Communicative language teaching: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:59, 17 November 2021

Revision as of 09:09, 23 November 2021

Line 104:

Although CLT has been extremely influential in the field of language teaching, it is not universally accepted and has been subject to significant critique.<ref name=":5" />

In his critique of CLT, [[Michael Swan (writer)|Michael Swan]] addresses both the theoretical and practical problems with CLT. He mentions that CLT is not an altogether cohesive subject but one in which theoretical understandings (by linguists) and practical understandings (by language teachers) differ greatly. Criticism of the theory of CLT includes that it makes broad claims regarding the usefulness of CLT while citing little data, it uses a large amount of confusing vocabulary, and it assumes knowledge that is predominately not language-specific (such as the ability to make educated guesses) to be language-pecificspecific.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Swan|first=Michael|date=1985-01-01|title=A critical look at the Communicative Approach (1)|journal=ELT Journal|volume=39|issue=1|pages=2–12|doi=10.1093/elt/39.1.2|issn=0951-0893}}</ref> Swan suggests that those theoretical issues to lead to confusion in the application of CLT techniques.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Swan|first=Michael|date=1985-04-01|title=A Critical look at the Communicative Approach (2)|journal=ELT Journal|volume=39|issue=2|pages=76–87|doi=10.1093/elt/39.2.76|issn=0951-0893}}</ref>

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" />