Classroom interaction forms the main pillar upon which CLT was founded. Under CLT, language is viewed as a system for the expression of meaning that is primarily used for the purpose of communication and interaction (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Language is seen as social tool that both speakers and writers use to make meaning.
SCT SLA
Language learning is a developmental process mediated by semiotic resources. It is an assist- ed performance
Language learning is an internal mental process. Learners process the adjusted in- put to produce it as an output
The individual is defined in terms of participa- tion in socially-mediated activities
The individual is defined as the sole channel through which knowledge is gained
Language is simultaneously the tool and the object of learning and is socially constructed
Language is a ‘conduit’. It is the object of learning and is internally intrinsic
Culture helps shape our cognition as human activities can only be understood within their cultural settings
Cultural and contextual variables are im- portant but not essential for learning Teacher’s role is that of ‘scaffolder’ and fa-
cilitator of knowledge
Teacher’s role is to provide knowledge in less interactive style
Students are gradually supported to become autonomous active learners
Students are inactive receivers of knowledge
P a g e| 49 Savignon (2005, p. 639) argues that ‘in CLT, language teaching is based on a view of language as communication’. In this sense, CLT is rooted in the belief that genuine language use through the medium of the target language should be the primary focus of language teaching (Brumfit, 1984).
In the language classroom context, granting learners extensive opportunities to engage in contextually-rich and meaningful communication is the key for the development of what is widely known as ‘communicative competence’. Hymes (1972, p. 13) defines communicative competence as the ‘overall underlying knowledge and ability for lan- guage use which the speaker-listener possesses’ (see also 3.6.2). In order for commu- nicative competence to be developed, the emphasis should be on developing students' capacity to interact, interpret and negotiate meanings rather than on students' ability to memorise and ‘practice forms in isolation’ (Kumaravadivelu, 1994).
CLT theorists have always insisted that there should be a shift of focus from form to meaning, from dictation to communication, from a teacher-based approach to a learn- er-based approach, and from reception-oriented learning to production-oriented learn- ing. Hence, CLT emphasises maximizing the opportunities for learners to speak in the target language. Maximizing learning opportunities in the second or foreign language is thought to be facilitated when learners are actively engaged in what Nunan (1991) calls ‘attempts to communicate’. Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 157) reiterate this, arguing that at the level of language theory ‘CLT entails that the primary function of language is to allow interaction and communication’. The learning and teaching activi- ties supported in such approach include activities that enable learners to be engaged in communication and require the use of communicative processes as sharing infor- mation, negotiation of meaning, and interaction.
In this respect, deciding the nature of any proposed communicative activities has cre- ated a continuous debate on how to set the right balance between form-oriented activi- ties (i.e. accuracy, written, drills) and meaning-oriented ones (i.e. fluency, spoken, im- provising). According to Brumfit (1984), a learner-centred approach is attainable, insofar as language teaching focuses on fluency. Yet, does this represent a radical shift of emphasis from ‘form’ to ‘meaning’? In response to this, Savignon (2005) argues
P a g e| 50 that the prevailing impression is that CLT proponents are in favour of a focus on meaning approach ‘without regard of form’. She attributes this to the influence of Krashen’s (1982) and Prabhu’s (1990) studies which advanced the view that ‘acquisi- tion’ of L2 knowledge is best learnt when the learner is geared to focus on meaning in the process of using language for communication. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing awareness of the importance of grammar teaching in the develop- ment of communicative ability (e.g., Brumfit & Mitchell, 1990; Ellis, 1993; Savignon, 1991).
In general, research suggests that knowledge of grammar, being an indispensable part of communicative competence, is essential for effective instruction. Communication cannot exist without structure and therefore within the communicative classroom a balance between form- and meaning-focused activities should be maintained (Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Mcdonough & Shaw, 1993). It is argued that for activi- ties to qualify as communicative, they need to:
Provide students with a desire and need to communicate, with the focus on the message and on the content being communicated and not on the form (Clarke, 1994; Ellis, 2005b; Harmer, 1991).
Include authentic materials and activities, which are regarded as the sine qua non of the language classroom (Clarke, 1994).
Have an information gap where the two interactants communicate in order to bridge it (Ellis, 2005).
Emphasise pair/group work activities, as they allow more student participation than any teacher-fronted activity could ever hope to achieve (Doughty & Pica, 1986).
Encourage negotiation and cooperation between students and facilitate the cre- ation of a supportive classroom atmosphere.
Promote the development of accountability (commitment to providing quality programs), autonomy and self-direction (Legutke & Thomas, 1991).
Present language as discourse rather than isolated words and sentences; this in- cludes tolerating errors, and finally integrating the four skills.
P a g e| 51 Notwithstanding the above, communicative activities are not enough to create compe- tent and fluent users of the language. It has been argued that it is the teacher-student relationship that is the single most important variable in successfully implementing a communicative learner-centred approach (Cazden, 1988; Kennedy & Kennedy, 1996; Littlewood, 2007).
Inasmuch as most communication entails bridging an information gap with a genuine need and goal to communicate, in foreign language classrooms, which lack this ‘genu- ineness’ and ‘naturalness’, real communicative intentions do not naturally arise. It, therefore, depends on the ingenuity and skill of the teacher to create a classroom at- mosphere that is conducive to communication, where students feel free to take com- municative initiatives and experiment with the language and are motivated to do so (Littlewood, 2007; Nassaji, 1999). As Dolle and Willems (1984, p. 147) put it: ‘if a foreign language teacher is unwilling to invest himself' in real communication with his learners he can never hope to be a successful communicative teacher’.
However, it seems that CLT is not without its critics. Seedhouse (1996), for example, contends that the aims of the CLT approach in making ELT replicate genuine or natu- rally occurring language, rather than typical or traditional classroom communicative interaction, is both ‘paradoxical and unattainable’. He calls for adopting a sociolin- guistic approach to communication in the classroom. This entails recognising that classroom talk is an institutional discourse whose approach should match the pedagog- ical goals of an EFL classroom. For him, it is impossible for teachers to replicate con- versation in the classroom as part of a lesson and it follows that it is not possible to train teachers to do so. He suggests that classroom discourse should be viewed as a va- riety of an ‘institutional discourse’. Therefore, without understanding the interactional patterns inside the classroom, language teachers will not be able to establish and main- tain good communicative practices. For him, investigating the features of the teachers L2 classroom discourse should be the first step in understanding the interaction pat- terns.
Taking a more radical stand, Bax (2003) proposes that CLT should be abandoned, since the methodology fails to take into account the context of language teaching.
P a g e| 52 Likewise, Ellis (1996) casts doubts on whether CLT is a ‘culturally appropriate’ ap- proach for some countries, as a large number of teachers feel worried or guilty about the nature of communication in their own classrooms. Such teachers are thus suspi- cious of researchers wanting to investigate how communicative they are inside their classrooms. However, ELT teachers who produce 'typical' ELT classroom interaction should not, in fact, have anything to feel guilty about as suggested by Seedhouse (1996) who argues that it would be more productive for ELT classroom research to give attention to understanding the ‘possibilities inherent in a variety of institutional discourse, than to aim at [the] impossibilities’ (p. 18).
Other researchers take another view on how communication should be treated in CLT. For example, Walsh (2002) and Hardman (2008b) consider communication inside the classroom as an ‘institutional discourse’ especially in EFL contexts. They argue that participants in an EFL classroom are to a large extent restricted in their choice of lan- guage by the prevailing features of that context as teachers principally initiate, termi- nate, dominate, state, and evaluate talk (e.g., questions, discussions).
Unlike conversational talk, where participation is open to all participants with shared rights of communication, van Lier (1996) argues that much of the talk in the L2 class- room does not follow the rules of general conversation. Rather, it is controlled in some sense and follows highly predictable paths and routines conducted in the form of a 'dy- ad' between the teacher and a pupil, or when the teacher switches from one pupil to the next.
A number of studies have examined the CLT innovations in EFL contexts. The majori- ty of accounts have recognized the obstacles that EFL countries face in adopting CLT. For example, Chang (2011) found that EFL teachers in China failed to implement CLT for several reasons that include: the context of the wider curriculum, traditional teach- ing methods, class sizes and schedules, resources and equipment, the low status of teachers, teachers’ deficiencies in oral English and sociolinguistic and strategic com- petence, lack of properly trained teachers, students not being accustomed to CLT, and difficulties in evaluating students taught via CLT. Ellis (1994) also identified gram-
P a g e| 53 mar-based examinations, and lack of exposure to authentic language as constraints on using CLT in Vietnam.
Further, research on CLT has also shown that most EFL and ESL teachers produce in- teraction which features examples of the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) cycle and display questions (see section 3.10) as a typical traditional classroom interaction mode, failing to come up with genuine or natural communication (Dinsmore, 1985; Long & Sato, 1983; Nunan, 2004). In order to develop full competence in an L2, learners are likely to need to receive extensive input, participate in interaction, produce extensive output, rehearse language forms and communicative routines, get direct or indirect feedback on performance, and have access to knowledge about language and its learning (Ellis, 2005b; Lightbown & Spada, 2006).