have become convenient labels to describe an approach to teaching that aims to de elop o u i ati e o pete e . Ho e e , these te s a give the false impression of a well-defined concept, underpinned by a commonly agreed set of principles. As ‘i ha ds a d ‘odge s , p. ote, o si gle te t o autho it o it [ o u i ati e la guage tea hi g ] emerged, nor any single model that was universall a epted as autho itati e .
Dörnyei (2010, p.33) similarly argues that despite CLT e o i g a eal uzz o d i la guage tea hi g ethodolog … the e te t to hi h the te o e s a ell-defined a d u ifo tea hi g ethod is highl uestio a le , fu the addi g that si e the
100
genesis of CLT in the early 1970s, its proponents have developed a wide range of variants that e e o l loosel elated to ea h othe , hile Little ood 11, p.541) is more di e t, suggesti g that a e u e t o e t a out o u i ati e la guage tea hi g is that o od k o s hat it is .
Indeed, as Hall (2011, p. o e ts, e e dis ussi g CLT is i so e a s p o le ati as the term means different things to different people and everyday classroom practices can appear to be quite different when CLT principles are applied in differing social and educational co te ts .
More recently, Littlewood (2014, p.349) has reflected that CLT o se es ot so u h as a label for a specific approach as an umbrella term to describe all approaches that ai to de elop o u i ati e o pete e i pe so all ea i gful a s .
Despite this lack of clarity surrounding precisely what CLT is, it nevertheless, as Richards a d ‘odge s , p. ote, o ti ues to e o side ed the ost plausi le asis fo la guage tea hi g i a o te ts toda .
Furthermore, there have been a number of attempts to define the key principles behind CLT . Several of these are briefly described below.
Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011, pp.119-121) list sixteen principles behind CLT , including:
Wherever possible, authentic language - language as it is used in a real context - should be introduced.
Students should be given the opportunity to express their ideas and opinions. Errors are tolerated and seen as a natural outcome of the development of
communication skills.
Communicative interaction encourages cooperative relationships among students. It also gives students an opportunity to work on negotiating meaning.
The social context of the communicative event is essential in giving meaning to the utterances.
101
The teacher acts as a facilitator in setting up communicative activities and as an advisor during the activities.
Dörnyei (2012) is more concise, seeing the key features of CLT as:
Activities promote real communication, that is, engage learners in the authentic, functional use of language.
Classroom communicative situations should resemble real-life communication as much as possible.
Fluency is more important than accuracy.
Typical communicative activities are role-plays, discussions, problem-solving tasks, simulations, projects and games.
Richards and Rodgers (2014, p.105) give five principles underpinning CLT : Learners learn a language through using it to communicate.
Authentic and meaningful communication should be the goal of classroom activities.
Fluency is an important dimension of communication.
Communication involves the integration of different language skills. Learning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and error. Mitchell (1994, p.33) is perhaps more pragmatic in describing CLT as:
ot a tightl st u tu ed ethod of tea hi g … Rather, it is a broad assembly of ideas f o a a ge of sou es … hi h ha e togethe o e to e a epted as good practice by many contemporary teachers ,
and later as a fluid a d ha gi g od of ideas, ot a fixed package (ibid., p.41).
Harmer (2007, p.70) is perhaps even more pragmatic in his view that CLT :
has e o e a ge e alized u ella te to des i e lea i g se ue es hi h ai to i p o e stude ts a ilit to o u i ate.
102
Nevertheless, the te ptatio to atta h a si gula ea i g to the la el CLT a d so envisage it as a single and well-defined entity remains.
Looki g f o the tea he s poi t of ie , Klappe poi ts out that the la k of precisely specified classroom techniques has helped keep CLT fuzz i te s of tea he s u de sta di g. Along similar lines, Thompson (1996) discusses four ways in hi h CLT gets isi te p eted, namely that it means not teaching grammar, means only teaching speaking, means pair work - which means role play, and means demanding too much from teachers, while Little et al. (1994) also highlight the misinterpretations that CLT is indifferent to grammar and that it is only concerned with speaking. Although these misconceptions were noted around twenty years ago, it is evident from this study that such misconceived views of CLT continue to be held, as will be seen in Chapter 7.
The steady stream of writing on CLT over the last few decades lends support to Mit hell s fluid a d ha gi g od of ideas i te p etatio of CLT , with different perspectives on what constitutes CLT given at different times. For instance, Howatt (1984, p. disti guished et ee a strong a d a weak form of CLT :
The eak e sio , hi h has e o e more or less standard practice in the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use thei E glish fo o u i ati e pu poses ... The st o g e sio of communicative teaching, on the other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired through communication.
As Hall , p. otes, it is the eak fo of CLT that has do i ated, a d pe haps still do i ates, thi ki g i Weste ELT . I also want to note here that this is one of a relatively small number of authors quoted to date that have acknowledged that what is being said refers specifically to Weste TE“OL. This poi t ill e etu ed to in Section 4.2.3.
In terms of shifting interpretations of CLT , ‘i ha ds efe s to lassi communicative la guage tea hi g s to s a d u e t o u i ati e la guage tea hi g late s to the p ese t , he e the fo e is ha a te ised the
103
type of overarching principles mentioned earlier and the latter allows for more recent variants of CLT such as content-based instruction, task-based instruction, text-based instruction and competency-based instruction to fall under the broad umbrella of CLT . Richards does not make any reference to the possibility that this interpretation of u e t o u i ati e la guage tea hi g appears to be a Weste TE“OL based interpretation.
Evidence that CLT has been far from a static entity over the years can also be seen from jou al a ti les dis ussi g a tu i g poi t i o u i ati e la guage tea hi g Celce- Mu ia, Dö ei a d Thu ell, , ethi ki g o u i ati e la guage tea hi g
Gat o to a d “egalo itz, a d e e the e d of CLT Ba , . The e has also ee dis ussio o e i g the o e e t e o d o u i ati e la guage tea hi g (Savignon, 2007), perhaps reflecting the developments within the ELT profession concerning methods in general, with Wedell and Malderez (2013, p.99) asserting that:
it is no longer possible to believe that all contexts can use a single method … [and] (in principle at least) that it is natural for teachers to base their classroom decision-making on their own understandings of a shared approach, and so natural for there to be a wide variety of context-dependent classroom practices.
Changing perspectives on CLT have also been highlighted by Hall (2016, p.215), who suggests that:
in the early twenty-first century, a unified version of CLT has given way to an e a i atio of st o g a d eak CLT, of hethe CLT is app op iate fo all contexts and cultures, and the development, or perhaps fragmentation, of CLT into related methods such as task-based language teaching (TBLT), and content- based approaches such as content and language integrated learning (CLIL), both merging content and language-teaching in ways a gua l si ila to st o g forms of CLT.
104
However, Hunter and Smith (2012, p.430) suggest that the lack of consensus su ou di g the p e ise atu e of CLT has ee p ese t si e the s, a d uestio
hethe the e as e e a holl disti t, u ita o lassi al CLT .
The current position of CLT in ELT is perhaps reflected by Richards and Rodgers (2014, p.107) who note that:
By the twenty-first century, the assumptions and practices of CLT seem on the one hand to be commonplace and part of a generally accepted and relatively u o t o e sial a o of tea hi g theo a d p a ti e … O the othe ha d, language teaching today is a much more localized activity, subject to the constraints and needs of particular contexts and cultures of learning, and the use of global and generic solutions to local problems is increasingly seen as problematic. Research and documentation of local practices is needed.
Ho e e , the use of e tai te s su h as o o pla e i the fi st pa t suggests a Weste TE“OL ias, and the u de l i g asse tio i the se o d pa t that the use of glo al a d ge e i solutio s to lo al p o le s is i easi gl p o le ati suggests a bias towards the views of academics over those of practising teachers. That is to say, although the assumptions and practices of CLT a e o o pla e i pa ti ula , mainly Western TESOL settings, it seems an over-generalisation to suggest that this is true in all settings, and whilst in academic circles it may be problematic to suggest the use of global or generic solutions to local problems, it is unclear whether practising teachers also consider this as problematic.
4.2.3. Criticisms of CLT