You need to write a reflection paper on the article "Communicative Language Teaching" by Spada (2007).
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
c) your perspective on the prevalence of the misconceptions stated in the article among Turkish teachers of EFL
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Until now, what I have basically learned about CLT is that it is a learner centered approach in language teaching which mainly focuses on conveying meaning and functional uses of language rather than explicit teaching of language form, and which aims to develop learners’ communicative competence that enable them to activate their linguistic competence and to use language fluently in real communication. Also, communicative language teaching suggests using authentic materials in the classroom in order to prepare learners to use language in different contexts. The application of CLT requires using target language in the classroom and creating interactional environment among the students with group works and encouraging them to use target language actively while dealing with the tasks during the class. Considering the conditions in Turkey as an EFL context, it seems hard to use CLT effectively especially in terms of making students use target language among themselves. While even the most motivated students who are at university level and will be English teachers do not use English in their group works, how can we expect others to speak in target language?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the point of misconceptions about CLT, what I had known was just the one related to exclusion of attention to language form: CLT doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t pay any attention to language form. It doesn’t exclude grammar teaching. What it suggests about grammar teaching is to create opportunities that learners can pick up language structure while communicating in the target language.
However, after reading Nina Spada’s article, I realized that almost all the characteristics of CLT that I have known are indeed misconceptions. For instance, I knew that we shouldn’t explicitly correct learner’s errors but according to Spada’s research more explicit corrective feedback may be necessary in CLT classes where the learner’s attention is primarily focused on meaning and content. However, still I support the other researchers who suggest that corrective feedback should be implicit without interfering the communication which is called recasting. Another misconception stated in the article is that CLT means learner-centered teaching. I somehow agree in that it is a misconception because too much emphasis learner- centered activities like group works can cause students to learn each other’s errors as well. Thus, teacher- fronted activities are important as well because teacher is the only model for the students to hear accurate language use in the classroom. One of the other important point that is proposed as misconception by Spada is the avoidance of the mother tongue of the students: in the article, it is stated that L1 shouldn’t be banned completely; however, in EFL context teachers should maximize the amount of target language input. I strongly agree with this idea using L1 and translation can be the last way to solve the problems arousing during the instruction.
Lastly, for the status of CLT in Turkey, I don’t know how successfully it is implemented in Turkey but one way or another it should be started to be implemented because what is missing in turkey is the communicative aspect of the language. In the system, there is a structure based approach and examinations are held on the basis of this system. By using CLT students’ communicative competence should be developed equally.
What I know from my previous knowledge about CLT is that it is an approach which emphasizes communication, interaction in classes, group and pair works, focus on meaning rather than form and learner centered classes. As I was reading the article by Spada I realized that some of the knowledge I have about CLT is false. Looking at the features of CLT, it is very difficult to implement this approach in EFL classes in Turkey. According to CLT, language is for communication so the target of CLT class is to prepare learners for the real communication contexts. Thus, in a CLT class, it is a need to use the target language and group and pair works to be able provide learners with activities that will help them to use the language. However, when thought the conditions in EFL classes in Turkey, where learners share a common language it will be really problematic. For instance, in group works, as all the learners have a language that they know very well they will carry out the activities in their shared language. They will use Turkish to convey messages to each other. Also, in high schools in Turkey, the main and the most important aim of the learners of Eglish is Student Selection and Placement Exam. So, they may say “who cares about English”. I know it very well from my friends in high school though it was an Anatolian Teachers’ Training High School. Another thing is that in Turkey learners do not have the chance to use the target language outside the classroom. In my opinion, CLT can be applied effectively to the classes where the target language is shared among the students.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the article by Spada I saw that many of the things I know about CLT are misconceptions. It is stated in the article that CLT focus on meaning and excludes form. In my opinion, it is a misconception because there should be a balance between form and meaning. In my opinion, in language learning both fluency and accuracy is important. So, can it be possible when we just focus on meaning? There should be communication in class but the attention to language form cannot be disregarded. Also, in the article it is stated that CLT does not exclude grammar but this approach aims to add communication to the classes. And I think this is what should be done in a language class. Another misconception is not giving explicit feedback. However, in my opinion this is not a misconception. The correction of errors should not be explicit since that can cause the learners to be silent and passive. Instead, as mentioned in the article, it should be in the way that the teacher will correct the learner by saying what the learner said in the appropriate way. When the correction is carried out in this way the learners will be more encouraged and motivated to participate. Another misconception about CLT is that it emphasizes learner-centered teaching. I think in a way it is not a misconception because in group and pair works, the learners can learn from each other. But, I think there should be some kind of guidance from teacher in order to help learners to lead each other in the right way. Another misconception is the banning of L1 in CLT classes. I agree that it is a misconception because this may cause the learners to be frustrated and be passive and silent. Of course, I do not mean that we should always use L1 in classes. However, if there is a need and urge and if there is no way then we can use it. We cannot totally exclude L1 in classes, but the big mount certainly should belong to the target language.
I do not know how CLT is applied in Turkey and it is status now. However, as far as I know the necessary thing to add to the classes in Turkey is communication. There is so much emphasis on accuracy and so little in fluency. It may be because of our education system since we are now surrounded by many exams. However, regardless of negative circumstances, we can still include communication and at least as much emphasis on fluency as on accuracy.
we have been learning Enlish as a foreign language for many years that we cannot even count them. Since I started to learn English when I was in primary school, I had learnt all the grammatical concerns of this language. it was all for the sake of "correct" language learning. when I came to university luckily somethings have started to cahnge. until now as generally speaking, our teachers from high school or more former ones were ignoring something. it was the key issue of language learning: communiccation.
ReplyDeletewhen we first come across the word "language", we defined it as "a way of communication". however, when it comes to learning a language it suddenly becomes a complicated abstract terminology and its physical features become more popular. consequently our first concern turns out to teach grammar, vocabulary and etc. we do not deal with such issues that whether students can speak the language, they can understand what is told, they can comprehend what they read or not. these are the features that we usually use for communication skills.
In my opinion Communicative Language Teaching is a path wehere we as teachers focus on conveying the message to the addressee and explaining thought, opinions to other or others in a possible fluent way.
as a native speaker of Turkish, and a citizen of Turkey, and a professional English speaker, my focus was on the correct form of the language. everbody taught me that. it is a disturbing misconception. no one learns a language in order to learn its grammar. it is not the first motivating start. because of this misconception, we come across problematic students who do not like English, do not want to learn it, or find it difficult to learn. if we do not give the aim of learning a language, they have the right of rebelling to learn it. this is our everday life in Turkey and Turkish state schools where English is a must course now.
In high schools, students seperate to departments such as science, math, social sciences etc. most of the students give their decision in order to escape from language learning although they are supposed to choose their department according to their wishes, desires or wants for future. This is unacceptable. all these issues are so scary for students. While we are supposed to motivate our students, we make them push away.
After all saying these strong words, I want to mention another point. being communicative through a new learned language does not necessarily mean that you need to ignore all the rules and structures in that language. this is not our case either. in order to put the words together we need to basic knowledge, a backgroung information. otherwise it becomes a memorization, in my opinion. If a learner cannot break the chunks and use them within an other context, that means that there is a problem. they also need to learn how to use different words, structures etc. with other contexts, words. They need to know what follows what. they need to learn what is awkward in that language. they should be aware of what they are speaking.
the things that I mention above should be integrated. we need both accuracy and fluency in a certain extend. this is what we need in Turkey. we even choose our teacher to teache English according to their grammar knowledge. It is not fair for anybody.
CLT based on real communication rather than simply on learning the vocabulary, grammar and the structure of language. To develop communicative competence, pair work and group work should be encouraged, authentic language input in real life context should be provided and students should be encouraged to produce language for meaningful communication.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when it comes to practice teachers often encounter many difficulties. For example in group works the class size is very important. Also the students’ low motivation makes them unwilling to attend lessons and make them passive learners.
The teachers believe that learning must have a goal and learning can best take place when the learning task is meaningful. Communicative approach has these features which is the reason of the teachers using CLT in classrooms. So, the teachers make efforts to develop and generate classroom techniques within the context of communicative approach.
Consequently, CLT has so many advantages because the main concept is communication and fluency in speaking. To provide appropriate CLT the teachers should give much importance to cope with the negative conditions.
As far as I learn until now, CLT is a way of teaching language which is based on mainly communication, which means that conveying meaning and functional uses of language. In this type of learning, teacher doesn’t give the language form explicitly but gives it by communicating and with the real usage of the language. Wanting the students to communicate, CLT have them use of their linguistic competence with the help of authentic materials in different contexts. CLT requires using target language in the classroom and interacting in target language in the classroom. Looking at the conditions in Turkey for EFL, I can say that it is not the one that is applied in language learning but it is the one that should be applied in language learning. We are not native speakers, we don’t live in country where it is spoken as native language and it is impossible for us to be native speakers. But here the most important thing is to be accustomed to using the language. We have not any native speaker, and any other chance to speak the language outside the classroom, so we have to use it in the classroom. Here it is the role and responsibility of teachers. We are all good at grammar because of the method that has been applied so far. In this situation, the exams have a big part because even in primary school we have SBS’s which force the students to be a test generation. In high school, situation is already the same because of famous ÖSS. Actually because of the system we have this situation. Teachers are not only guilty ones, with such a system they can not apply what they know in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to misconceptions about CLT, as they are stated in the article, first of them is about grammar teaching. Everyone, including me, supposes that it excludes grammar teaching but it does it creating opportunities with which learners can pick up language structure while communicating. I support this type of teaching grammar since it is the effective one. Second of them is about correction. Spada’s research suggests more explicit corrective feedback but I still think that correction should not be done explicitly everytime. We can correct grammar mistakes implicitly but the ones with the pronunciation should be explicitly. Another misconception in the article is that CLT means learner-centered teaching. I think it is both teacher-centered and learner-centered as it has both activities like group works and the teacher as the model. Other misconception stated by Spada is the avoidance of the mother tongue of the students. He suggests that L1 shouldn’t be banned completely; however, teachers should maximize the amount of target language input. I agree with this statement. L1 should be the thing that we apply for teaching other language. We can not exclude L1 completely but it is important to minimize the usage of L1 as far as we can.
As for the future of CLT in Turkey, I can say that it should be implemented but I don’t believe that it will be implemented even as long as the system is not changed. At least, the balance between the skills should be provided by the teachers.
Pelin Aşçıoğlu
ReplyDelete"Communicative Language Teaching" is certainly the method I liked most while taking methodology courses at METU. Even while studying its theory part, application into the class, advantages and disadvanteges, techniques, all I could think abou was why it is not used in Turkey, language classroom. Because it's totally learner-centered, and teacher is just like a partner of the students in the activities done in the classroom.
In Turkey, until students have graduated from high school, they are insistently taught grammar, they write the rules ver
and over. However, at the end, they cannot produce a sentence in front of their friends as
they all have read the sentences in the exercises book and memorized them. The lack of grammar knowledge is seen as a deficit of
this approach. But how come anyone do not think ability to speak may not come first before grammar? Many people today support the idea that people learning foreign language cannot be like native speakers of that language. Unlike audio-lingual method which focuses on accuracy, this approach, aims fluency. And, it this aspect, it does not contradict with an idea of many people.
The type of activities also support the creatvity of the learners as they are
not based on memorization or artificial dialogues which are lack of authenticity or naturality.
This approach is very humanistic. When learners see they can produce something, I mean they can speak in the target language,
they may feel really movitated and want to learn much more. What else can a teacher want?
According to this approach, activities usually require pair-work and group studies, this
leads to interaction among the students and also teacher in the classroom environment. To sum up, it might have some misconceptions, however, I believe they can be turned into advantages with the right implementation. And if languages are taught by the language teachers, everything is in the hands of them. And even if the process of teaching foreign languages is not even close to a type of method focusing on communication, this can be achieved by deliberative teachers.
The article focuses on the interpretation (sometimes misinterpretation) of communicative language teaching (CLT) and some solutions and directions on how to use CLT as an effective language teaching method. I have seen through the article that I and most teachers in Turkey have misunderstood CLT. As Spada suggests, it is mostly seen as a meaning and speaking based method. This is the case in Turkey, too. In fact, I think in Turkey the situation is more complicated than this, because current textbooks are full of meaning-focused activities which seem as a communicative approach. However, as far as I experienced, the classroom situation is far from being meaning-focused. For instance, there is no explicit grammar rule in textbooks, but the students’ notebooks are full of grammar rules. We can say that there is little (almost no) learner-centered environment.
ReplyDeleteI think that neither meaning-focused nor form-focused foreign language teaching environment can survive alone. Moreover, meaning-focused approach alone is meaningless. Form has to be taught in some way, but it can be discussed how. However, in Turkey, there are communicative curriculums and form-based teaching environments, but the teaching process is not successful. It may be because of the teachers who are not qualified, and the curriculum which is not satisfying.
There are two findings which I’m not in the same opinion with Spada (of course my opinions are only based on observations and experiences): First, I don’t believe that group works increase language proficiency. They are valuable because they help learners develop interpersonal intelligence and they turn learning environment to a friendly place. However, in Turkey I didn’t see any person (or classmate) who speaks English in group works. Mostly we speak Turkish, and then translate into English when we are speaking to the teacher. It may be not very effective to increase communicative competence in English. Second, Spada states that recast feedback doesn’t work at all. I use recast feedback a lot in my private courses and when I ask my students they say they find it effective. I think sometimes exclusive feedback may be offensive.
In conclusion, I think Spada is right that a balance between form and meaning in order to teach language in an effective way.
Özge YOL
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a prospective teacher, my present interpretation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is that it is an approach that takes the communication/interaction as its main goal and means to teach a foreign or second language inductively and through authentic materials. But as I said, this is just for the time being. I believe the more I learn about CLT, the newer interpretations I will develop. I would not call it a method but rather an approach because it embodies many communication-centered methods in itself such as Total Physical Response (TPR) and Task-Based Language Teaching (TBT). CLT places great emphasis on helping students use the target language in a variety of contexts and places great emphasis on learning language functions. Its primary focus is on helping learners create meaning rather than helping them develop perfectly grammatical structures or acquire native-like pronunciation. This would simply mean that learners would develop communicative competence (Hymes, 1972) which would enable learners to use what they know about the target language, what they have in their mind related to that language (grammatical, lexical, and phonological knowledge).
ReplyDeleteWhen we try to apply the terms in Turkish language classes, the picture does not look that promising, unfortunately. There are many drawbacks to integrate CLT in Turkey due to various flaws in Turkish education system. Many universities fail even to train EFL teachers that have “enough” proficiency to teach English. As a result those people cannot go beyond didactive grammar teaching. Sometimes they fail even that, ironically though. And for some reason I could never get, there is a tendency in Turkey to teach everything directly, deductively, without any interaction or creativity where there are so many things known about how people learn better. It must be that people tend to choose the easy way all the time but that they cannot see the easy way does not work all the time. Low proficiency of teachers and education system make up just one dimension of the situation. There is another dimension that students comprise. The students whom such teachers teaches in such an education system obviously cannot be expected to be any communicative. Some private schools try to fight this non-functioning teaching system and they seem to success very well with methods like CLT however, their number are so few and unfortunately very few students can have access to such kind of teaching.
As about every approach, there are misconceptions about CLT. My own misconception about it was that it was all focused on conversation and communication skills at all costs, without giving credit to language forms and so on. Beside that, I also used to think that explicit feedback or any kind of direct teaching was disregarded in CLT. However, after reading Nina Spada’s article, these were proven wrong and I learnt about many other misconceptions like that CLT means listening and speaking practice, that CLT completely avoids the use of L1 and that CLT means learner-centered language teaching. When I took my time thinking about these, I realised that as a prospective teacher, I would have the same misconceptions (actually, I had two of them already!). With the recent researches or various discussions Nina gave place (like Obler, Harris, and Romaine), she changed my perspective about the influence of L1 in language classes, for example.
As far as I know, CLT is not a commonly used approach in Turkey except for some private foundations. It must be quite challenging on the part of teachers as well as students and this is not something that teachers in Turkey are used to or would enjoy. However, in the last decade, there seems to be have been developed some kind of awareness. People started to get involved in ELT more than ever and maybe this can be a sign that things are going to be much better in the near future in Turkey. This way there could be more chance for CLT to be practiced in more classrooms.
As we can understand from its name, CLT mainly relies on communication rather than any other structures of language. It have been seen as the most influential approach in second language teaching. It represents an effort to find ways in which attention to form and meaning can be combined. CLT combines innovative learning tasks and activities with conventional ones for providing real communication. In order to improve communication skills of learners and make them accustomed to daily life expressions, some types of learning and teaching activities may be included in classes . In this approach, usage of different authentic materials in the activities in order to prepare learners to use language in different contexts is importantly emphasized. While doing these activities and tasks, it is necessary to use the target language and create an environment to make learners use this target language effectively in their tasks. However, in practice, this approach does not seem to process as good as expected. Teachers may come up with some challenges. Because of wrong methods used so far to teach language or because of the results of our education system and examination such as ÖSS, we have no chance of using English as a communication tool in classes. Or sometimes even the most motivated students may be unwilling to use L2 in the tasks or activities. Another problem is that, for group tasks, learners may find it difficult to use L2, and they switch to their native language while discussing and making activities. This creates a misconception, according to Spada. Because if learners are forced to use L2, they may have difficulties expressing themselves and this cause some problems. Learners feeling nervous and frustrated may draw away themselves and become more and more passive. While doing this, teachers should decide on the amount of L1 or L2. If necessary native language should be used, I think. It should not be thought as banning or forbidding L1 but rather it should be thought as minimizing L1 usage and maximizing L2 usage. When we speak about misconceptions about CLT, we are taught that we shouldn’t explicitly correct learner’s errors but according to the research done by Spada, more explicit corrective feedback may be necessary in CLT classes. It may be true but I feel that it should be done in some way between explicit and implicit. One obstacle is that while learning a language to communicate, learners should use that language outside the learning environment but it is very very difficult for our country. Another misconception is about grammar teaching. We think when it is said CLT that it does not have a grammar teaching but it does this in an indirect way. It is provided for learners to pick up language structure while communicating. It is also a misconception that CLT means learner-centered teaching. It rather should be perceived as both teacher-centered and also learner-centered. Because in group works, learners learn lots of things from each other. This is true. However, they learn their errors from each other, this is also a reality. For that reason, monitoring of teacher is very important. As we consider all these, it seems to me that this is an ideal method which should be applied in language teaching. So, for the status and future of CLT in Turkey, CLT should be started to be implemented. As I said, our education system puts the importance on structure rather that communicative aspects. And the change in the education system will bring a change in language teaching format also. So CLT may become more of an issue in education or stability across all skills may be provided.
ReplyDeleteThe article is about communicative language teaching and the debates over this method, key theoretical tenets of CLT, meaning of CLT, its appropriateness in classroom. The key theoretical basis for this approach can be traced back to the Hymes (1972), and since that time there has been so many assumptions about CLT. Hymes mainly argued “ what is to know a language?”. Savignon continued research for theoratical basis of the CLT and proposed five basic components for communicative curriculum as follows : language arts, language for a purpose, personal English language use, theatre arts, beyond the classroom. CLT also deals with how to improve one’s communciative competence and gives great deal of importance to this issue.
ReplyDeleteIn EFL teaching, every single teacher is bound to have their own style and hold certain beliefs about the language and their work. Some teachers only embrace some beliefs just to satisfy educational policy makers, not for their own progress or not for the advantages of CLT or any other approach. But for the teachers whose aim is to make their students good at communication, CLT will be an appropriate choice. As a prospective teacher, I will embrace many aspects of this approach in order to make my students to be able to use language.
CLT should be considered as a formulaic package, instead as the approach suggest itself, it should be used appropriately, not seen a set of rules. CLT offers EFL teachers a lot of alternative ways to take action in classroom (in terms of target language use). CLT is flexible enough and the teacher can make any kind of changes when it is necessary. By doing so, a teacher will be able to satisfy her aspiration related to her beliefs about teaching and more effective and useful for her students.
Reflection paper on the article "Communicative Language Teaching" by Spada (2007)
ReplyDeleteIn this article, Nina Spada mentions different interpretations and definitions of communicative approach to second language teaching since its introduction in late 1970s. She clarifies the misconceptions of CLT with which we are familiarized as prospective teachers of English. As the name of the method suggests it emphasized on communication in language teaching. However, there are disagreements about inclusion of literacy skills, use of first language, and vocabulary instructions. Besides, it is not clear whether CLT should include a focus on the analysis and practice of language forms. These issues have been discussed to clarify whether they are consistent with the principles of CLT or not. Nina Prada states that because of these problematic issues, CLT is considered to be invalid by some language circles. In general terms, CLT is meaning based, learner centered approach to L2 teaching where fluency is given priority over accuracy and the emphasis is on the comprehension and production of messages rather than teaching or correction of language form. However, there are other definitions of CLT as well because of the various understanding to language teaching. Comprehensible input and interaction are very important in CLT. In comprehensible input framework, CLT is very close to natural approach of Krashen. These are the correct views related to CLT. On the other hand, there are also commonly held misconceptions of CLT such as CLT means an exclusive focus on meaning, CLT means no explicit feedback on learner error, CLT means learner centered teaching, CLT means listening and speaking practice, CLT means avoidance of the learners’ L1. As there is some confusion about CLT, teachers need to know different ways to implement CLT and different definitions of it. I agree with Spada that in all cases teachers need to find a balance between form and meaning although it will take some time to determine precisely what the balance is. I think, CLT is not very applicable in Turkish context, because we have a quite exam based curriculum and we have to cover lots of topics in a very short time. However, we can spare some of our classes of CLT so that students have enough competencies in communication in the target language.
"Communicative Language Teaching" by Spada (2007)
ReplyDeleteI think the implementation of CLT would not be so hard if all the educators come together and create a communicative approach based curriculum for all high schools or primary schools. However it is a problem now in Turkey because I think there is a strict exam almost for all levels in the schools (YDS, SBS etc) and they ask generally grammatical issues on those exams. They have multiple choice questions so there is no need for the students to learn English for communicative purposes They kill the language learning process. I do not have a solution for those exams but I think the curriculum can be changed, the methods can be changed.
I see CLT as a meaning based focused approach but when necessary which welcomes to the grammatical issues as well. I actually agree with the idea that in CLT the teacher should try to create an environment in which all the learners are active learners who are taught communication strategies with the comprehensible input hypothesis of Krashen. At the same time however I do not think that CLT is just communication and speaking. I also support grammar teaching when necessary. When however considered the conditions of classes in Turkey which are always too crowded, application of CLT seems a little bit difficult. First of all the expectations are different. In Turkey what we understand from learning a foreign language is actually to learn its grammar .Also I completely support the idea that there should be definitely feedback session. In my opinion it is so hard for a learner to realize her -his own mistake so corrective feedback is a must of course when necessary. This is how I see CLT. Recast is a good strategy to do that. So based on that all I can conclude is that CLT is a good way to teach English but Turkey needs to change its existing policies about foreign language teaching.
As a prospective teacher unfortunately I also had some of the misconceptions in my mind till I read this article. I thought for example that in CLT teacher should never speak in students’ first language.. Overuse is of course dangerous but use of L1 might be sometimes necessary to negotiate in meaning or to accelerate the learning process. Another misconception for me was that CLT means listening and speaking exercises. Actually it seems impossible but when I think about the name of CLT it makes sense maybe that is why I thought in that way. However now it is so clear to me that the four skills of foreign language learning cannot be separated no matter what the method is. I agree with the writer in that extensive reading might be helpful for the students to make meanings and accelerate the learning process.
I actually think that all those misconceptions are prevalent among the English teachers in Turkey .For example I am sure they all have the misconception of forbidden L1 usage in classroom so they do not see themselves good enough to apply that rule and they avoid using CLT. Again learner-centered based approach might be prevalent. In turkey because we are all used to traditional systems we still have some problems with student-centered approach. Maybe they are afraid of loosing the control in the classroom and that is why again avoid using CLT.
As I mentioned before the biggest problem today teachers face is the exams and their format which discourage students to learn other things in foreign language except grammar and multiple choice format. Another thing is that in Turkey the classes are always too crowded and this makes the implementation even harder. I do not think that currently except some private schools they implement CLT.
I think the future of CLT in Turkey is promising in some private courses and schools because are becoming aware of that learning a language requires much more things and skills than just learning its grammar. However unfortunately I am not so sure about the future of CLT in government schools unless the curriculum and the format of the exams change.
"Communicative Language Teaching" by Spada (2007)
ReplyDeleteCommunicative Language Teaching values communication, interaction in classes, group and pair works, meaning and learner centered classes
Communicative Language Teaching is a very appropriate approach in language teaching and can be implemented successfully if the curriculum is shaped in accordance with this method. For the status of CLT in Turkey, I don’t think that it is successfully implemented in Turkey but one way or another it should be started to be implemented because what is missing in Turkish second language education curriculum is the communicative aspect of the language. In Turkish language education system grammatical structures and in accordance with this aspect paper-pencil examinations are in favor. By using CLT students’ communicative competence should be developed equally.
If we ask language teachers and language teacher candidates most of them would guarantee that they value communicative abilities, fluency and the ability to use the language rather than being accurate. However, when it comes to the implication of communicative language teaching methods not all the language teacher manage to use those methods.
When it comes to misconceptions about CLT the first one I want to mention is related to correction. I support the idea that implicit feedback works much better because the students have the chance to correct their own mistakes by taking the cues into account. In my opinion we should not use explicit correction as long as it is necessary. Second misconception is that CLT means learner-centered teaching. I think it is both teacher-centered and learner-centered as it has both activities like group works and the teacher as the model. Another misconception stated by Spada is the avoidance of the mother tongue of the students. He suggests that L1 shouldn’t be forbidden completely; however, teachers should maximize the amount of target language input. I agree with this suggestion because mother tongue can be used for clarification and it is nonsense to use the target language if the students can not make sense of it.
Zeynep ÇİÇEK
This article in general is about the description, history and development of communicative language teaching. It also gives information about misconceptions on applications of this method and its strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, CLT is a balanced method which requires a balance in every area of language teaching. For example it doesn’t only focus on meaning; on the contrary it gives equal attention to both form and meaning. Also it is clear from the researches that it doesn’t allow only for implicit feedback, it also allows for explicit feedback when it is necessary. Furthermore it is not an extremely learner centered method; it supports the idea that there should also be some teacher-fronted activities (Long and Porter (1985). For CLT, language teaching doesn’t consist of only speaking and listening, writing and reading should also be integrated to language teaching process. Finally it doesn’t make it compulsory to use exclusively L2; it allows for the use of L1 when it is necessary. These are the balanced points that CLT has in English language teaching.
ReplyDeleteSince there is not an ideal environment to use CLT in Turkey, it is almost impossible to implement it in Turkey. To start with, we can consider the proficiency levels of English teachers; when I think on it I get into despair because most of the English teachers aren’t very good at using English for communicative purposes. When this is the case, we can’t expect them to teach their students to use English for communicative purposes. These kinds of teachers exist in Turkish education system because not all of the universities give a good quality education to teacher candidates. Besides, for the lack of English teachers the system assigns everyone who has a certificate on English as English teacher ignoring their insufficient education on English. When we think of the students, for most of the students in the secondary and high school, language learning is a torture. Because of the boring methods that are used in language teaching and our exam based education system, the students see language learning as an unnecessary burden. They have a right to think like that because in the university entrance exams there aren’t any questions about English. So they see English course as something that should be passed only and it is not necessary to learn anything about it. Another point that makes CLT usage almost impossible is that CLT can’t be applied to the students from the low proficiency levels because it requires real communication among students. Therefore it will be challenging for most of the students in Turkey. I claim this because although for 10 years the students get English courses, most of them can’t exceed the intermediate level (unfortunately) due to our exam based education system. To sum up, it is clear that all these factors make the use of CLT in Turkey almost impossible for today. Therefore, I don’t think that it is widely used in schools.
continued...
ReplyDeleteHowever I am a bit hopeful about the future of CLT in our education system because in recent years Turkey has begun to abandon the system based on rote memorization and countless exams. I mean, our education system is changing in a direction that will give chance to the methods that provides real language use in classroom instead of just memorizing some basic language structures. Therefore, applying CLT in Turkey isn’t possible now, but in a short time it will be possible, I think.
When it comes to the misconceptions, I think the teachers should be given some extra education on the implementation of such methods as CLT. This will eliminate the problem of common misconceptions on CLT. Teachers in Turkey have misconceptions because they don’t know the correct implementation of it. When they learn the correct form, everything will be all right. As to the misconceptions that I have, unfortunately I had one, but after I read the article, I learned correct implementation of CLT and so I got away my wrong information. Before, I thought that CLT doesn’t allow use of L1, but now I learned that it allows. I am really happy to learn this because I didn’t know that CLT allows for L1 usage and most probably I would apply it in a faulty way in the future. Now, I know the correct way and I will try to apply it properly.
As we learned before from the article written by Phom Hoa Hiep , CLT is focused on knowing the language more than knowing a set of grammatical, lexical and phonological rules. It also claims that in order to use the language effectively, learners need to develop communicative competence, but some educators have misunderstood some notions of CLT, so several misconceptions blow up on their minds. With the help of Spada’s article, we can easily understand that there are five explicit misconceptions about CLT’s tenets such as;
ReplyDelete‘CLT means an exclusive focus on meaning.’ This misconception is certainly one of the most pervasive misunderstandings and indeed, it is not absolutely right because some research shows that students may not learn only with the focus on meaning exclusively. They sometimes need to implicit knowledge about any part of the language.
‘CLT means NO explicit feedback on learner ‘ s error.’ Actually the real advocators of CLT claim that corrective feedback in CLT is implicit and indirect and does not interfere with communication. The most pervasive type of feedback used in CLT is ‘recast’ . it enables learners to notice the difference between what they say and how this compares with what native speakers say. Furthermore, recent studies also indicate that more explicit types of feedback can lead to higher levels of accuracy and development than implicit types of feedback.
‘CLT means learner-centered teaching’. It is also very recollective misconception as an archetype of CLT. When asked me anything about CLT, I firstly would say that it is learner-based because we learned it with this concept which is said to be a misconception, but according to Spada’s article, CLT also requires teacher-centered activities in L2 classes because it may be needed for group work and pair work.
‘CLT means listening and speaking practice’. On the contrary , CLT supports that four main skills must be given importance, not only two of them, but it is known inaccurately that communicative competence requires only the best skills of listening and speaking.
‘ CLT means avoidance of the learners’ L1.’ It is, like the third misconception, very pervasive misunderstanding which easily sticks in the mind, but CLT advices that L1 may be sometimes used by the teachers when needed.
If we think to apply CLT to the lessons in Turkey, it may become difficult because neither our teachers nor the students are ready for this approach. Also, there are a lot of factors such as the schools, education system and prejudice of families against the type of teaching language by not focusing on only rules, so I think that we must vanish some obstacles in front of applying CLT.
CENNET KAYCI
ReplyDeleteReflection on “Communicative Language Teaching” by Spada (2007)
Communicative Language Teaching is an approach to L2 instruction that gives importance to both meaning and form. It includes the use of a feedback type called “recast” in which the teacher reformulates the student’s utterance in the correct way while focusing on meaning. In my opinion, communicative language teaching is a very effective method in teaching L2 for several reasons. Firstly, CLT suggests that language is for communication. I support the idea that language is learned best through communication. Secondly, in CLT the focus is not just on meaning rather; meaning and form go hand in hand. This makes the method very useful because some students may not be good at eliciting all the grammar structures without a focus on the form. Thirdly, students’ errors are corrected through recast. I think it is more effective than explicit feedback because explicit feedback calls students’ attention to the structure, which may cause frustration while producing the language as the student would try hard not to make a mistake again after being warned openly. However, s/he will feel more relaxed while speaking when the teacher focuses on meaning and corrects the errors by way of recasting.
There are some misconceptions related to CLT such as “it avoids the use of L1”. CLT requires the optimized use of the target language in the classroom but that does not mean that the native language of the students will be seen as forbidden. The article states that languages are not in different places in human brain; rather they are quite related to one another. Students need to make connections between their L1 and L2. Teachers should use L1 on the condition that it will help save time and facilitate comprehension.
The other misconception related to CLT is that “CLT means listening and speaking practice”. As the method is associated with communication, people interpret that CLT is composed of only listening and speaking. However, the method gives equal importance to the four language skills while teaching.
Another misconception is that in CLT there is no explicit feedback on learner errors. It is not true because “recasting” suggests the teacher use a sign which gives the student the impression that s/he has made a mistake. It is true that the teacher focuses on meaning while correcting errors but this does not mean that the correct use of structures is totally ignored.
As for the misconception I had about CLT, I thought that CLT is a learner centered type of teaching but, after I read Spada’s article, things have become clearer in my mind. It is not a learner centered but a “teacher fronted” method.
In my opinion, CLT is not widely implemented in our country. The education system, learners’ attitudes toward English and teachers’ knowledge, etc. influences the use of the method in our country. I hope teachers utilize this method prevalently in the future. Then, the level of achievement in a second language will be better.
Burcu Deryan
ReplyDelete1619980
Communicative Language Teaching by Spada (2007)
One of the most popular approaches in language teaching I often heard about is communicative language teaching. According to that I have learnt from the concept of communicative language teaching until now, it is focused on conveying meaning and it gives active role to the learners rather than teachers in the classroom, so it is mainly learner-centered approach. The aim of the communicative language teaching approach is to enable students to communicate well both inside and outside the classroom. Therefore teachers should prepare appropriate a communicative environment by applying authentic materials in the class so that the learners can use the language communicatively outside the classroom. At this point using only the target language in the classroom and making students study in groups or pairs becomes obligatory to fulfill the necessity of this approach. However, it is actually difficult in carrying out the communicative language teaching in Turkey. Since all students speak the native language as a shared language in Turkey they are tend to use their native language in especially group working which is the base of the approach. Also, there is almost no real communication environment outside the classroom in Turkey. In addition the students do not care about English in the most of the high school at all because the education system in Turkey forces them to focus on OSS.
After I read the article, I can see that my knowledge about the communicative language teaching includes lots of misconceptions. As I said above, the approach deals with the meaning issue rather than the form of the language; however, I know that is misconception since learners have to match the meaning with its form, so the balance between meaning and form should set while teaching a second language. Another misconception mentioned in the article is that the lesson is learner-centered rather than teacher-centered. At this point I agree with Spada because teacher cannot transform accurate knowledge of the language if he or she is excluded himself or herself from the lesson. Moreover, that the native language is forbidden to use in the classroom is misconception according to the article and I agree with the article since it can be sometimes used in order to make the language more meaningful for the learners as a last choice after having exposed them to many meaningful inputs. In addition, giving feedback implicitly is misconception in the article, but at this point I do not agree with Spada. I think giving feedback implicitly encourage students to experience deep thinking process by making them active learners.
In Turkey the performance of communicative language teaching approach is not widespread unfortunately due to the education system, crowded classrooms and the ignorance of the foreign language by both students and teachers. On the other hand, if it is achieved to apply in Turkey, I believe that the success in the foreign language will rise hopefully since communicative skills is significant in acquiring the language.
My striking recognition of communication in language occurred through the German elective courses that I took so far. Just as we did in learning English, we just learned grammatical structure and rules of German language and we tried to use it in some writing or reading exercises. Whole learning style was constructed on learning grammar and rules for both English and German in my life. After the method classes, I realized that there are plenty of methods, techniques and styles to do. My whole perspective started to change and gain some new aspects in terms of teaching and learning. There was an in evitable truth that the foreign language teachers missed; it was the communication including both listening and speaking- using the target language effectively!
ReplyDeleteI have learned, as an extension of the notional-functional syllabus, CLT places great emphasis on helping students use the target language in a variety of contexts and places great emphasis on learning language functions. Unlike one of the old fashioned approaches- ALM, its primary focus is on helping learners create meaning rather than helping them develop perfectly grammatical structures or acquire native-like pronunciation. This means that successfully learning a foreign language is assessed in terms of how well learners have developed their communicative competence, which can loosely be defined as their ability to apply knowledge of both formal and sociolinguistic aspects of a language with adequate proficiency to communicate.
Especially the learners who are not in an environment where English is spoken actively need CLT for an effective learning. However, there are outstanding misconceptions about CLT as stated in the article. First of all, grammar teaching is conceived as omitted while CLT is applied in the classroom. On the contrary, grammar teaching can be so nicely integrated with CLT that the grammar structure settles in the students’ mind spontaneously.
Second misconception is about error correction. In the research done by Spada (2007), it is stated that corrective feedback is better and should be done in the classroom environment; I agree with that to some extent but generally I would prefer to make student realize his/her error by his/her own. Another one indicated in the article puts forward that CLT is too learner-centred. My own idea is that OK, it may be learner-centred but the learners are not lost or alone about what there are going to do. There is always the teacher guiding them appropriately. Connected with this opinion the teacher should be the model for the avoidance of mother tongue. It should not be banned completely, but the usage should be maximized.
About the issue of CLT usage in Turkey, it is directly in relation with the education system. The teachers most of the time have to obey the course book and curriculum decided by the MONE. They can try to make the learning environment more communicative and I believe fresh teachers- recently graduated young teachers are more likely to use CLT as they would prefer to apply what they learned in the classroom.
Sözen Özkan
Reflection paper on the article "Communicative Language Teaching" by Spada (2007)
ReplyDeleteIn the article we can find different definitions and interpretations of communicative language teaching and its applications to second language teaching and the misconceptions about it. I think communicative language teaching method is very important and should be used in language classes in Turkey because it just suggests what Turkish students need basically. As we understand from the name, CLT is based upon the improvement and usage of communicative skills of students and when we look at the situation in Turkey it is hardly possible to see a lesson plan which includes activities based on CLT approach because of the curriculum or the exam requirements (YDS, ÖSS, SBS, etc.). However when we take these problems into consideration we still can find solutions to them, for example we as teachers can reconstruct the curriculum in order to improve our students’ communicative skills. However there are some misconceptions about CLT, it is said that CLT just focuses on meaning but I think we can deal with the grammar also in the environment we create for communication. Nina Prada says that CLT is considered to be invalid by some language circles. In general terms, CLT is meaning based, learner centered approach to L2 teaching where fluency is given priority over accuracy and the emphasis is on the comprehension and production of messages rather than teaching or correction of language form. However, it is not fair to judge CLT in this way because comprehensible input and interaction are very important in CLT. With the term ‘comprehensible input’ I mean the Krashen’s definition of it. In comprehensible input framework, CLT is very close to natural approach of Krashen. We as prospective teachers should provide the communicative environment for our students as well as support their communicative skills with other necessities of language learning such as reading, grammar, etc. Although there are misconceptions about CLT such as its greater focus on meaning, no explicit feedback on learners’ errors, learner centered teaching, mainly listening and speaking practice, avoidance of the learners’ L1 we as prospective teachers should know how to implement CLT and its advantages by setting a balance between form and meaning as Spada suggests.
Until now, what I have learned about Communicative Language Teaching is that it is a method focusing on conveying meaning and functional uses of language. CLT is a learner-centered method which aims to teach foreign language inductively through authentic materials. In this method, foreign/second language learners are not given directly some grammar rules, but they are expected to infer some rules from the context while they use language in communication. The learners are required to use language in the classroom environment especially in group activities which helps them use target language in different contexts and eventually in real life situations. When we look at the conditions and the Turkish Education System, it is hard to believe that we can implement such kind of method in our classrooms. For a reason I can say that students do not care about many activities in the classrooms especially group activities. In group activities, they use their native language to seem on the task. Even we, students of English Language Teaching Department, do not use target language in the activities. When compared to high schools, universities may have more chance to use this method, because they have many opportunities to use authentic materials and there are many students concerning learning a language with its every aspect. Considering high schools, I can say that we have no chance to implement such method. There are many reasons for that. For example, teachers and students are not allowed to use books apart from the books suggested by Ministry of National Education. When we look at the books suggested by MONE, we cannot see any content apart from language form, it lacks of speaking, listening and reading activities. For another example, students in high schools are motivated to pass university entrance exam, as a result of this they do not mind learning language but learning only grammar rules.
ReplyDeleteAfter I have read the article of Spada, I realized many misconceptions about CLT. One of them is ‘CLT means exclusive focus on meaning’. It suggests the exclusion of language form. In my opinion, in the classroom environment there must be balance between meaning and form, because I think that students should not be taught any language for the sake of conveying meaning. There may be many students who can explain things in target language or can use target language in different context, but I think the important thing is conveying meaning accurately. At this point I support the idea of fluency and accuracy in language learning. The second misconception about CLT is no explicit feedback on learner error. In the article, Spada gives us an example about a correction of error (foots-feet) and states that most of the learners do not understand feedback on the form but their own utterances. As a result of this, researches show that more explicit feedback types can lead to higher levels of accuracy. I think correction is one of the main stones in language learning and teachers should give more importance to it. However, we see that most of our teachers do not focus on our errors. Most of us still make mistakes of pronunciation. I think that this problem is related to our high school teachers. Even they did not know how to pronounce some words. If there had been someone who could correct our teachers’ errors, we would not do such kind of errors now. Another misconception about CLT is no use of L1. I do not agree with this idea. In my opinion students learn better when they are relaxed and I think students are easy when they use some words in their mother tongue while communicating. Of course, I am not saying that students should use Turkish words all the time, but I do not see any disturbance of using some words when needed. Actually there are many words in Turkish which comes from English, so it can be helpful for students to remember English words
As we have learned until now, CLT is a way of teaching language which is based on mainly communication, which means that conveying meaning and functional uses of language. In Cominicative learning, the language forms are not given explicitly by the teacher but the teacher gives the language forms by communicating and with the real usage of the language.. Using target language in the classroom and interacting in target language in the classroom are important elements of CLT.
ReplyDeleteThe article "Communicative Language Teaching" by Spada (2007) is based on some interpretations and misinterpretations of communicative language teaching (CLT) and some solutions and directions on how to use CLT as an effective language teaching method. We can see through the article that we as the teachers in Turkey have misunderstood CLT. As Spada suggests, it is mostly seen as a meaning and speaking based method.
As we learn from the article, we can make new interpritations about CLT. CLT places great emphasis on helping students use the target language in a variety of contexts and places great emphasis on learning language functions. Its primary focus is on helping learners create meaning rather than helping them develop perfectly grammatical structures or acquire native-like pronunciation.
In our country CLT is not used effectively and it will take a long time to CLt to be implemented effectively in teaching language in the education system of Turkey. With the current education system CLT is really difficult to implement in language teaching classes. Because the students are all oriented to accurate language form learning by the exams they have.
My own interpretation of communicative language teaching is that unlike audio-lingual method, it is an approach which focuses on communication while learning a foreign language. It gives an emphasis on communication through interaction. It also supports the idea of using authentic materials to learn target language. It also tries to link the activities in class with the outside of the class. I mean, learner should use the target language not only in class by using authentic materials but also use the target language outside of the classroom for interaction with other people.
ReplyDeleteWhen I come to the misconceptions about communicative language teaching, I want to say that CLT does not mean teaching only speaking. CLT doesn’t ignore the forms, grammar rules. The emphasis on teaching skills is just different. CLT gives importance to learner-centered education but that does not mean that teachers are ignored and sonly students have the voice in the class.
Some misconceptions are mentioned in the article:
• CLT means an exclusive focus on meaning
• CLT means no explicit feedback on learner error
• CLT means learner-centered teaching
• CLT means listening and speaking practice
• CLT means avoidance of the learners’ L1
I agree with the most of the misconceptions stated in the article. However I still do not think that feedback should be given explicitly. Of course, it may be needed to correct the students directly but as it would break the communication, it should be done implicitly and in a gentle way. Especially young learners should be corrected and given feedback implicitly.
When we look at the current status of CLT in Turkey, we don’t see such emphasis on CLT especially in official schools. Even the teachers provide activities to support interaction; they can not provide such an atmosphere outside of the classroom. Students don’t carry on interaction by using target language among each other.
I think the status of CLT in Turkey will gain more importance in the future, the private schools adopt this approach and the new generation teachers are also aware of the importance of interaction while learning and teaching a foreign language.
In Turkey, the expectations from English classrooms are not the same as the expectations of Communication Language Teaching. The focus of English classes in Turkey is learning grammar and memorization of a huge amount of vocabulary items. For such aims, the students and the teacher do not need communication and interaction. They do not aim at making the students understand the daily use of the target language and be able to interact with each other with simple use of daily expressions. The aim is to make the students enrich their vocabulary knowledge and memorize grammar rules, which may enable them to write long paragraphs, which is seen as an advanced level of language proficiency.
ReplyDeleteWhen we have a look at the article of Spada, we can more specifically examine Turkish classrooms and CLT classrooms. In the article, Spada states that CLT is based on comprehensible input hypothesis and interaction hypothesis. The article suggests that as in L1 acquisition the learners should be exposed to meaningful and motivating input instead of correction of grammar rules. In order to make something ‘meaningful’ the learners should interact according to the article. When we think of the English lessons in Turkey we see that the basic principles of CLT are neglected. Even if the teachers try to create a meaningful context, they focus on making the students see their errors and correct them with the help of exams. So, the students do not try to understand meaningful context but memorize the rules in order to be successful in the exam. Moreover, interaction is also limited in Turkey. The most frequently used activity type was reading or creating small dialogues, which is not even related to interaction. The article mentions the misconceptions in CLT and clarifies them. The first one is the fact that when we think of CLT, we immediately think about communication and tend to neglect grammar. However, the article suggests that the teachers should focus on both communication and grammar at the same time. If they neglect grammar errors, the learners make mistakes more frequently. The second misconception is about explicit feedback. According to the article, the teachers do not use any explicit feedback as they think CLT forbids it. However, Spada states that implicit feedback on grammar may be effective enough to make the learner understand that it is a grammar mistake. On the contrary, the learner may understand that the feedback is related to the meaning. So the teacher should give a clear signal that the students have made a mistake that should be corrected. The third misconception is that teachers think that CLT is learner-centered. It is true that pair or group work helps interaction; however, the students make more mistakes while working together according to the article. That’s what; teachers should not neglect teacher-fronted activities in addition to using group work. The fourth misconception is that CLT is seen as equal to only speaking and listening activities while Spada suggests that they cannot be thought in isolation from reading and writing. The last misconception is that the teacher should forbid L1 use in the classroom. The article suggests that the students may be given the chance to use limited L1 in a productive way.
Özge Ceren ÇELİK
I think if an EFL teacher is competent and do not have these misconceptions mentioned in the article, s/he can implement CLT in English classrooms in Turkey. Our course books are created in a way that all units have a theme which may create a context that may help them make the input meaningful. Moreover, it is a fact that there are many exams waiting for the students and may influence the way the teacher uses the duration of the lessons; however, when we think about the content of these exams, we can easily see that these exams do not focus on so detailed grammar points. The exams of younger learners especially aim at checking whether the learners have the basic daily expressions of the target language. Nowadays, the need for learning a second language is gaining importance and the way the learners are examined are changing. That’s why, having the knowledge of CLT and skills to implement it in the classrooms, the teachers may make learning process easier and more enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteÖzge Ceren ÇELİK
“Communicative Language Teaching” by Nina Spada
ReplyDeleteIn our classes we have been taught that communicative language teaching is an approach which is learner-centered and in which communication is the fundamental element as its name suggests. People's being able to express themselves is the main aim in communicative language teaching. As long as we can convey our message and meaning, language functions and real life communication is achieved. The teaching of a structure is not so vital and there is no place for explicit teaching. It means that fluency is more important than accuracy in communicative language teaching. But when I read the article Communicative Language Teaching by Nina Spada, I saw that language form is excluded. I know it is not so important in communicative language, but grammar is also necessary for being understood which is the main aim of communicative language teaching. A person who has lots of errors in his speaking is very difficult to understand and if accuracy is missing, communication fails.
Before I read Communicative Language Teaching by Nina Spada, I knew that if a student makes a mistake, the teacher should not correct him or her explicitly for psychologycal reasons and the learning of the corrected item. But Nina Spada suggests that explicit correction is necessary in language teaching classrooms. I disagree with Spada at this point because if a student is warned when he or she makes a mistake, he or she may feel bad and stop talking. Students' silence is not something what we want in a language class. Since participation is necassary and crucial, this kind of a correction may make student stop participating the lesson. What I think useful in corrections is implicit feedback without breaking down the communication.
I have been taught that communicative language teaching is a learner-centered approach, but Nina Spada says that it is a teacher-centered way of teaching. I knew that in order to create opportunities for students communicate in class, teacher uses different contexts, pair works and group works and as I have understood this activation makes the teacher the center and the leader of the lesson.
Another important point that I have learned from Communicative Language Teaching by Nina Spada is that the mother language of the students can be used in language learning classes. We have been taught as EFL teachers we should avoid using the students' L1 in class. I agree with Spada at this point, because trying not to use L1 in every situation may make fail the communication. When some point is not understood in lesson by using the target language, then the most effective and quickest way of providing continuity of the lesson is explaining the point in the mother language of the students.
In general, communicative language teaching is not used in the schools of Turkey. Our system focuses on only accuracy. All we have been taught in EFL classes is grammar, structures, forms, because our system is a exam-centered system. Communication is not important because it is not necassary in exams. Since speaking is not given importance, application of communicative language teaching in Turkey fails.
In my opinion, the implementation of CLT in Turkey is really hard, because it is clear that in our government schools the level of English of the students are not high because of the quality of the teaching English. There is not enough time, materials and qualifications. Therefore, the system must be changed to have a fruitful learning. Both the teachers and the students must be aware of the importance of learning English and they must be aware that the learning must be communicative.
ReplyDeleteCLT has changed the perspective for teaching language. Teachers have realized that to learn a language is to learn how to communicate not just memorizing some rules. Therefore CLT can be a good technique to apply if as a teacher we can see its weak and strong aspects. CLT focuses on listening and speaking and we –as teachers- can focus on listening and speaking as well as reading and writing. We can teach grammar in CLT too. As teachers, I think, we can make use of all the techniques to have good, qualified English learning students.
In Turkey, however, as I mentioned above, it is not easy to implement it in our schools. The proficiency of teachers and the students and the opportunities that government supplies are not enough.
As there is not enough help from nowhere, the teachers, on their own, will not be able to implement CLT in schools. If they do, they will be in trouble with the administrator and the parents, perhaps. Nobody will think that they are trying to do something useful as they do not have information about this method.