You need to write a reflection paper on the article "Communicative Language Teaching" by Spada (2007). (You can have access to the article on METUONLINE).
Please do not forget to include the following points in your article reflection paper:
a) your own interpretation of CLT and your own perspective as a prospective teacher concerning the necessary infrastructure as to the optimum implementation of the method in line with the conditions in Turkey in the EFL context (i.e., the English proficiency level of EFL teachers in Turkey, the system and the existing policies of education in Turkey, EFL learners’ expectations from English classes at secondary and high school level, the attitudes of EFL learners of Turkish with different levels of proficiency towards learning English, the aims of English classes)
b) your own perspective on the various CLT-related misconceptions as a prospective English teacher (you also need to refer to the article by Thompson(1996), which is uploaded on METUONLINE)
c) your perspective on the prevalence of the misconceptions stated in the article among Turkish teachers of EFL (you also need to refer to the article by Thompson (1996), which is uploaded on METUONLINE)
d) the current status of CLT in Turkey including the challenges and difficulties facing EFL teachers concerning the implementation of it
e) the future status of CLT in Turkey
I couldn't access the file from metu online :(
ReplyDeleteme too:((
ReplyDeleteWhere is the file?
ReplyDeleteif someone is to access the file, can s/he please share a link?
ReplyDeleteif you write 'communicative language teaching by spada' to google.com you will find the article.
ReplyDeleteReflection Paper on "Communicative Language Teaching" by Spada (2007)
ReplyDeleteCommunicative language learning is second/foreign language learning process where the attention is generally on meaning, positive error correction is used, and learners are given more control for their language learning and with the help of a lot of listening and speaking activities learners find a great amount of input for language learning. CLT emphasize learning language functions and using the target language in a variety of contexts. Rather than giving explicit grammar structures or deductively teaching of grammar it focus on helping learners create meaningful conversations which cover grammar rules implicitly but sometimes if necessary the rule can be given so that the learners improve themselves in both accuracy and fluency. In spite of the fact that CLT is a great way to teach English, as far as I know it isn’t used much in Turkey especially in state schools. Maybe most of our teachers aren’t professionalized enough in primary, secondary and high school to use CLT, but this is not the only reason. As I stated previously, in Turkey we have crowded classrooms, we don’t have a lot of time to spend on learning English for enough amount of input, our students aren’t intrinsically motivated to learn English and most importantly our exam system includes just multiple choice questions but not oral or writing-based questions, so naturally we don’t have a suitable environment to use CLT in our country. Another reason why we can’t use CLT in our country is maybe because we don’t know it properly. For example; because of misconceptions a lot of people don’t think that CLT is a suitable way to teach an L2. For example; it is thought that in communicative language teaching just speaking and listening activities are used but it is completely wrong because writing and reading are also important ways of communication for example; I think in order to improve their listening and speaking learners need to read and write a lot because we may not be able to find enough time to speak and comprehensible input to listen but by reading we can focus on both form and meaning. And because writing is a productive skill like speaking and because while writing we aren’t nervous or excited like we are while speaking, reading and writing can be used in CLT as well. Another misconception about CLT is error-correction process. It is thought that the errors shouldn’t be corrected but actually positive error correction can be used. For example; when a student Sais “she have a pencil” the teacher can say “yes she has a pencil” furthermore in higher levels if students need an explicit explanation for a grammar rule the teacher can explain it. The usage of L1 is a misconception in communicative language teaching too. Although some teachers think that L1 should never be used, in some conditions it can be used. For example; to simplify the context or to attract learners’ attention more importantly to make the learners feel comfortable, the teacher can allow the learners to use L1 when they need. According to my idea, maybe currently CLT isn’t used commonly in our country because of our education system, teachers and learners profile in future it will be used much more commonly because the education system slowly changes so the teachers and the learners will change inevitably.
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is an approach to the teaching of second and foreign languages that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language. I am also in favour of the CLT. However, we did not taught by this approach. Our teacher used Grammer Translation method. I do not blame them because they did not take the education of this approach. And also they do not have enough english to speak fluently. Their pronunciation was not good because it was not given enough importance to the foreign language education. Recently, there are improvements and CLT is adopted. I will also use it in my classes. Because , students should speak and write . Speaking and writing is an output. They are getting input throughout the lesson. Thanks to speaking and writing we understand where they have difficulty. Moreover, they have to speak in real life. They will use that language in their real life. As in their mother tongue, they have to communicate with people from this country or they will go this country. Therefore, they have to speak that language so I can understand where they have pronunciation mistake and I can improve their fluency. CLT also does not only give emphasis on the speaking, writing is equally important. Students will use both of them to communicate.To provide their communication, I will use group and pair work. Maybe they can have difficulty while speaking in front of the class but they feel themselves relax while speaking with their friends. They will have a chance to learn from their peers and they do not need the correction of the teacher when they make mistake. Furthermore, role play is a good choice and enjoyable. I also understand from the passage that CLT does not require omiting the explicit grammar rules totally. It is just against the overemphasis on the structure. CLT is in favour of teaching grammer inductively and so do I. However, in Turkey, using this method is a abit difficult. The classrooms are crowded so there will be so much noisy. All of the students do not have chance to speak. Teacher will have difficulty to encourage students to speak. This can be time consuming. I believe that if the government reduce the class size and improve the training of the foreign language teacher, CLT will be used perfectly and student will be proficient in communication when they graduate.
ReplyDeleteCLT is a method which is mostly based on meaning, the main purpose of a language is to be able to communicate and CLT emphasizes this aspect of a language.CLT also emphsizes positive error correction and learners are given more control for their language learning and with the help of a lot of listening and speaking activities learners find a great amount of input for language learning. Rather than deductive grammar teaching, this approach emphasizes a context based grammar teaching. Using some contextual situations or dialogues are good for such a teaching. I am also in favour of CLT although I was educated with grammar translation method. In Turkey, the conditions don't allow us to use this approach but nowadays the situation has changed a little bit. We have an exam system and this system asks us to use grammar translation method, because in this system you have to be able to read and write in the target language very well, but in CLT the main purpose is to be able to speak or listen. However; nowadays Turkish education system has also understood that communication in the target language is really important and so we have begun to use CLT. However; we don't have the enough power to use CLT, our current teachers didn't have a chance to use CLT while they were students so they are not familiar with it. Also our classes are too crowded so the basic miles of our education system isn't ready to adopt CLT. In a crowded class, teachers can't make healthy groups and they can't control the whole class, this will be time consuming for them. Also, students will have difficulty in group works in such a crowded environment, each of them won't have the chance to speak so CLT won't work in such classes.Also, the current teachers in our country don't have a fluent speaking, so they can't be a model for the students.
ReplyDeleteIn the passage, I see that CLT asks us to use inductive grammar teaching, this is also a difficulty in Turkey because of the exam system.In spite of the fact that CLT is a great way of teaching English as a foreign or second language it can’t used much in Turkey especially in state schools. Maybe most of our teachers aren’t professionalized enough in primary, secondary and high school to use CLT. Consequently, if the conditions in Turkey go on changing in that way, then CLT will be really beneficial for the whole country.
The article generally deals with the current and future aspects of CLT. Also, it tells about a brief history of CLT and how it has evolved in terms of theory, research and practice will help to establish the context.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, when we look at the definition of CLT, we come across different answers which are dependent on whom you ask. According to some scholars, it is a meaning-based, learner-centered approach to L2 teaching where fluency is given priority over accuracy. But for some other scholars, it is primarily meaning-based and includes attention to both fluency and accuracy. This corresponds to Howatt’sdistinction between strong and weak versions of CLT. However, to understand better why and how CLT has been interpreted differently, we should consider some aspects of the history and development of CLT.
It is known that for most of the history of language teaching, linguistics has been one of the most influential disciplines, for example; the audio-lingual method was influenced by structural linguistics and behavioral psychology. Then, through 1970s, language teaching began to lay the theoretical groundwork for CLT. After Chomsky who dealt with linguistic competence, Hymes put forward his theory of communicative competence and the notion that knowing a language includes more than knowledge of the rules of the grammar but also knowledge of the rules of language use. After Hymes, his theory was developed by other researchers. They claimed that language proficiency is not a unitary concept but consists of several different components including linguistic competence, pragmatic competence, sociolinguistic and strategic competence. In the 1980s, two areas of research in the field of SLA began to play central roles. This included two separate but related hypotheses, which are both emphasizing the central role of meaningful communication. The first one (Krashen) claims that the process of L2 acquisition is similar to L1 acquisition; so, if we arrange the conditions for L2 acquisition similar to L1 acquisition, L2 development would be more successful. The second one (Long) hypothesized that conversational modifications that learners make when they negotiate meaning create comprehensible input and that this in turn promotes acquisition. In that,teachers should teach their students how to communicate, instead of grammaticaltaught. Here, I agree with Long, because, when students get used to language and after learn how to communicate, they will induct the grammar and other rules on their own.
However, over the years, several myths about CLT have developed. Some of the commonly held misconceptions of CLT are;
1.CLT means an exclusive focus on meaning
2.CLT means no explicit feedback on learner error
3.CLT means learner-centered teaching
4.CLT means listening and speaking practice
5.CLT means avoidance of the learner’s L1
In addition to myths, there are some different manifestations of CLT. One of the reasons for the lack of clarity and consistency in the definitions of CLT is that the same label has been used to describe several different ways in which L2 instruction has been delivered, because all of these different ways have two common features: an emphasis on meaning and learner-centered interaction. However, there are scholars who do not agree with the idea of different versions of CLT. The other argument is about whether CLT is a philosophy of language teaching or a method.
Conclusively, CLT is the most influential and most researched approach to second/foreign language teaching in the history of language teaching. But, of course, it is not without problems. There is still confusion in the definitions and interpretations of CLT. To solve this confusion, teachers should be made aware of the different ways in which CLT is interpreted and implemented and they should create a balance between form and meaning.
ı still can't reach the file site does not allow me to see the full text. can someone send the url to the text
ReplyDeleteI could not access to the file :(
ReplyDeleteCLT is an approach in which the focus is on the meaning. Learners are given alot of listening and speaking exercises, and they are expected to use the language productively in different contexts. Teacher does not provide explicit grammar teaaching unless it is vital. students learn the rules with the help of the extensive listenşng and speaking activities. they unconciously acquire those rules with practicing speeaking activities.
ReplyDeleteIn turkey, it is not used as it is used in other countries. because our exam system requires students to work on grammar and to solve structural problems. it consists of multiple choice questions and it does not evaluate fluency and speaking. for this reason, teachers do not give importance to speaking and listening activities. and the other disadvantage for CLT is; it requires a lot of time and effort. because of the time limitation and the ampleness of the topics to cover, the CLT can not be used in Turkey.
and in turkey, teachers are not trained enough to teach effective speaking lessons. some teachers even do not speak fluent enough to teach speaking themselves.
and the other reason for this approach can not be implemented is that in turkey, the classrooms are crowded and in crowded classrooms, it is difficult to teach effective speaking courses.
there are some misconceptions for CLT. the most important one is the usage of L1. in CLT, L1 is used and this is the part that results language teachers to disagree. because for some people, L1 usage will result in lower student performance, because they wont be able to have the ability to think in the L2. and the other one is error correction process. in CLT, positive error correction is used and the misconception is, when the errors are not corrected, they result in fossilization.
for those reasons, CLT can not have an effective impression.
if we try to reduce the number of students in a classroom, if we educate the teachers to use more effective speaking activities and if we change our exam type, we can use the CLT more in future.
MERVE ÖNDER
CLT is a method that emphasizes communicative aspect of language. The method also takes advantage from using reading listening, grammar as well as writing (it is also a type of communication). I find several major points that can make the applicability of these method easy or on the contrary difficult. First of all, the educational stem of the country plays an important role. It can be clearly seen that in Turkish ES exams play a great role. As a result of this, usually teachers cannot find enough time to practice communicative aspects of language – all time is separated for exam-type activities that can help students get good marks and higher the prestige of a particular teacher. Secondly, the education of teachers should be good enough so that they can speak in public with confidence, good pronunciation in English (!). Moreover, as the method can be still named as “new” – not many old teachers are willing to explore it as a lot of effort is needed from them – both to have lesson, maintain good and comfortable learning atmosphere, maintain discipline in classroom, encourage students in the activities and give feedback to the students – of course, opening book, reading or doing exercise and finishing is much more easier and less consuming for the teacher (after some years of teaching all the lesson plans are in the folder but when we have something new it is difficult to prepare yourself). Fourthly, the attitude of students is important. Sometimes, students go to ELT classes (in school) only because they are in schedule but they believe that “Turkish is enough” or “Not we but they should learn out mother tongue”. Students should have a clear goal in mind, not because their parents or teachers said so but because they need it (to have better salary, to commit to cultural exchange etc). Fifthly, movable classroom setting is a prerequisite of CLT. Seats are stuck to the floor or classes are crowded – these develop no possibility for communication at all. There are also some misconceptions that frighten teachers. Some believe that L1 should never be used (ss do not understand as a result), the difficulty of error-correction, focus on meaning etc. I believe that when used right, this method can be very beneficial for students in Turkey, when teachers are given proper education and want to explore the field of language teaching, classes are reduced in size and are movable enough and education system is changed (or communication component is included in exams).
ReplyDeleteIn CLT method, the focus is on meaning, positive error correction, interaction with peers. The most important part is that it is important to write and read well in the target langıuage in the grammar translation method. However; different to this, it is important to speak in the target language in CLT. Students are exposed to various listening and speaking activities in this method. Extensive learning has also huge importance.
ReplyDeleteIn turkey, actually we are not allowed to use this method because of the system. Due to our exam system, we have to use grammar translation method. However; there are some changes in the system. Our educator begin to realize that we should be use CLT.
CLT is restricted because we do not have professionalized teachers in CLT. Also, our classrooms are not allowed to use CLT because of the physical conditions. Our classrooms are too crowded. There may be some challenges due to discipline problem, grouping activites in CLT classes.
I believe that we should professionalized our teachers in CLT, lessen our class population and focus our exam more on meaning and practice. Then, we will be successful in CLT and our education will have more quality.
CLT is a method which is mostly based on meaning, the main purpose of a language is to be able to communicate and CLT emphasizes this aspect of a language.CLT also emphsizes positive error correction and learners are given more control for their language learning and with the help of a lot of listening and speaking activities learners find a great amount of input for language learning. Rather than deductive grammar teaching, this approach emphasizes a context based grammar teaching. Using some contextual situations or dialogues are good for such a teaching. I am also in favour of CLT although I was educated with grammar translation method. In Turkey, the conditions don't allow us to use this approach but nowadays the situation has changed a little bit. We have an exam system and this system asks us to use grammar translation method, because in this system you have to be able to read and write in the target language very well, but in CLT the main purpose is to be able to speak or listen. However; nowadays Turkish education system has also understood that communication in the target language is really important and so we have begun to use CLT. However; we don't have the enough power to use CLT, our current teachers didn't have a chance to use CLT while they were students so they are not familiar with it. Also our classes are too crowded so the basic miles of our education system isn't ready to adopt CLT. In a crowded class, teachers can't make healthy groups and they can't control the whole class, this will be time consuming for them. Also, students will have difficulty in group works in such a crowded environment, each of them won't have the chance to speak so CLT won't work in such classes.Also, the current teachers in our country don't have a fluent speaking, so they can't be a model for the students.
ReplyDeleteIn the passage, I see that CLT asks us to use inductive grammar teaching, this is also a difficulty in Turkey because of the exam system.In spite of the fact that CLT is a great way of teaching English as a foreign or second language it can’t used much in Turkey especially in state schools. Maybe most of our teachers aren’t professionalized enough in primary, secondary and high school to use CLT. Consequently, if the conditions in Turkey go on changing in that way, then CLT will be really beneficial for the whole country.
I couldn't find the article anywhere.
ReplyDeleteGokhan Ozkan:
ReplyDeleteCommunicative language teaching is identified as an approach used in teaching L2 in which explicit direct elements are gaining importance in teaching communicative abilities and skills. With the point of view of an instructor, CLT can be described as a meaning-based, learner-centered approach where fluency is more important than accuracy. Its basic function is understanding and producing messages rather than teaching or correcting the language form.
How was CLT introduced? To answer this question, we need to look at the theory behind this approach. CLT was introduced as a theory named as communicative competence which indicates that knowing a language means more than a knowledge of the grammar rules which named as linguistic competence. The communicative approach itself was introduced by Robert Langs in the early 1970s.
After this notional process, the change from exclusive perspective of language(verbs, pronouns etc) to a specific perspective of meaning and function(greeting, describing etc.) was developed under the name of notional functional syllabus. (Wilkins, 1976)
Until now, everything looks excellent by means of teaching & learning contexts and activities, though, there are some disadvantages of CLT needed to touch upon.
CLT doesn’t address to learners who come from different cultures and educated with traditional teaching systems and different learning styles. CLT approach concentrates on fluency but not accuracy. Besides, CLT doesn’t focus on error correction. I prefer to mention the latter disadvantage.
In class, for the sake of communication, students are expected to speak and interact with others. Accuracy in their communication is not actually important, they just need to speak fluently. That is, CLT approach doesn’t focus on error reduction, instead creates occasions where learners are expected to use their own devices to solve their communication problems. That’s because they are likely to produce incoherently and ungrammatically built sentences. Students who are ineffective in using the target language and continue to make mistakes eventually tend to give up learning. More successful students tend to just ignore these ineffective students, because they lose their confidence to failed peers and they don’t want them to hinder their learning process. Eventually this gives harm to communication environment. Furthermore, avoiding of error correction may promote fossilization of mistakes. With the fair of being wrong, some students may choose being silent rather that speaking. This also makes them feel inefficient and harms their self-confidence. It’s not wrong to say that; if this situation continues, students who are hindered psychologically will have tendency to dislike the classroom activities and the language itself.
I think it is better to focus on accuracy and error correction in the pair, group and classroom activities. With the help of this corrections students realize their mistakes and this hinders fossilization.
The CLT is an approach which focuses on the meaning. Learners are given alot of listening and speaking exercises, and they are expected to use the language productively in different contexts. Teacher does not provide explicit grammar teaaching unless it is vital. students learn the rules with the help of the extensive listenşng and speaking activities. They unconciously acquire those rules with practicing speeaking activities.Rather than deductive grammar teaching, this approach emphasizes a context based grammar teaching. Using some contextual situations or dialogues are good for such a teaching.In Turkey we have crowded classrooms, we don’t have a lot of time to spend on learning English for enough amount of input, our students aren’t intrinsically motivated to learn English and most importantly our exam system includes just multiple choice questions but not oral or writing-based questions, so naturally we don’t have a suitable environment to use CLT in our country. Another reason why we can’t use CLT in our country is maybe because we don’t know it properly. For example; because of misconceptions a lot of people don’t think that CLT is a suitable way to teach an L2. For example; it is thought that in communicative language teaching just speaking and listening activities are used but it is completely wrong because writing and reading are also important ways of communication for example; I think in order to improve their listening and speaking learners need to read and write a lot because we may not be able to find enough time to speak and comprehensible input to listen but by reading we can focus on both form and meaning. Since writing is a productive skill like speaking and because while writing we aren’t nervous or excited like we are while speaking, reading and writing can be used in CLT as well.CLT is in favour of teaching grammer inductively.Unfortunately using this method in Turkey is a little bit difficult. The classrooms are crowded so there will be so much noisy. All of the students do not have chance to speak. Teacher will have difficulty to encourage students to speak. This can be time consuming.If the parliament could do something to reduce the class sizes and to improve the training of the foreign language teacher, the advantages and outcomes of CLT would be seen.
ReplyDelete