Contrasting Views on CLT

In the previous class, we read about and discussed the Communicative Language Theory, known in short as CLT, which emphasizes real-life communication experiences and activities that give the English language learner a well-rounded experience in learning the language by not only being able to master the linguistic forms, but being competent in the area of communication and pragmatics. The two assigned readings today presented some perspectives on the shortcomings and problems that are associated with the Communicative Language Teaching theory. The first article (Bax) begins by giving numerous scenarios worldwide in which language programs that lack CLT as a method are considered 'backwards'. This seems a very harsh designation to attribute to any program employing other methods than CLT. Although I agree that Communicative Language Teaching seems a very useful and integrative method, it is not the only one worth incorporating and surely one who relies on another methods should not be considered 'backward'. One can reflect on this by comparing the notion of Gardner's multiple intelligences. As learners, we each possess different learn styles and predominant intelligences that work best for us. It would not be a good teaching practice to only cater to one learning style or type of intelligence in our classrooms, so we must vary our instruction. The same must be true for teaching methods for English language teaching.

Bax's article brings into light the alternate method of a context-based teaching method. Depending on the context the learning or communication situation takes place in, a Communicative Language Teaching approach may not always be maximally successful, nor may be a focus on language teaching methodologies at all, which surprised me. As a pre-service teacher in both English and Spanish, the content of our instruction is always 'methods, methods, methods' and trying to come to a consensus on 'best methods'. "By contrast, a context approach insists that while methodology is important, it is just one factor in successful language learning...it may be that the ability to learn a second language is an inherent human characteristic, but it is becoming clearer that contextual factors such as affect (Arnold 1999) hugely influence that ability" (Bax 282). I am slightly confused why there is so much argument about the best theory that should be used in a language classroom. Surely incorporating multiple theories into the classroom could prove to be harmonious and useful in instruction. I believe the article mentions something similar, asking the reader to reflect on why another approach is necessary, and Bax (1999) states the affirmative, since the lack of an explicit focus on context will make it secondary to everything else.

The second article, by Hu, discusses cultural reasons why Communicative Language Teaching is somewhat of a controversial teaching method in the People's Republic of China. For years, many educators have wanted and attempted to reform English Language teaching in China but it simply did not prove to be effective. The form of language teaching in China tends to be very systematic, commonly employing methods like audiolingualism and grammar translation. Thus, a communication-centered approach was not desireable. Also, there were additional inhibiting factors including lack of proficiency in the teachers (this makes me wonder if the language teachers were Chinese or other English-speaking nationalities), limited instructional time, and big class size. Finally, Chinese culture and customs play a big role in their unwillingness to use a communicative approach in the classroom. A communicative method, by definition, is opposed to teacher dominance--and education culture in China is not like that--they teachers are viewed as the supreme educator. "Students are expected to respect and not to challenge their teachers" (Hu 98). Additionally, "'the Chinese tend to associate games and communicative activities in class with entertainment exclusively and are skeptical of their use as learning tools' (Rao, 1996: 476)" (Hu 97).