CLT Communicated
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Communicated
What is CLT? A quick Google search for CLT will reveal plenty of wood-related posts and products, as ‘Cross-Laminated Timber’ seems to be a big deal. You might also come across the ‘Central Law Training,’ but don’t let that phase you. ‘Communicative Language Teaching’ might not appear on page one of a Google search, but it is far from an obscure term in the TEFL world. Do you use a communicative approach in your teaching? In this article, we explore what CLT is, as well as its central strengths and criticisms. For more information please see the references at the end of this article.
What is CLT?
Though the term CLT has been widely used since the 1970s, "there is no single text or authority on it, nor any single model that is universally accepted as authoritative" (Richards and Rodgers, 2001: 155). The term itself “has always meant a multitude of different things to different people” (Harmer, 2003: 103), making it particularly difficult to define.
CLT has been regarded as the dominant teaching approach so much that “most English teachers in the world today would say that they teach communicatively” (Harmer, 2015: 57). It can perhaps best “be understood as a set of principles about the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language, the kinds of classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachers and learners in the classroom” (Richards, 2006: 6).
The Principled Communicative Approach (PCA) takes this idea further and outlines seven guiding principles for the effective use of CLT. Arnold, et al. (2015: 10) list the seven principles as:
1. The personal significance principle (it should be meaning-focused and significant to the individual);
2. The declarative input principle (it should give leaners clear rules and examples);
3. The controlled practice principle (it should include opportunities for plenty of practice);
4. The focus on form principle (it should also focus on form, even if this is not the main focus);
5. The formulaic language principle (formulaic language should be taught in relation to real-life communication);
6. The language exposure principle (students should receive extensive exposure to significant L2 input);
7. The focused interaction principle (learners should have plenty of opportunities for L2 interactions that are authentic/genuine).
CLT can be viewed within its historical context where “the origins of CLT are generally traced to a changing view of language, away from language structures towards language functions and communications” (Hall, 2018: 102). In this way we can see CLT as a progression moving away from prior approaches, such as the Direct Method and Audiolingualism, in favour of a communicative emphasis.
Strengths of CLT
Rather than being one single codified approach, CLT “is an extended family of different approaches” (Harmer, 2015: 57). In this way, CLT can be understood in a pluralistic sense. That is, there is no single CLT methodology everyone uses. Such ambiguity can actually be viewed as a positive, as “this fuzziness has given CLT a flexibility which has allowed it to endure” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011: 115). Thus, CLT can be seen as advantageous in that it is flexible and adaptable, as opposed to being a rigid set of rules.
CLT focuses on communication that centres on speaking as opposed to grammar, “the essence of the principled communicative approach is the integration of meaningful communication with… both linguistic rules and lexical items” (Arnold, et al., 2015: 10). This is in contrast to earlier methodologies such as the Grammar-Translation Method which, unsurprisingly, focused on grammar. Thus, CLT holds communication as its core without overlooking other linguistic elements entirely.
Communicative competence is crucial. This represents a paradigm shift away from linguistic competence as “being able to communicate required more than mastering linguistic structure,” signifying a change in the “aims broadly to make communicative competence the goal of language teaching” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011: 115). This is particularly advantageous when the goal of the learner is communication based, e.g. using English for work such as tourism, where linguistic competence is secondary to effective communication.
Criticisms of CLT
CLT, while undoubtedly very popular, is not without criticism. Teachers themselves may seem unsure of what it actually entails as “when pressed to give a detailed account of what they mean by ‘communicative’, explanations vary wildly” (Richards, 2006: 6). An examination of the classroom highlights this confusion “everyday classroom practices can appear to be quite different when CLT principles are applied” (Hall, 2018: 103). As a result, CLT varies wildly in practice and lacks clarity, making effective application both difficult and inconsistent.
It is widely regarded that we are operating in a post-method era and that “the summary rejection of method created an atmosphere of a complete free-for-all, a state of total madness” (Rajagopalan, 2007: 85) leaving teachers questioning the very role of methodology. It has been suggested that “methodology is not the magic solution” (Bax, 2003: 281) and that we need to look beyond it. Thus, over-reliance on any methodology, CLT or otherwise, can be seen as undesirable as it only provides part of the picture.
One major drawbacks of CLT is that fluency is prioritised at the expense of accuracy. This means that error correction plays a smaller role and that “errors of forms are tolerated” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011: 125). The universal appropriacy of prioritising communicative competency in the classroom can be questioned by some, as experts Larsen-Freeman & Anderson (ibid: 128) ask: “Are there times when you would emphasise fluency over accuracy?” (or indeed the converse). In some situations, such as higher education, fluency alone is insufficient as accuracy is of paramount importance in sectors such as academia.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while CLT may not be a single unified method, it has several strengths including its flexibility and focus on communication – which have proven successful in my teaching practice. Students have responded particularly positively, in my experience and as the literature suggests, to a focus on fluency and communicative competence. However, caution is certainly required as there is only so much that CLT, or indeed any other methodology, can realistically provide. This is especially true in terms of context, which does have a key role to play and is particularly relevant to my teaching which involves working in many contrasting locations (N.B. also see my article Methodology: The Context Approach). Moreover, a ‘one size fits all’ approach can be problematic in assuming that CLT is the one and only way forward. The student should be centre stage as an individual, thereby considering their needs and preferences as much as possible. This highlights the important role of the teacher who must be flexible and adaptable. The teacher must also effectively utilise their professional judgment in taking methodology and other factors into account on an individual basis – rather than blindly following lessons plans at the expense of the student.
References
Arnold, J., Pugliese, C. & Dörnyei, Z., 2015. The Principled Communicative Approach: Seven Criteria for Success. 1st ed. Innsbruck: Helbling Languages.
Bax, S., 2003. The End of CLT: a Context Approach to Language Teaching. ELT Journal, Volume 57/3, pp. 278-287.
Hall, G., 2018. Exploring English Language Teaching, Language in Action. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Harmer, J., 2003. Popular Culture, Methods, and Context. ELT Journal, Volume 57/3, pp. 288-294.
Harmer, J., 2015. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Anderson, M., 2011. Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rajagopalan, K., 2007. From Madness in Method to Method in Madness. ELT Journal, Volume 62/1, pp. 84-85.
Richards, J., 2006. Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S., 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
What do you think? Comments and questions posted below are all very welcome!
