Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Is Communicative Language Teaching A Panacea in ELT - Student and Teacher Perspectives
Is Communicative Language Teaching A Panacea in ELT - Student and Teacher Perspectives
Is Communicative Language Teaching A Panacea in ELT - Student and Teacher Perspectives
net/publication/272493331
CITATIONS READS
3 1,247
1 author:
Ali Karakaş
Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
37 PUBLICATIONS 96 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The scope of linguistic diversity in the language policies, practices and linguistic landscape of a Turkish EMI University View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Karakaş on 19 February 2015.
Ali KARAKAŞ1
Abstract
This exploratory research sets out to investigate the interrelatedness between theoretical
assumptions and practical dimensions of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), viewed
as a cornerstone language teaching method. The focal goal is grounded in determining
whether CLT alone is an all-cure approach that may resolve the long-standing problem of
deficient English language teaching and learning in the Turkish context. To this end, the
data were collected from two groups of people, i.e. university teachers and students, via
survey questionnaires. The findings show that although both students and teachers had
ambiguous views and concerns regarding the effectiveness and implementation of CLT,
teachers were keener to gravitate towards implementing CLT. Albeit its strong theoretical
assumptions, CLT has seemed far from being a single answer to effective language teaching
due to some other external and internal variables, which are presented and discussed in the
main body of the paper.
1. Introduction
In Communicative Language Teaching (hereafter CLT) has been in existence
as a teaching methodology since the 1970s, and has been widely accepted as
a branded language teaching approach in many contexts where English is
learned and taught. There is a raft of critical reasons why CLT has become
so widespread in the teaching of English. That the purpose of language
learning is to acquire „communicative competence‟ with a focus on meaning
and communication is among the most salient reasons (Nunan, 1989). As
such, an assumption of this kind can be seen as “a shift of attention from
the language system as an end in itself to the successful use of that system
in context; that is to say, from an emphasis on form to an emphasis on
communication” (Cook, 2003, p. 36). Therefore, it may be claimed that
reactions to the traditional methods and approaches such as grammar
translation method (GTM) and audio-lingual approach led to the birth of
CLT, which supplanted these methods in the years to come as the prominent
language teaching method, with a shift “… from the teaching of discrete
grammatical structures to the fostering of communicative ability”
(Warschauer & Kern, 2000, p. 1). In the light of these changes witnessed for
more than four decades in the teaching of English, this present research
aims at exploring teachers‟ and students‟ perspectives on CLT, with a further
consideration of its implementation, particularly in a non-English speaking
site, Turkey.
1
Bio: Ali KARAKAŞ is a research assistant in the Faculty of Education at Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Turkey. He holds a BA
degree from the University of Uludag, Bursa, Turkey. He was accepted to the Integrated PhD program in Applied Linguistics by the
University of Southampton, UK. Currently, he is continuing his PhD at the same university. He has presented papers in national and
international conferences and published articles in reputable journals and educational magazines. His research interests include English as
a Lingua Franca, Language Teacher Education, Applied Phonetics, and Computer Assisted Language Learning. Contact:
akarakas@mehmetakif.edu.tr
1
Communicative Language Teaching A. Karakaş
2
Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 1 Issue: 1 1-20, 2013
to learn it rather than attempting to learn how to use it. In this regard, two
versions of CLT are discussed by scholars: weak version and strong version.
In Howatt‟s (1984) words, the weak version “…stresses the importance of
providing learners with opportunities to use their English with
communicative purposes and, characteristically, attempts to integrate such
activities into a wider program of language teaching”, whereas the strong
version claims that “language is acquired through communication, so that it
is not merely a question of activating an existing but inert knowledge of the
language system itself” (quoted in Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 155). Howatt
(1984) refers to the weak version as „learning to use‟ English but the strong
version as „using English to learn it‟ (in Richards & Rodgers, p. 155).
However, weak version is criticized for not fully engaging learners in
language use to learn it. For instance, footprints of structuralism appear still
available in the weak version like combination of linguistic study, and
controlled practice and wide use of PPP (present-practice-produce) principle.
However, strong version is highly appreciated, as it intends to get learners to
experience language use through comprehensible and meaningful input,
real-life tasks, and project-based activities.
4
Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 1 Issue: 1 1-20, 2013
materials design and methodology” (p.76). Also, Tan (2005) questioned the
role of culture in the applicability and success of CLT in English language
teaching, and she concluded that CLT is not entirely suitable for primary
school children in Singapore. Other writers such as Ellis (1996) and Collins
(1999) argued that CLT is inappropriate in terms of cultural aspects in Asian
contexts. Besides, the materials used such as text books claim to have
notional-functional syllabuses but in fact they are just based on the weak
version of CLT.
Added to these criticisms, Stern (1992) points out that CLT has become more
successful in ESL (English as a second language) settings, but failed to make
classroom interaction as communicative as possible in EFL (English as a
foreign language) contexts. In ESL contexts, learners have a real need to use
language, and their learning is usually tutored with native English teachers.
Yet, in EFL settings, learners‟ exposure to language is confined to only
classroom instruction, with limited class hours, which means poor language
input for learners. Besides, many problems are encountered in such
contexts relating to the proficiency of non-native teachers, availability of
required materials, crowded classrooms, teacher-dependent learners. More
recently, Bax (2003) emphasizes the significance of the local needs and
conditions of particular EFL contexts by suggesting that “good teachers
everywhere pay attention to context; good training courses pay attention to
context” (p.286). In his study, he found that teachers‟ attention to context in
CLT was secondary; even worse, the inexperienced teachers were seen to act
against the context. Finally, he concludes that learning context together with
learner variables, which are the key factors in successful language learning,
should be recognized. CLT is also criticized by scholars, from a different
perspective, for propagating “the native speaker‐based notion of
communicative competence” in the age when non-native speakers of English
far outnumber the native speakers of English (Alptekin, 2002, p. 57).
Alptekin (2002) writes that this model is based on standardized native
speaker norms and he, therefore, finds the model “utopian, unrealistic, and
constraining” in respect to the current role of English as a global lingua
franca (p. 58). Emphasizing the need of a new concept of communicative
competence, he puts forward the notion of „intercultural communicative
competence‟, which occurs both in local and international contexts of
language use including native and non-native speakers. What can be
concluded from the weaknesses cited above is that CLT without adaptation
and innovation to a certain educational context of teaching, and without
paying attention to the profile of the speakers of the language (be they
natives or non-natives) is not a cure-all teaching approach to overcome the
difficulties encountered in the teaching and learning of English.
5
Communicative Language Teaching A. Karakaş
work are used, and its expectations from teachers are misjudged by the
critics. Despite his influential defence for CLT, he himself concedes that “CLT
is by no means the final answer” as a teaching method, and adds that a
revolution in language teaching is inevitable due to the innovations in
language teaching, but he stresses that whatever changes and innovations
take place, they should be built upon the main building-blocks of CLT (p.14).
2. Methodology
6
Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 1 Issue: 1 1-20, 2013
fourth of the total number of student participants (n=8). Their ages ranged
from 21 to 24, thereby having a very narrow age range. The distribution of
teacher participants on grounds of their gender was more balanced and even
than that of students, with a total number of eight female and seven male
teachers. Their age range was, however, fairly broader than that of students
in that the youngest teacher was 26 years old whilst the oldest was 41. The
participants were randomly selected, and the participation in the study was
voluntary. The overarching objective was to offer a critical examination of
CLT with specific reference to experiences of these university teachers and
students. All teachers were Turkish, with a teaching experience varying from
less than 2 years to more than 10 years. Seven of the teachers reported that
they were not exposed to CLT before, but eight of them reported to have
received some training in it during their undergraduate education.
3.1 Teachers
Question 1, which asked teachers (Ts) to comment on the most important
aspect of CLT in their opinions, was answered by a minority of the
participants. Many skipped this question without writing any remarks, and
those having answered it (19.35 %) pointed out that the shift from working
on linguistic structures to interactively using language to learn it was
radically revolutionary in CLT. In response to question 2, which asked
whether they used CLT in their teaching, a few participants (16.13 %)
reported that they used CLT while teaching. Notwithstanding the claims that
CLT is the dominant teaching method, these two questions indicated that
the majority of the practitioners denied the defining characteristic of CLT,
7
Communicative Language Teaching A. Karakaş
8
Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 1 Issue: 1 1-20, 2013
Part 2 deals with the issues that surround CLT in implementation. Question
4 explores the problems that teachers encountered while implementing CLT
in their classrooms. In response to question 4 (Q), all the participants stated
that they were confronted with a variety of problems, as the table below
illustrates. Despite being varied, the problems mainly pertain to the
proficiency level of students, the lack of time, the examination format, and
the unsuitability of the available materials for CLT implementation. When
they were asked to give any further explanation for the problems they
perceived relevant to their situation, and to identify any other limitations
that precluded them from effectively implementing CLT, the vast majority of
practitioners reported that students‟ proficiency level and their learning
styles (e.g. shyness) made CLT difficult to implement, and some students felt
uncomfortable with CLT. Here, the data indicate that there are a range of
problems coming mainly from the learning context and student-based
factors (see Table 2). Similar pitfalls were earlier unclosed by scholars, such
as Bax (2003), Tan (2004, 2005), Jarvis and Atsilarat (2004) and Li (1998).
3.2 Students
The student questionnaire comprises two parts: the first part explored
students‟ attitudes, and the second one required students to rate the given
statements depending on their beliefs about CLT. In the first part (see
Appendix 2), it is clear to see that students differed in their preferences for
accuracy and fluency, which is in stark line with teachers‟ preferences as
9
Communicative Language Teaching A. Karakaş
many of them expressed different views when asked separately to opt for
either of the two (see Table 1, S1). Both for fluency and accuracy, students
were almost equally divided into two poles in their responses. It might be
surmised that students attached importance to the integration of these
teaching styles, thinking that one would be incomplete without the other for
effective teaching. Most students (n=21, 67%) reported that they do not feel
discouraged from using language actively because of personality and
affective factors such as shyness, loss of face or an unwillingness, and
speaking English publicly; however, they hesitated to question the teacher‟s
teaching techniques if even they have a sound reason, which is an evident
indication of students‟ reliance on teacher-fronted learning (see S3, S4 & S5).
Although some students (n=5, S6) expressed a preference for struggling to
communicate by themselves without teacher and textbook dominancy, the
vast majority of them (n=26, 83, 87 %) were in favour of teachers‟
explanation and overt correction, namely, a deductive teacher-centred
learning (see S8 & S9). These views showed inconsistency with some of the
main premises of CLT: learning should be learner-centred and inductive, and
errors should be regarded as constructive feedback signalling the progress,
and should not be corrected by the teacher as long as there is no danger of
communication breakdown. It is the teacher, as a facilitator, who should
guide them towards self-correction, thereby helping students gain autonomy
and take responsibility for their own learning. The overall summary of
students‟ views on learning styles regarding CLT is given in Table 4.
10
Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 1 Issue: 1 1-20, 2013
The second part of the questionnaire investigated student views about the
key assumptions of CLT (statements 10-17) in relation to teaching. The
results reveal that the teacher is seen as the sole input provider, and thus
should generate English as much as he can, but apart from that, the
majority of the students wanted the teacher to explicitly supply them with
the required information about the subject content and while doing so, the
teacher is expected to use a good and fluent English as the ideal model to
imitate (see S10, S11, S12). However, there was a lack of agreement among
students on the choice of which type of tasks (i.e. functional or grammatical)
should be given much precedence by the teacher. Except for hesitant
students, half of the rest favoured functional tasks, whereas the other half
took side with grammatical tasks (see S13). More than one-third of the
students were of the opinion that speaking capabilities should have much
weight over the other major skills and, and hence the teacher should attend
to this fact in earnest (S14). In terms of the material choice, nearly all
students (n=27,87,09 %) supported the view that the teacher should make
use of authentic materials in the delivery of the lessons (S15). However, with
regards to the medium of learning and teaching, slightly more than half of
the students (n=17, 54,80 %) opted for English-only, while less than one-
thirds (n=6, 19,39 %) were opposed to the delivery of lessons in solely
English.
class differed from their previous classes in secondary or high school, the
overwhelming majority of students (n=27, 87,09 %) responded saying that
that they were not alike. The things students liked in their present classes
were different from those in secondary/high schools for many students
(n=18, 64,52 %). What they disliked at their previous learning contexts
appeared to be the same for the majority of the students (67,74 %), and the
problems they encountered in secondary schools and their present English
classes were recognized to be tremendously different (83,87 %). What they
liked and disliked regarding English language teaching are outlined as
follows: many students complained that classes were too crowded; they
disliked teacher-centred classes, but they were not willing to communicate
through language. Some students complained about too much memorization
put on them as a strain. A few students even confessed that they just
studied to pass their exams and get a diploma, namely, they had no concern
for improving their language skills at that time.
The joint results obtained from teachers and students overlapped with each
other and also with some key tenets of CLT in some points, and diverged at
other points. So, if a general picture is drawn based on the results, it is clear
that both teachers and students found themselves trapped in a dilemma:
they welcomed the main tenets of CLT in principle, with a desire to employ
them, but it was hard to put CLT into practice. These findings echoed what
Sarıçoban and Tılfarlıoğlu (1999) found with language teachers, and Jarvis
and Atsilarat (2004) with both students and their teachers who
acknowledged the positive aspects of CLT but remained in doubt concerning
its practical applications in actual classroom contexts due to some barriers
such as overcrowded classes, and inexperienced teachers. Related to the
students‟ concerns were the delivery of teaching and learning via explicit or
implicit ways and through English-only or mingled with the mother
language, immediate error correction or let-it-pass only if communication is
not subject to impediment, strong attachment to traditional teacher roles
(e.g. the authority, transmitter of knowledge, near-native like for imitation,
etc.). This was in line with the findings of Anderson (1993) whose student
participants were also reluctant to shift to CLT-driven English teaching.
However, in congruent with CLT tenets, it was their wish to produce
language, particularly speaking, and the combination of fluency and
accuracy in the delivery of language teaching, which are the points
considerably emphasized in the strong version of CLT. Unlike students in
Tan‟s (2005) research who considered CLT culturally unsuitable for the
Singaporean context, participants in this study did not level criticisms
against CLT from a cultural perspective at all.
Despite the fact that almost all teachers expressed that they comprehended
and applied CLT in their teaching, they faced a variety of problems during
the implementation process. Moreover, a great number of students favoured
a deductive teacher-fronted learning, which totally contradicts with CLT
tenets. Previous research mirrors that such problems have been encountered
in other contexts in implementing CLT as well (see Anderson 1993; Li 1998;
Tan, 2004, 2005; Hiep 2005). The common proposal of researchers is to
12
Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 1 Issue: 1 1-20, 2013
adapt CLT to suit the local needs and conditions without a wholesale
acceptance or a blanket rejection. However, there are still oppositions to
such proposals, with a claim that the value of CLT is still under question
(see Bax 2003). For Bax (2003), failure to question the CLT paradigm may
originate in the idea that “a country without CLT is somehow backward” (p.
279). Therefore, questioning CLT along with its effectiveness and context-
sensitive modifications to CLT may prove to be fruitful in taking language
teaching forward in EFL contexts. Thereupon, Jarvis and Atsilarat (2004)
proposed a context-based approach as an alternative to CLT, which,
however, did fail to revive any interest from researchers.
4. Conclusions
The main objective of this paper was to examine Turkish teachers‟ and
students‟ views on CLT. Furthermore, CLT was also questioned to be able
determine whether it was a cure-all approach in language teaching in
Turkey. As for the first research question, it was found that both teachers
and students had indecisive views on CLT, and they shared common
concerns at some levels, especially the difficulties perceived in the
application of CLT. Teachers seemed more willing to move into CLT in
essence than students who showed a strong attachment to the principles of
previous teaching methods such as GTM and audio-lingual approach. This is
an obvious indication of students‟ lack of autonomy, and reluctance to take
responsibility for their own learning. As the underlying reason, previous
learning experiences, having centred on GTM and audio-lingual method,
might be pointed out, as students were made teacher-dependent in language
learning. However, it would be rather short-sighted to discount other factors
that paved the way to the current situation such as contextual factors (e.g.
culture, local needs), institutional constrictions (e.g. large class sizes, limited
class hours per week), insufficient training of language teachers for CLT,
poor proficiency of students and misperceptions of CLT by educators (see Li,
1998). Based on these reasons, the second research question, which asked
whether CLT might be an absolute solution to the problem of deficient
language learning/teaching in Turkey, was answered with negation on
account of the grounds cited above. CLT itself, as also maintained by other
researchers (e.g. Anderson, 1993; Li, 1998; Tan, 2004, 2005), is not a sole
answer or the best approach to effective language teaching. Overall, the
current situation indicates that both teachers and students referred to the
weak version of CLT in their expressions of views, as they could not manage
to draw a sharp line between the principles of structural and communicative
approaches, and remained in the blurry area (see Richards & Rodgers, p.
155).
It is worth mentioning that this research suffers from some limitations. First
and foremost, it is clear that the size of the group and the results prevent
any generalizations across the country. Thus, the findings are limited to the
setting and subjects of the study. In a different context with other
participants, other researchers may reach findings which may highlight
different issues and problems. The study also failed to take various variables
into account that might affect the views of students and teachers, such as
13
Communicative Language Teaching A. Karakaş
their previous learning experiences, age and gender factor, among many
others. However, it contributes to literature in the Turkish context by serving
as scientific evidence to the debates over CLT, which has so far remained
incomplete in terms of scientific basis. Besides, the inclusion of university
students and teachers as subjects was a distinguishing factor that
differentiated this study from previous studies. All in all, this study has just
ignited a spark as a preliminary and descriptive research. Hence, there is a
burning need for large scale research that will provide us a more concrete
picture, including other stakeholders, such as administrators and
curriculum developers.
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Julia Huettner for her valuable
comments and constructive feedback on an earlier draft of this paper. My
thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers for their comments on the review
version of this paper and the journal editor Dr. Mehmet Özcan for his
rigorous effort in the editorial process. I would like to wholeheartedly extend
my gratitude to the participants for their participation in this study. Last but
not least, I owe a big thanks to my fiancée, Münevver Mehtap Çeliksoy, for
her help during the process of data analysis.
References
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence. ELT
Journal, 56 (1), 57-64.
Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching
English in China? Pros and Cons. System, 4 (21), 471-482.
Bachman, L. F. (1991) What Does Language Testing Have to Offer? TESOL
quarterly, 25(4), 671-704.
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching.
ELT Journal, 57 (3), 278–87.
Breen, M. & Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of the commutative
curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 89-112.
Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. (2001). The essentials of a communicative
curriculum in language teaching. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.),
Innovation in English language teaching: A reader (pp. 9-26). London:
Routledge.
Brumfit, C. J. (1979). „Communicative‟ Language Teaching: an Educational
Perspective, in Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K. (Ed.), The
communicative approach to language teaching, (1st ed). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bygate, M. (2001). Speaking. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds), The Cambridge
guide toteaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied
Lingusitics, 1, 1-47.
14
Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 1 Issue: 1 1-20, 2013
15
Communicative Language Teaching A. Karakaş
Appendices
Appendix 1
Teacher Questionnaire
16
Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 1 Issue: 1 1-20, 2013
4. Have you experienced any problems when implementing CLT in your classroom?
_ YES (please go to 4.1 and then to 5) _ NO (please go to 5)
4.1 If yes, please tick _ any problems that you find relevant to your situation.
Please use the space below to identify any other limitations that prevent you from
successfully implementing CLT.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
17
Communicative Language Teaching A. Karakaş
Appendix 2
Student Questionnaire
Dear student,
I am an IPhD student at the University of Southampton in Applied Linguistics. I am
conducting a study on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) as part of the course
entitled “Critical Appraisal of Language Teaching Methodologies.” You are kindly invited to
take part in the study. Your participation is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw any
time. All the data collected will be stored by the researcher in his personal computer, and
destroyed at the end of the study. To protect confidentiality, you are not asked to provide your
name or your student ID.
The data will be collected via the questionnaire below, prepared to examine your attitudes
towards CLT. The answers to the survey will be used only in accordance with research
objectives and will be kept confidential. Thank you for participation.
Part 1: Attitudes toward CLT ( )
True False
1. I want my English to be as accurate as possible even if I am a little
less fluent.
2. I want my English to be as fluent as possible even if I am a little less
accurate.
3. I will lose face and feel very embarrassed if I make a mistake or ask a
question in the classroom.
4. I do not like speaking in front of the class.
5. It is impolite for me to disagree with the teacher even though I may
have a good reason.
6. I prefer learning from my teacher to learning independently.
7. I would rather learn English by struggling to communicate with my
own efforts.
8. I prefer my teacher to explain the content of a particular topic
explicitly giving me examples.
9. I want my teacher to correct my errors immediately.
18
Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA Vol: 1 Issue: 1 1-20, 2013
18. In part 2, from question number 10-17, can any statement describe the ways your teacher
teaches you?
_ Yes (please go to 16 and continue to the end) _ NO (please go to 17 and continue to the end)
19. Please tick the box or boxes which matches the ways your teacher teaches.
Statement No
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
20. Is your present English class similar or different from your previous English class in
secondary school? ___ Similar ___ Different
Source: Jarvis & Atsilarat (2004)
19