Communicative language teaching: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:12, 24 May 2023

Latest revision as of 11:46, 23 June 2025

(23 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Approach to language education}}

'''Communicative language teaching''' ('''CLT'''), or the '''communicative approach''' ('''CA) '''), is an [[language-teaching approach|approach]] to [[language teaching]] that emphasizes [[Social interaction|interaction]] as both the means and the ultimate goal of study.

Learners in environmentssettings usingwhich communicationutilise toCLT learn and practice the target language bythrough interactionsthe following activities: communicating with one another and the instructor, in the studytarget language; ofstudying "authentic texts" (those written in the target language for purposes other than language learning),; and the use ofusing the language both in class and outside of class.

LearnersTo promote language skills in all types of situations, learners converse about personal experiences with partners, and instructors teach topics outside of the realm of traditional grammar to promote language skills in all types of situations. That methodCLT also claims to encourage learners to incorporate their personal experiences into their language learning environment and to focus on the learning experience, in addition to the learning of the target language.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nunan|first=David|date=1991-01-01|title=Communicative Tasks and the Language Curriculum|jstor=3587464|journal=TESOL Quarterly|volume=25|issue=2|pages=279–295|doi=10.2307/3587464|citeseerx=10.1.1.466.1153}}</ref>

According to CLT, the goal of language education is the ability to communicate in the target language.<ref name=":9">{{Cite book|title=Communicative competence : theory and classroom practice : texts and contexts in second language learning|last=J.|first=Savignon, Sandra|date=1997-01-01|publisher=McGraw-Hill|isbn=978-0-07-083736-2|oclc=476481905}}{{pn|date=January 2023}}</ref> This is in contrast to previous views in which [[grammar–translation method|grammatical competence]] was commonly given top priority.<ref name=":7" />

CLT also positions the teacher as a facilitator, rather than an instructor. Furthermore, theThe approach is a non-methodical system that does not use a textbook series to teach the target language but works on developing sound oral and verbal skills prior to reading and writing.

== Background ==

=== Societal influences ===

The rise of CLT in the 1970s and the early 1980s was partly in response to the lack of success with traditional language teaching methods{{fact|date=March 2024}}<!--How exactly was there 'lack of success'? It's not as if people hadn't succeeded in learning the languages they studied during all the decades and centuries in which grammar-translation was the standard approach.--> and partly by the increase in demand for language learning. In Europe, the advent of the [[European Common Market]], an economic predecessor to the [[European Union]], led to migration in Europe and an increased number of people who needed to learn a foreign language for work or personal reasons. Meanwhile, more children were given the opportunity to learn foreign languages in school, as the number of secondary schools offering languages rose worldwide as part of a general trend of curriculum-broadening and modernization, with foreign-language study no longer confined to the elite academies. In Britain, the introduction of [[comprehensive schools]], which offered foreign-language study to all children, rather than to the select few of the elite [[grammar schools]], greatly increased the demand for language learning.<ref name=":0" />

The increased demand included many learners who struggled with traditional methods such as [[grammar translation]], which involves the direct translation of sentence after sentence as a way to learn the language. Those methods assumed that students aimed to master the target language and were willing to study for years before expecting to use the language in real life. However, those assumptions were challenged by adult learners, who were busy with work, and by schoolchildren who were less academically gifted and so could not devote years to learning before they could use the language. Educators realized that to motivate those students an approach with a more immediate reward was necessary,<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Communicative Language Teaching in Practice|last=Mitchell|first=Rosamond|publisher=Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research|year=1988|isbn=978-0-948003-87-5|___location=Great Britain|pages=23–24, 64–68}}</ref> and they began to use CLT, an approach that emphasizes communicative ability and yielded better results.<ref>Richards, Jack C. ''Communicative language teaching today''. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 2005.</ref>{{page needed|date=March 2024}}{{clarify|date=March 2024}}<!--How exactly were the 'better results' established?-->

=== Academic influences ===

Already in the late 19th Centurycentury, the American educator [[John Dewey]] was writing about learning by doing,<ref>1897 My Pedagogic Creed</ref>, and later that learning should be based on the learner's interests and experiences.<ref>1910. How We Think.</ref> In 1963, American psychologist [[David Ausubel]] released his book ''The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning'' calling for a holistic approach to learners teaching through meaningful material. American educator Clifford Prator published a paper in 1965 calling for teachers to turn from an emphasis on manipulation (drills) towards communication where learners were free to choose their own words. <ref>Prator, Clifford H. "Development of a Manipulation-Communication Scale. NAFSA Studies and Papers." English Language Series 10 (1965).</ref> In 1966, the sociolinguist [[Dell Hymes]] posited the concept of [[communicative competence]] considerably broadening out [[Noam Chomsky]]'s syntactic concept of competence. Also, in 1966, American psychologist Jerome Bruner wrote that learners construct their own understanding of the world based on their experiences and prior knowledge, and teachers should provide scaffolding to promote this.<ref>1966. Toward a Theory of Instruction.</ref> Bruner appears to have been influenced by [[Lev Vygotsky]], a Russian psychologist whose [[zone of proximal development]] is a similar concept.

Later in the 1970's1970s British linguist [[M.A.K. Halliday]] studied how language functions are expressed through grammar.<ref name=":8">Littlewood, William. ''Communicative language teaching: An introduction''. Cambridge University Press, 1981, pp. 541-545541–545</ref>

The development of communicative language teaching was bolstered by these academic ideas. Before the growth of communicative language teaching, the primary method of language teaching was [[Language pedagogy#The oral approach and situational language teaching|situational language teaching]], a method that was much more clinical in nature and relied less on direct communication. In Britain, applied linguists began to doubt the efficacy of situational language teaching, partly in response to Chomsky's insights into the nature of language. Chomsky had shown that the structural theories of language then prevalent could not explain the variety that is found in real communication.<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching|last1=Richards|first1=Jack|last2=Rodgers|first2=Theodore|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2014|isbn=978-1-107-67596-4|___location=Cambridge|pages=23–24, 84–85|edition=3nd}}</ref> In addition, applied linguists like Christopher Candlin and [[Henry Widdowson]] observed that the current model of language learning was ineffective in classrooms. They saw a need for students to develop communicative skill and functional competence in addition to mastering language structures.<ref name=":10" />

In 1966, the linguist and anthropologist [[Dell Hymes]] developed the concept of [[communicative competence]], which redefined what it meant to "know" a language. In addition to speakers having mastery over the structural elements of language, they must also be able to use those structural elements appropriately in a variety of speech domains.<ref name=":9" /> That can be neatly summed up by Hymes's statement: "There are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless."<ref name=":0" /> The idea of communicative competence stemmed from Chomsky's concept of the [[linguistic competence]] of an ideal native speaker.<ref name=":9" /> Hymes did not make a concrete formulation of communicative competence, but subsequent authors, notably Michael Canale, have tied the concept to language teaching.<ref name=":11">{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/applin/I.1.1 |title=Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing |year=1980 |last1=Canale |first1=M. |last2=Swain |first2=M. |journal=Applied Linguistics |pages=1–47 }}</ref> Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence in terms of three components: grammatical competence, [[sociolinguistic]] competence, and strategic competence. Canale (1983) refined the model by adding discourse competence, which contains the concepts of [[cohesion (linguistics)|cohesion]] and [[coherence (linguistics)|coherence]].<ref name=":11" />

Line 32:

==Classroom activities==

CLT teachers choose classroom activities based on what they believe is going towill be most effective for students developing communicative abilities in the [[Target language (translation)|target language]] (TL). Oral activities are popular among CLT teachers, as opposedcompared to grammar drills or reading and writing activities, because they include active conversation and creative, unpredicted responses from students. Activities vary based on the level of language class they are being used in. They promote collaboration, fluency, and comfort in the TL. The six activities listed and explained below are commonly used in CLT classrooms.<ref name=":0"/>

=== Role-play ===

Line 108:

Where confusion in the application of CLT techniques is readily apparent is in classroom settings. Swan suggests that CLT techniques often suggest prioritizing the "function" of a language (what one can do with the language knowledge one has) over the "structure" of a language (the grammatical systems of the language).<ref name=":3" /> That priority can leave learners with serious gaps in their knowledge of the formal aspects of their target language. Swan also suggests that in CLT techniques, the languages that a student might already know are not valued or employed in instructional techniques.<ref name=":3" />

Further critique of CLT techniques in classroom teaching can be attributed to Elaine Ridge. One of her criticisms of CLT is that it falsely implies that there is a general consensus regarding the definition of "communicative competence," which CLT claims to facilitate. Because there is no such agreement, students may be seen to be in possession of "communicative competence" without being able to make full or even adequate use of the language. That individuals are proficient in a language does not necessarily entail that they can make full use of that language, which can limit an individual's potential with that language, especially if that language is an endangered language. That criticism largely has to do with the fact that CLT is often highly praised and is popular though it may not necessarily be the best method of language teaching.<ref name=":4">{{cite journal |doi=10.5842/21-0-533 |title=Communicative language teaching: Time for review? |year=2014 |last1=Ridge |first1=Elaine |journal=Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus |volume=21 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Ridge also notes that CLT has nonspecific requirements of its teachers, as there is no completely standard definition of what CLT is, which is especially true for the teaching of grammar, the formal rules governing the standardized version of the language in question. Some critics of CLT suggest that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and instead allows students to produce utterances, despite being grammatically incorrect, as long as the interlocutor can get some meaning from them.<ref name=":4" />

Line 121:

*[[Learning by teaching]] (LdL)

*[[Notional-functional syllabus]]

*[[Task-based language learningteaching]]

*[[Teaching English as a foreign language]]

*[[Target language (translation)]]