turkey give students cash fine if they happen to speak a word of Turkish in English lessons. Although they have a good intention, forcing students to speak English, I remember that nobody did speak English. To make matters worse, many students could not even ask what they did not comprehend in the instruction part, which could cause more serious problems in the future. I am of the opinion that depending on the students’ level and age, L1 can be used as a scaffolding to pave the way for students’ comprehension and a quick progression especially in terms of grammar.
When it comes to the current status of CLT, it is not applied in state schools very much, and it is applied to some extent in private schools as I can infer from my observations this year. Unlike state schools, private schools are more likely to apply CLT thanks to their in-service programs for teachers, teachers’ competence to apply this approach and students’ regular practice of speaking English. Even if teachers’ expertise is adequate to apply this method, most of the teachers do not want to move out of their comfort zone. Also, they regard CLT and its components as risk taking in a classroom environment. Teachers do not adapt, but adopt the English course books that are published by the Ministry of Education. However, only teachers cannot be the scapegoat of this practice. The exam-oriented educational system, sociopolitical, cultural reasons, physical conditions and language planning policy of the state, which are beyond the scope of this paper, are responsible for the current status of CLT. Furthermore, students are not motivated enough to speak English in a pair or group work.
(CONT.)
(CONT.)
ReplyDeleteAs for the future status of CLT, I am very hopeful about the application as more students in Foreign Language Education Departments are interested in professional development, which means better teacher-expertise in CLT in the future. Also, the quality of teacher education and in-service training programs is rapidly increasing in Turkey. However, the biggest obstacle is exams. In my opinion, we should change the exam-oriented educational system in order to raise the quality of English language teaching in Turkey as Jeremy Harmer stated at one ELT conference I attended. Nevertheless, there are still many things, like using authentic input, communicative practices and group work, to offer students with the help of teachers’ efforts.
To sum up, although there are several misconceptions of CLT due to the vagueness of the term, and the application of it is below the desired level in Turkey, CLT is likely to have a wide broad application in Turkey in the future. However, profound changes in the education system are essential to enable students to gain communicative competence in English.
Rüveyda GÜNDÜZ
ReplyDelete1620129
REFLECTION ON “COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING: UNITY WITHIN DIVERSITY”
To start with, debates on communicative language teaching, its advantages and disadvantages and its implication into different kinds of educational contexts have been going on for a long time.
CLT promotes the idea that learning is more likely to take place as long as classroom practices are real and meaningful to the learners because this is necessary for the learners to internalize what they have learned. If the activities aren’t meaningful for the learners, they will do them just for the sake of doing not with the aim of learning and they have difficulty figuring out what they are supposed to do. This theory focuses mostly on the learner and learning process. It is very suitable for learner-centered classes because all the things required during the teaching process aren’t expected from the teacher. Instead, the learners are supposed to participate into the teaching process. This participation may be realized via such various ways as pair work, group work and role-play. These techniques are inevitable elements of a CLT class because they play a great role in fostering communication between learners in a classroom environment. They provide learners with a chance to use language in real life situations which will help them both inside and outside of the classroom, so CLT regards the goal of language as teaching learners how to use the language effectively for their real communicative needs not providing learners with the knowledge of the grammatical, lexical, phonological rules and vocabulary of a language. Furthermore; learners need to develop communicative competence which is the ability to use the language in a given social situation appropriately to use the language effectively. However; grammar, structure and vocabulary of a language shouldn’t be underestimated because they are necessary to develop communicative competence and grammatical competence can be classified under a broader term communicative competence. In the article, it is stated that communicative competence can be developed by either exercises in the mother tongue or practice in communicative interaction that has a meaning. Providing the learners with authentic language input in real life context is very important in this aspect. Another point in CLT is that it aims to teach things practically useful to learners in a relaxing manner and encourages the learners to use the language in a meaningful way but it is not necessary to use it in accurate form, so this may be a motivating factor for learners to participate willingly. However; focusing on just meaning and ignoring the form may be a disadvantage for the learners because they may tend to use the language outside the class as they do inside of it, so this situation may cause a problem. Thus; I think both focus and meaning should be given equal importance.
Although CLT is applicable for many educational contexts, it may not be used in some of them because what is appropriate in one particular educational setting may not be appropriate in another. The problems in putting CLT into practice may result from class size, lack of motivation to use English and the concern for examinations. Thus, some aspects of CLT should be improved to be able to apply it in different educational settings with least problem.
REFLECTION #2
ReplyDeletePınar GACAN 1620079
The article named “Communicative Language Teaching” by Nina Spada gives us a critical analysis of Communicative Language Teaching, its interpretation and implementation and its misconceptions by the foreign language instructors. Actually, according to the writer, CLT is undergoing a transformation which includes increased attention to language form and meaning-oriented CLT approach to second language instruction. However, it is said that CLT is about to be disregarded because of some misconceptions and misinterpretations.
Firstly, teachers generally regard CLT method as exclusively focus on meaning type of approach. However, it will be really difficult to teach a language perfectly without taking the learners’ attention to the form. I believe that the theorists know about this much more than the teachers. This is just an extorted view of CLT. CLT is an approach which wants to integrate communication into the language process besides language forms. It will not be beneficial to disregard language forms and focus on communication altogether for the learners because sometimes, some kind of learners such as adult learners, feel a need to see explicit rules or know the grammar structures for some kind of purposes. The second most common misconception on CLT is that it doesn’t provide explicit feedback on learner error. Although we have been taught that students’ making errors is a sign of internalizing the language; a sign of acquisition, the instructors will need to create sufficient time and opportunities to hear the target language so that the learners’ errors will be eventually replaced with target-like forms. In addition, the prospective teachers are taught to use “recast” during correction error. It is the reformulation of a learner’s incorrect utterance while still maintaining a focus on meaning. However, this type of correcting mistakes doesn’t work according to me. I have a student who is in 6th grade now and when I use this strategy, she just doesn’t understand it and isn’t aware of her error during reformulation. Most of the time, I have to repeat the rule explicitly to make her aware of the correct language form. My point of view is also supported by the article. It is stated that more explicit types of feedback on form can lead to higher levels of accuracy and development than implicit forms of correction.
The third misassumption is that CLT means learner-centered teaching. Although group work and learner-centeredness is very significant for giving more control and autonomy to the students for their own learning, according to Long and Porter, group work should be combined with other teacher-fronted activities in L2 classrooms. I also agree with this idea because a teacher should arrange the activities according to the learning styles of the students and this may change from student to student. Including teacher-fronted activities sometimes may help those students who are introvert and uncomfortable during group work activities and therefore unable to learn and engage in the activities. Fourthly, CLT means listening and speaking practice according to the ones who think in the wrong direction. Many theorists state that communicative abilities shouldn’t be treated in isolation from each other and it is impossible to just teach speaking and disregarding the other skills. The learners should also know how to compose in the act of writing, comprehend in the act of reading. In addition, extensive reading should be integrated into students’ lives.
Pinar GACAN
ReplyDelete(continues)
The last misconception is avoidance of the learners’ L1. Although it is better to use the target language in the classrooms for comprehensible input and exposure to the language, we should be able to use L1 if it is very necessary; for example if it hinders communication or understanding of a basic structure. L1 usage is also viewed as scaffolding support according to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. However, the important thing is to arrange the amount of time spent speaking in L1.
All in all, CLT is a method which includes an emphasis on meaning, learner-centered interaction. It also gives priority to fluency over accuracy. I believe that a teacher should be aware of each method and select the suitable style from each of them and form his/her own eclectic method. After reading this article, I realized that I don’t have any misconception on CLT because I’m a proponent of adapting something from each of the methods and I don’t strictly stick to one method. If we have a look at the instruction of English in Turkish schools, I think the situation isn’t pleasant. The aim of the teachers is just to finish the book in the available time. This is in line with the curriculum set by MONE. For example, an English teacher of 6th grades is just trying to cover the book and give the explicit grammar rules to the students. She cannot integrate anything new because even the course book is very loaded and it is impossible for her to finish it in the given time. Applying CLT method in this situation is very difficult for these teachers. This should be the aim of MONE and should be actualized by preparing suitable course books for this approach. Otherwise, it isn’t possible to apply this method in state schools. However, I believe that this method should be taken into account seriously for effective learning of language because the language isn’t just a set of rules and grammar structures. Meaningful communication, authentic materials and dialogues should be integrated into the lessons and course books so that the language learning will come true.
In her work, Spada crystallizes the concept of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), by dealing with some important misconceptions of it and the reasons behind those misconceptions and the actual situation in CLT concept. Firstly she talks about “method” briefly, in general, then basic introduction to CLT and then two important hypotheses that have important affects on the fundamentals and the construction of CLT. After that she addresses the issue of misconceptions and lastly different manifestations of ELT before giving future directions.
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation of ELT before reading this article was more close to its (CLT’s) strong version. Most important things that caused me to interpret CLT like this way were mostly in accordance with those that Spada mentioned in his article. (Some articles written about CLT and its application into EFL or ESL environment) But the situation in which communicative approaches are presented versus “focus on form” approaches in our course books had also an important effect on my, to some extent, misinterpretation. For example: I remember a title like “Communicative approaches: no grammar needed” in one of my course books for the course of “Teaching English to Young Learners”. Under this CLT is dealt with and after this title “focus on form” is presented.
I think most of my friends and prospective teachers perceive CLT as an L2 teaching method in which “grammar” teaching has no place. As stated in the article, it is one the most common misconceptions. After reading article, I see that grammar teaching has a place, but primary focus is on meaning. Implementation of CLT in Turkey is something imaginary, because as I have always said the education system is the problem. Students who are learning English has a very short time in order to achieve the accuracy level in English that is required for passing the examinations they have to pass. Most of the learners of English in Turkey learn that language just in order to pass an exam. So achieving that accuracy level in a very short time is impossible with the implementation of CLT, even with its weaker forms.
SPADA
ReplyDeleteCommunicative competence is the ultimate purpose of communicative language teaching. The underlying message is that foreign language teaching must be concerned with reality: with the reality of communication as it takes place outside the classroom and with the reality of learners as they exist outside and inside the classroom. That is, it is an approach to the teaching of second and foreign languages that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language. It is also referred to as “communicative approach to the teaching of foreign languages” or simply the “communicative approach”. As Spada mentioned in his paper CLT is an approach to L2 instruction which is primarily meaning based and includes attention to both fluency and accuracy. I believe CLT do not distracted attention to language form like some thinks so.
We can say that there is an influence of Krashen on CLT. Krashen suggested a language acquisition approach that rejects the role of explicit instruction in teaching. According to him, 'acquisition’ is a system of subconscious learning processes in which learners acquire a language naturally. ‘Learning,’ on the other hand, is a developing process of formal, conscious knowledge about grammatical rules and the only role of conscious learning is to monitor or edit the output of the acquired system. Learners acquire syntax and vocabulary by getting and understanding input that is slightly beyond their current level of competence and their fluent speaking ability will emerge only with the help of a sufficient quantity of comprehensible input. I strongly agree with Krashen about this comprehensible input hypothesis (‘cause I am a student of Hasanbey hoca ). This notion influenced CLT but not only Comprehensible Input Hypothesis but also CLT do not focus only meaning.
I believe the biggest misconception about CLT is that CLT means teaching only speaking and listening. For many learners, the main uses that they are likely to make of the language are oral getting around in the foreign country if they visit it, talking to visitors from that country, etc. Therefore, they say the emphasis is likely to be on speaking and listening skills. Communication through language happens in both the written and spoken medium, and involves at least two people. Even if they only want to speak in their L2 they should study other skills as well in order to speak well because speaking is the result of L2 learning not its cause. Learners should study all the skills at the same time.
Unfortunately I cannot tell much about CLT in Turkey. Actually in academic environments there are so many work conducted by Turkish researchers is Turkey. However, I cannot say the same thing for its application. At least I have not observed any course used CLT while teaching English during my education. We have learned English with Grammar Teaching Method. Even I am not sure our teachers know what Grammar Teaching Method is. I believe methodology teaching in Turkey should be improved.
CLT is usually can be interpreted as a wide approach to teaching, rather than as a teaching method with a clearly defined set of classroom practices. So, I can say that CLT most often meant as a list of general principles or features.
ReplyDeleteI want to add an example from a classroom in which Communicative Language Teaching is applied. In a communicative classroom for beginners, the teacher might begin by passing out cards, each with a different name printed on it. The teacher then proceeds to model an exchange of introductions in the target language: "Guten Tag. Wie heissen Sie?" Reply: "Ich heisse Wolfie," for example. Using a combination of the target language and gestures, the teacher conveys the task at hand, and gets the students to introduce themselves and ask their classmates for information. They are responding in German to a question in German. They do not know the answers beforehand, as they are each holding cards with their new identities written on them; hence, there is an authentic exchange of information. Later during the class, as a reinforcement listening exercise, the students might hear a recorded exchange between two German freshmen meeting each other for the first time at the Gymnasium doors. Then the teacher might explain, in English, the differences among German greetings in various social situations. Finally, the teacher will explain some of the grammar points and structures used.
I want to mention some misconceptions of CLT. Many instructors are not specific and clear about CLT. In general, CLT puts focus and emphasis on communication with the language. Moreover, in classrooms, CLT is strongly involved in special activities like pair work, group discussion, and role play and so on. Whereas, some misconceptions about CLT still exist. For example, one of the misconceptions is that pair work means role play. Actually, role play is only one of beneficial ways for teacher to employ in improving students’ communicative competence and one way to practice meaningful language in an authentic context. But, pair work and group work are more flexible and useful techniques than role play. Role play especially at very simple level, such as conversation between a doctor and a patient; a teacher and a student or a customer and shopkeeper, may not be used as much as pair work or group work.
Lastly, the opinions and attitudes of the teachers towards CLT vary and this affects the usage of the CLT in Turkey in high school, I know from my friends that English is seen as trivia and unnecessary. However, this was not valid for the students who study English and will enter the exam.
The article “Communicative Language Teaching” by Nina Spada gives us a critical analysis of Communicative Language Teaching, its interpretation and implementation and its misconceptions by the foreign language teachers. before the article, ı see CLT as a speaking focused and beneficial method. ı think the language is closely related to the daily life. the speaking has a pragmatic and authentic function. this method is focused on speaking skill and despite many misconceptions and misinterprettations, ı would certainly use CLT in my classroom. the focus of my lesson may be grammar, listening or writing but ı would integrate the speaking in the lesson. there is no certain definition of CLT. There are lots of proposals and definitions about it, but the teachers should be careful about these misinterpretations. CLT is understood classically as a meaning-focused, learner-centred, communication method. I think it is not just meaning focused. the meaning and the form should be balanced and integrated. for example; even in the university we try to focus on form more than fluency, but this should not be the case. the other misconseption is the issue of learner centered. CLT is thought as a learner centered, of course the group activities and pair works are important, but CLT should not be just learner centered. the teacher should revise them. accroding to the artcle, there are more mistakes in the groupwork environment, so the teahers should ve careful about feedback. for example; in our educatşon system, ı thinl CLT is time consuming job. they just sit on their desks and give the students tasks to do. the students may day dream or chat in the goup but the teacher is not aware of what is going on in his/her desk.the other misconception is that avoidance of learner's L1. ı think there should not be suck strict rules in CLT. when they get difficulty, they can use their native language. this would facilitate their speaking skills. besides, there may be some different culturel elements or idioms.
ReplyDeletethe ideas of teachers about CLT are diffrent from each other. ı think it depends on the educatioanl background. there are also many classical teachers and they just give importance to tests anf exams, so ı think the application of CLT is very limited is our education system.
Selman Eser
ReplyDelete1529973
My understanding of CLT was that it merely integrated communicative skills in addition to what other approaches have to offer. After reading the article, I see I’m not wrong with that. However, I have realized that CLT is more meaning-focused than I have imagined it to be. I could say I’m a fan of Krashen but I didn’t know that his Comprehensible Input hypothesis had such an impact on CLT.
Considering its implementation in Turkey, although not being impossible, it wouldn’t be easy. I know Turkish education system is heavily-exam-oriented, even with the lower grades. Thus, it makes communication a lot less important for students since the exams require formal knowledge of language skills. That means what students need is the knowledge to perform well on examinations, rather than being competent in the communicative aspect of the language. I’m sure that’s not what teachers want, but they have little choice. After all, it’s not quite easy to ignore what learners and authorities expect. There is also the issue of lack of resources and teacher proficiency but they would probably be better in time. However, the system doesn’t seem to be changing for quite some time.
As for the misconceptions regarding CLT; I can understand the first one, “CLT Means an Exclusive Focus on Meaning” considering the theoretical basis of the approach, Comprehensible Input and Interaction hypothesis. I agree that it wouldn’t be possible to acquire accuracy without focus on form. Even with Natural Approach I consider focus on form as a very effective way to speed up acquisition and enhance accuracy.
The second misconception mentioned by author is “CLT Means No Explicit Feedback on Learner Error”. Personally, I considered recast as an effective way to correct errors as long as it was just the form that is affected. I would prefer explicit correction when the problem is with the content. To my surprise it doesn’t seem to be received well by students but rather explicit feedback is suggested. Either way, I agree that learners need to receive feedback to correct their errors.
The third misconception is “CLT Means Learner-centered Teaching”. I kind of agree that one of the most effective ways of providing opportunities for communication for students is pair or group work activities. However, even then research shows that collaborative learning should be backed up with other teacher-fronted activities.
Lastly, “CLT Means Listening and Speaking Practice” misconception is mentioned. This might be both because of the theoretical basis of the approach or the fact that communication is mostly carried out through listening and speaking. However, as mentioned in the article as well linguistic skills should not be separated from communicative abilities. I also believe that extensive reading is quite useful as long as proper guidance is provided.