Basic principles and classroom implications of CLT 51

CLT is a broadly based approach that brought about a shift in viewing language learning, learners, teachers, and the classroom as an

2014). There is some diversity of opinion in the literature as to what CLT is (Cook, 2003; Savignon, 2005; Richards, 2006). This is because of the different perspectives that people actually take towards defining CLT in practice. According to Savignon (2005) although CLT has achieved great popularity in the literature, there continue to be multiple and sometimes conflicting interpretations of the concept. Nevertheless, characteristic features and objectives remain the same in almost all versions (ibid). What they all have in common is that the underlying assumption for the instructional design, teaching-learning practices, teacher-student roles and material development is a communicative model of language (Richards & Rodgers, 2014).

Social interaction is an identifying feature of CLT, and the focus or goal of CLT thus lies in the designing and employing methodologies that are aiming at and capable of developing learners’ communicative

competence through engaging them in communicative language use (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Savignon, 2005). Furthermore, CLT takes a process approach to Language learning (Richards, 2006; Savignon, 2005) that takes place in social contexts through:

•Interaction between the learner and users of the language •Collaborative creation of meaning

•Negotiation of meaning as the learner and his or her interlocutor arrive at understanding

•Learning through attending to the feedback learners get when they use the language

•Paying attention to the language one hears (the input) and trying to incorporate new forms into one’s developing communicative competence

•Trying out and experimenting with different ways of saying things (Richards, 2006, p. 4)

Students are assumed to have responsibility and choice to shape these goals and processes. And as is clear from the above quote, they are supposed to work collaboratively to construct and negotiate meaning through genuine and purposeful interaction (Richards, 2006; Savignon, 2002, 2005). In so doing, students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning process through an understanding of their own styles of learning and through the development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning (Richards, 2006; Savignon, 2005). The teacher has the responsibility to provide opportunities through setting up tasks and encouraging learners to interact and develop collaboration in the

communicative activities that are established by him/her.

Communicative activities such as role-plays, games, and problem solving activities are used in order to engage students in the process of

communication (and learning activities are not merely focused on rule recitation or practicing pattern drills) (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). The underlying assumption is that activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). As such, the teachers’ role in a communicative classroom has extended beyond information giving to active facilitator, co-communicator, advisor and coach. Teachers are no longer regarded as a repertoire of knowledge but as a learner among learners (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). The CLT phenomenon actually changed the role of the teachers and students dramatically. At the centre of the classroom activities and material design are the learners. Thus, learning activities need to be selected or designed based on analysis of students’ needs, styles, goals and interests (Richards and Rodgers, 2014; Cook, 2003).

In the communicative approach to language teaching, classroom activities/ tasks are aimed at equipping students with the communicative skills they need to learn to act in various contexts and situations outside the classroom. Classrooms, as such, are characterised by attempts to ensure the authenticity of materials and meaningfulness of learning activities. As there is emphasis placed on real language use and process of communication, linguistic knowledge is not the main focus, but aspects of language are used to carry out communicative purposes. As

such, all of the components of communicative competence (grammatical, discourse, actional, sociolinguistic, and strategic) are taken into

consideration.

Giving students the opportunity to communicate in the target

language with accuracy and fluency, as was previously mentioned, is the ultimate goal in CLT. To this end, accuracy and fluency are viewed as two important factors; but sometimes especially when the focus is on building fluency, in order to encourage learners to keep in language use, linguistic errors are not corrected (Brown, 2007; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). Correcting learners’ errors during a fluency-based task poses the risk of hampering the flow of speech, and/ or embarrassing the students and discouraging them from continuing the speech after being interrupted (Scrivener, 2011). Linguistic errors in CLT are tolerated and considered as a natural outcome of the process of constructing

communicative competence. However, accuracy is not sacrificed by fluency and errors will be dealt with in accuracy-based activities

(Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). This shows that although the focus in CLT is on meaning rather than form, but unlike Natural Approach, the grammar and accuracy activities are not abandoned. Grammar as one of the components of communicative competence is paid attention to in the classroom (Cook, 2003).

teaching of isolated language elements, and sequence of the four language skills (speaking, listening, reading, writing) is no longer at work in CLT (Cook, 2003; Savignon, 2005). The ability to integrate form and function (as it occurs in the real world) is the ultimate goal of a communicatively oriented language teaching. To this end, CLT places equal stress on all four skills, and thus, all four skills are introduced and worked upon from the very beginning (ibid, ibid).

As was mentioned, CLT is a broad approach and its interpretations and implementations are varied. Howatt (1984, p. 279) generally drew a distinction between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ versions of CLT. The weak version places so much emphasis on the need for providing learners with sufficient opportunities to practice and learn ‘English for communicative purposes’, while the strong version asserts that ‘language is acquired through communication’ (p. 279). Elaborating on this, Ellis (2003) argues that as with many other approaches and methods, the weaker version is very much based on the assumption ‘that the components of communicative competence can be identified and systematically taught’ (p. 28). In this respect students first learn the linguistic elements and then learn how to use them in communication. While the modifications that it made in teaching and learning activities must not be discounted, the weaker version of CLT cannot be considered as dramatic. In comparison, the stronger version of CLT is believed to have a sound and accurate

basis in the Natural Approach of Krashen and Terrel (1983) and supports acquiring language through self-discovery and the use of tasks (Ellis, 2003).

Task-based, content-based and participatory approaches are

manifestations of syllabus designed based on the strong version of CLT (Ellis, 2003; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). Teaching-learning activities in a task-based syllabus are composed of meaningful tasks that resemble real world activities which learners need to use target language to perform them (Cook, 2003, ibid). The main features of the task-based instruction (TBI) have been summarized by Nunan (2006):

•A needs based approach to content selection

•An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language

•The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation

•The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on the language but also on the learning process itself

•An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning

•The linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the classroom (p. 14)

In content-based instruction (CBI), or as referred to in European context, content and language integrated learning (CLIL), learning a

content that is often a particular academic, profession or school subject such as history is integrated with learning the target language (Larsen- Freeman, 2011). In fact, the target language is used as a means of learning some other content; but at the end students learn both content and language (for a detailed description of these approaches or syllabus See: Nunan, 2004; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). Common to all these syllabus types is the fact that they focus on teaching through communication and using language as a tool rather than focusing on language and the linguistic content for communication (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). In brief, the main concern of CLT is described as

‘real-life communication’ (Howatt, 2014) and the most characteristic

features of CLT could be identified as ‘process oriented, task based, and

inductive, or discovery oriented’. (Savignon, 2005, p. 635)