The
“communicative approach to the teaching of foreign languages” — also known as
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) or the “communicative approach” — emphasizes learning a language through genuine
communication. Learning a new language is easier and more enjoyable when it is
truly meaningful.
Communicative
teaching is based on the work of sociolinguists who theorized that an effective
knowledge of a language is more than merely knowing vocabulary and rules of
grammar and pronunciation. Learners need to be able to use the language
appropriately in any business or social context.
Over
the last three decades, theorists have discussed (and continue to discuss) the
exact definition of communicative competence. They do agree, however, that
meaningful communication supports language learning and that classroom
activities must focus on the learner’s authentic needs to communicate
information and ideas.
Grammar,
pronunciation, and vocabulary are, of course, necessary parts of effective
communication. With the communicative method two primary approaches may be
taken. Some teachers prefer to teach a rule, then follow it with practice.
Most, though, feel grammar will be naturally discovered through meaningful
communicative interaction.
The
communicative approach is a flexible method rather than a rigorously defined
set of teaching practices. It can best be defined with a list of general
principles. In Communicative Language Teaching (1991), expert David Nunan lists these five basic characteristics:
1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the learning process itself.
1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the learning process itself.
4.
An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important
contributing elements to classroom learning.
5.
An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activities outside
the classroom.
As
these features show, 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.
Advantage Of the communicative Method
Richards and Rodgers (2001) have reviewed a number of people’s works on
CLT and described several distinguishing features of it. As “communicative competence”
is the desired goal, in CLT, meaning is paramount (Finocchiaro & Brumfit,
1983, cited by Richards and Rodgers, 2001). In socio-cognitive perspectives,
language is viewed as a vehicle of conveying meaning, and knowledge is
transmitted through communication involving two parts, for example, speakers
and listeners, and writers and readers, but is constructed through negotiation.
As a consequence, “communication is not only a matter of following conventions
but also of negotiating through and about the conventions themselves. It is a
convention-creating as well as convention-following activity (Breen &
Candlin, 2001, p.10)”. Therefore, there are three elements involved in the
underlying learning theory: communication principle, task-based principle, and
meaningfulness principle (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.161). Based on this
perception, when applied to language learning, “functional activities” and
“social interaction activities” (Littlewood, 1981) are consequently selected
according to how well they engage the learner in meaning and authentic language
use; learning is interpersonal to learn to communicate; attempt to communicate
may be encouraged from the very beginning; dialogues, if used, centre around
communicative functions and not normally memorized; and contextualization is
basic premise; drilling may occur, but peripherally; any device that helps to
communicate and understand is acceptable (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983,
cited by Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.156). To some extent, that is to say,
students do not simply learn the linguistic structures and grammar rules.
Rather, they should be actively making meaning through activities such as
collaborative problem solving, writing for a purpose, discussion of topics of
genuine interest, and reading, viewing and responding to authentic materials
(Murphy, 2000).
Since knowledge and learning are viewed as socially constructed through
negotiation according to socio-cognitive perspectives (Breen & Candlin,
2001), another dimension of CLT is learner-centred and experience-based. “With interactive communicative language use
as the call of the day, communicative processes became as important as
linguistic product, and instruction became more learner-centered and less structurally
driven” (Kern & Warschauer, 2000, p.5). In another word, in CLT context,
learners are seen as active participants in the construction of knowledge,
rather than passive recipients of information provided by the teacher or the
textbook. In contrast, language teachers are no longer viewed as the authority
of the knowledge, playing a dominant role. Rather, they share different roles
such as communication facilitater, independent participant, needs analyst,
counselor, and group process manager (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.167) to
create more fascinating experiences for the learners.
Besides the above features, Richards and Rodgers (2001) describe other
significant characteristics of this approach including its efforts to make
tasks and language relevant to a target group of learners through an analysis
of genuine, realistic situations, its emphasis on the use of authentic,
from-life materials, and its attempt to create a secure, nonthreatening
atmosphere. All these attempts also follow the major principles of
communicative view of language and language learning: helping learners learn a
language through authentic and meaningful communication, which involves a
process of creative construction, to achieve fluency. In this vein, in terms of
classroom activity, it includes group work, task-work, information-gap
activities, and projects.
The
Weaknesses Of the communicative method
Yet, inevitably, despite these outstanding characteristics, CLT also
have weaknesses. Schmitt (2000) argued that CLT needs supportive vocabulary for
functional language use but it gives little guidance about how to handle
vocabulary. However, it has been now realized that mere exposure to language
and practice with functional communication will not ensure the proficiency in
language learning, so current best practice includes “both a principled
selection of vocabulary, often according to frequency lists, and an instruction
methodology that encourages meaningful engagement with words over a number of
recyclings” (p.14). Stern (1992) also pointed out that CLT approach puts an
excessive emphasis on the single concept “communication” so that “in order to
account for all varieties and aspects of language teaching we either stretch
the concept of communication so much that it loses any distinctive meaning, or
we accept its limitations and then find ourselves in the predicament of the
“method” solution” (p. 14). Some people criticized that as CLT focus on
learner-centered approach, while in some accounts of CLT, learners bring
preconception of what teaching and learning should be like, which when
unrealized can lead to learner confusion and resentment (Henner-Stanchina &
Riley, 1978, cited by Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
In addition, some people contended that CLT has not given an adequate
account of EFL teaching despite its initial growth in foreign language teaching
in Europe (Li, 2001). Stern (1992) argued that one of the most difficult
problems is making classroom learning communicative is the absence of native
speakers. Apparently, CLT are more successful in English as a Second Language
(ESL) context because students usually have a very supportive learning environment
outside school. They have more chances to be exposed to the authentic contact
with native speakers and the target language, which reinforces what they learn
in class. Besides, they have the motivation to work on oral English because
they need it in their lives. In contrast, in English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) context, due to some physical limitations, such as the purpose of
learning English, learning environments, teachers’ English proficiency, and the
availability of authentic English materials, CLT meets much more difficulties
during its application.
confronted by language teachers but it has a great potential that gain
the apparent popularity in language teaching and learning domain. It also needs
to realize that there In summary, CLT cannot be seen as a panacea for the
problems that have been isn’t a fix framework of CLT. As learners and the
learning context are dynamic, when CLT is applied to a certain context, the
adaptation and innovation of it is necessary.
