Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching As the theories behind communicative language teaching are translated into practice within the classroom, certain characteristics emerge. In particular, we see the use of the target language in teaching, the use of authentic resources, a strongly supportive atmosphere, communicative activities designed to encourage learning, a change in role of the teacher, clear, purpose-related learning goals, an emphasis on the spoken word, and a functional approach to grammar. I will consider each of these in turn.
The aspect that is most immediately obvious in the CLT classroom is the use of the target language as far as possible for teaching. This is for two reasons. Firstly it encourages the acquisition of language, in the same way that we learn our native language, by hearing it. Secondly, it is reasonable that we should practise what we preach: Littlewood (1981, pp 45), explains, “Many learners are likely to remain unconvinced by our attempts to make them accept the foreign language as an effective means of satisfying their communicative needs, if we abandon it ourselves as soon as such needs arise in the immediate classroom situation.”
Sidwell, 1993
The use of the target language and the promotion of language that is ‘natural’ to native speakers, has the added benefit of bringing something of the culture of the target country into the class environment. This realism is maximised by the utilisation of authentic and up-to-date resources. Generally speaking, the whole foreign language experience is made as convincing as possible.
A supportive atmosphere is another essential ingredient in the classroom as it permits reluctant learners to take risks with language. “The pupil will only have the opportunity to develop communicative skills if there is motivation and the opportunity to express his or her own personality. Thus as teachers we need to respect individuals and their attempts to express themselves however falteringly - in a supportive atmosphere.” (Smalley and Morris 1992, pp 21) Sidwell (1993) makes another valid point, “ Language learners do not make mistakes when they are silent – a frequent strategy for avoiding error”, and this makes the teacher’s responsibility to provide sufficient support and encouragement very clear.
The C.L.T. classroom is a dynamic and highly creative environment where a wide range of techniques is employed. In fact, “Any innovation is welcome if it achieves the purpose of making language accessible.” (Holmes 1994, pp13) Activities, including role-play, interview, surveys and games etc., reinforce newly acquired language through repetition and practice. We do need to keep in mind however, that despite our best efforts, the classroom activities are simulations and inevitably have their flaws. For example, Grenfell (1991) proffers a word of caution on role play activities which may be, “not so much a linguistic problem as one of imagination; not so much conveying sense as trying to make sense of what is going on in a situation highly removed from any personally known facts.”
Fortunately, Sidwell (1993) provides clear direction in planning communicative activities. We should aim to include two critical elements, that of choice for the speaker, and that of uncertainty or unpredictability for the listener.” Indeed, this is the nature of the challenge! Sidwell (1993, pp 24) observes, “The great art of language teaching is to get students to talk about something without telling them exactly what to say.” This is harder than it may first appear, because in providing a needed prompt, the teacher may be removing an element of choice, as Thompson (1996) argues, “the learners never choose what to say, they simply work out how to say what they are told to say.”
With so many interactive activities, lessons in the C.L.T. classroom are extremely learner-centred. Teachers are no longer there to fill the heads of students with a certain amount of knowledge for this has become their own responsibility. We are given the freedom to become not so much ‘instructors’ as ‘facilitators of learning’ and are there to direct and support students and manage the learning environment. Littlewood (1981, pp 93) summarises, “In short, communicative teaching methods leave the learner scope to contribute his own personality to the learning process. They also provide the teacher with scope to step out of his didactic role in order to be a ‘human among humans’.“
As part of our management role ‘clear learning goals’ are a key feature of the CLT classroom (Sidwell 1993). Strictly speaking of course, clear learning goals should be present in all lessons, communicative language teaching or otherwise. However, as we have the dual considerations of meaning and accuracy, we need to be especially focused about the purpose of each activity. Lesson plans should reflect this in statements such as “the pupil should be able to communicate his wishes using the verb ‘vouloir’”. Before the days of C.L.T., the lesson plan would probably have had as its objective, “pupils should be able to recite the verb vouloir in the present tense.”
Clearly defined learning goals have the advantage that we should not undermine our efforts with inappropriate feedback. Littlewood (1981, pp 90) elaborates, “Since feedback carries information about how successful the learner has been, the nature of the feedback also tells the learner what criteria for success are operative during a particular activity, and therefore indicates what his own purpose and focus should be.” He continues (1981, pp 91), “It is therefore important for the teacher to monitor the kind of feedback that his learners receive, from himself or from others, so that it supports the methodological purpose of the activity.”
Teachers appear united in their support of the communicative approach inasmuch as it has been interpreted by the practices I have mentioned so far. In respect of reading, writing, and grammar however, there is dissent in the ranks.
In the CLT classroom, in theory at least, equal weight is given to the four areas of reading, writing, speaking and listening. However, because of the need for plenty of practice in the form of ‘student talking time’, this usually means much less time for developing reading, and writing skills. Thompson (1996) challenges this with the idea that, “Learners reading a text silently to themselves are taking part in communication (assuming that the text has something of relevance to them) just as much as if they were talking to their partner.” He recommends that we recognise instead the need for ‘student communicating time’, or simply, ‘student time’.
‘Communication’ has been widely accepted as meaning ‘speaking’. This attitude may hinder some learners who struggle with fluency in speech, but who could potentially attain a high standard in reading and writing. In addition, this emphasis may deter other learners who increasingly view foreign languages as a ‘middle class’ terrain. Swarbrick (1998) quotes Professor Eric Hawkins’ 1993 address to a CILT conference, when he asserted that in the past, success or failure did not depend so much as it does now on parental encouragement, on the chance to get abroad or to invite foreign visitors into the home.
Finally, grammar in the C.L.T. classroom has a different role – it is understood to be functional rather than structural. We are now more interested in the purpose that the grammar serves than in its structural form. The traditional ‘deductive’ method of teaching grammar, is replaced by the ‘inductive’ method. Thompson (1996) explains this as, “the focus has now moved away from the teacher covering grammar to the learners discovering grammar”.
Unfortunately, without sufficient structural understanding, there is the danger that pupils struggle to string together their well-rehearsed phrases into a cohesive whole. Holmes (1994, pp 2) observed that learners respond enthusiastically “to defined content presented and rehearsed in a variety of ways, but are reluctant to step beyond the basic response. They rarely take the initiative or use language spontaneously.”
This concludes my evaluation of the characteristics of C.L.T. classrooms. Although individual teachers need to balance the advantages and disadvantages of each communicative method to suit their own circumstances, many if not most of these characteristics are likely to be present.
Conclusion
My own experience of communicative language teaching has been overwhelmingly positive. In particular, I have been impressed by the excitement and fun, while the extensive use of the target language seems to be completely logical. The move towards authenticity is also a great relief! Before the days of C.L.T. much effort was wasted in learning functionally useless language – the ‘reality check’ integral to the communicative approach represents major progress. The roles of teacher and pupil have changed in my view, for the better, and I expect this to be beneficial in the wider sense of pastoral care.
I have also seen drawbacks. Selinger (1994, pp 192) quotes a pupil’s description of their experience of mathematics. “You add a new brick every lesson, as a brick represents knowledge and cement represents understanding... sometimes we have a lot of bricks but no cement to stick them together. By the time you reach the top of the wall some of the knowledge is forgotten, and where we didn’t understand, there may be bricks missing.” This applies equally well to foreign language learning: the grammatical building blocks (the bricks) will not hold together without a real understanding of how this structure is used in context (the cement). Conversely, and I suggest that this is where we are now: with no bricks, we have no wall.
There is a certain irony here. The way in which we have interpreted the communicative approach means that we may be in danger of losing the skill of ‘strategic competence’ which was recognised to be pivotal. In adopting any new approach, there are invariably concessions to be made, but there are indications that equivalent benefits, in terms of progress in communicative skills, have not been reaped. In 1998, Alan Dobson’s report criticised pupils’ poor pronunciation, lack of confidence, inability to cope with unpredictability and lack of progress at key stage 4.
Ultimately, there is only a finite amount that can be achieved in a 60-minute lesson and if we want better (as opposed to different) results, then one option is to find more time for the subject. Halliwell (1993, pp 15) draws attention to some significant factors:
The more we expect the learners to take in pattern indirectly, the greater is the need for exposure to that pattern in use. There is a very interesting and frustrating paradox here which is not always acknowledged. We have two elements within the communicative approach which tend to pull in two different directions. We have a focus on how the language is actually used for communication, i.e. a functional/notional grammar, and the same time a belief in the acquisition of language by subconscious assimilation of structural pattern. The problem is that a functional/notional approach tends not to produce sufficient repetitive structural pattern, at least not within the limits of two hours or so exposure a week. This is at the root of some of the present confusion...
It is probably time to revisit our priorities, but in re-evaluating we must be careful to hold on to all of what is good about C.L.T. Littlewood (1981) similarly concludes that owing to the complexities of people and language, nobody will ever produce a definitive teaching methodology, and in this respect communicative language teaching is no more than a small chapter in a story that has no end.
References
Grenfell, M. (1991), Communication: sense and nonsense, in The Language Learning Journal 3, 6-8.
Halliwell, S. (1993), Pathfinder 17 Grammar Matters. London:CILT.
Holmes, B. (1994), Pathfinder 23 Keeping on Target. London: CILT.
Littlewood, W. (1981), Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selinger, M. (1994), Teaching Mathematics. London:Routledge.
Sidwell, D. (1993), A Toolkit for Talking. London:CILT.
Smalley, A. and Morris, D (1992), The Modern Language Teacher’s Handbook. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.
Swarbrick, A. (1998), More Reading for Pleasure in a Foreign Language. (Pathfinder 36) London: CILT.
Thompson, G. (1996), Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching, in The E.L.T. Journal 50 (1), 9-15.
