In the era of globalisation, the use of English will be essential for people to live in a world of increasing competition. One’s ability in conducting global communication depend on his or her ability, not only to learn English and assimilate its associated cultures, but to apply the language and cultural knowledge and skills into one’s own practical work and serve the best interest of his or her real world life. China’s entry into the WTO means more English-related jobs and more need to conduct
communication with it globally.
The cultivation of the ability to ‘share and negotiate meanings and conventions’ (Breen and Candlin, 1980, p. 92) has been at the heart of foreign language teaching in the world since the concept of ‘communicative competence’ was first defined by Hymes (1972, p. 7) and Savignon (1972, cited in Kramsch and Thorne, 2002, p. 83). In recent years, there has been a major shift in perspective within the language teaching profession concerning the nature of what is to be taught. In simple terms, there has been a change of emphasis from presenting language as a set of forms (grammatical, phonological, lexical) that have to be learned and practiced, to presenting language as a functional system that is used to fulfil a range of
communicative purposes. Littlewood (2000, p. 6) summarised four domains of skill that constitute a speaker’s communicative competence. Firstly, the learner must attain as high a degree as possible of linguistic competence. That is, he or she must develop skill in manipulating the linguistic system, to the point where he or she can use it spontaneously and flexibly in order to express his intended message. Secondly, the learner must distinguish between the forms that he or she has mastered as part of his linguistic competence, and the communicative functions that they perform. Thirdly, the learner must develop skills and strategies for using language to communicate meanings as effectively as possible in specific situations. He or she must learn to use feedback to judge his or her success, and if necessary, remedy failure by using different language. Fourthly, the learner must develop sufficient awareness of the social meaning of language forms. For many learners, this may not entail the ability to vary their own speech to suit different social circumstances, but rather the ability to use generally acceptable forms and avoid potentially offensive ones.
We can characterize traditional language teaching methods and materials as concentrating on the development of grammatical competence, almost to the
exclusion of the other components. Thus, a syllabus or a textbook which presents the grammar, the lexicon, or the phonology of a language as a set of forms and rules to be learned should have the effect, if successful, of giving learners the ability to produce grammatically or phonologically accurate sentences in the language being studied.
While Tarone and Yule (1999, p. 17) argued that the development of this
grammatical competence should be in many respects the major goal of large numbers of students who take courses in a second or foreign language, Savignon (1983, cited in Kramsch and Thorne, 2002, p. 84) continued to stress the importance of
‘negotiation of meaning’ by using various sources of information - prior experience, the context to achieve understanding. This led to some proposal for a negotiated syllabus with both teachers and learners selecting the content of a course built upon social and problem-solving interaction so that the learners’ capacity for
communication rather than their declarative knowledge about the language can be improved (Long and Crookes, 1992, p. 37). Based on the previous debates and discussions, Canale and Swain (1980) provided the most commonly accepted concept of communicative competence by arguing that key components of communicative competence include grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence.
Hird (1995) argued that the ELT in China was “not very communicative”. Under the guideline of the1981 national curriculum for high school English teaching and learning which was structure-based and set “English language knowledge” as the main teaching goal in order for students to “lay a solid foundation for further studies”, “87 per cent of teachers in China’s middle schools used the traditional method in the late 1980s” (Zuo et al, 1990, p. 40). As a result, the traditional method produced a discontent with the existing state of affairs. Students became almost ‘deaf-dumb’ and had little ability to speak and understand English (Ng and Tang, 1997, pp. 63-85).
The MOE is the government administration that makes educational policy and determines the goal, curriculum, course books, and even teaching methods throughout the country. As Campbell and Zhao (1993) observed, “The highly centralized Chinese system of education subverts the development of more effective methods of teaching English in a number of ways, particularly in the ways foreign language teachers are selected and trained, materials and methods chosen, and programs and teachers are evaluated”.
As Johnson and Morrow (1981, p. 1) argued, “new movements often begin as reactions to old ones”. CLT was initially introduced into China in the early 1990s as new ELT approach to address the problem of the traditional text-driven teaching method that produces no English speakers but rather English readers. CLT views language as a tool for communication. It insists that interactive speaking activities in classrooms be instances of real communication. It assumes it essential for students to have sufficient exposure to the target language.However, CLT was initially not well accepted because the method was new in every way and it met with considerable resistance from the start, mainly because of teachers’ lack of confidence to teach communicatively and grammar-focused examination pressure. “Many teachers have tried to change the dominant teaching procedures but quickly get frustrated, lose their initial enthusiasm, and acquiesce to tradition” (Campbell and Zhao, 1993).
Similarly, Burnaby and Sun (1989) reported that CLT was inappropriate for the needs of most Chinese students, and difficult to implement within the Chinese
context, in spite of the positive attitude held by Chinese teachers. Teachers expressed a desire for assistance with curriculum development, improved testing methods, and more native-speaker experts in ELT/EFL from English-speaking countries.
However, this mentality did not prevent CLT from reestablishing its position in ELT in China. As mentioned in Chapter Three, “English Course Guidelines for Secondary School Students” issued by the MOE in 2001 started a new round of reform by recommending task-based language teaching as effective teaching method as well as a new diverse evaluation system focusing both on formative and summative
assessment. As a natural continuity of the secondary ELT, College English has to have corresponding reforms. The main objective is the same as the one set for
secondary schools: to promote students’ comprehensive English language use ability. Early in the 1970’s, as a result of a major reappraisal of language, linguists began to look at the English language, not as interlocking sets of grammatical, lexical, and phonological rules, but as a tool for expressing meaning. This re-conceptualisation has had an intense impact on English language teaching, especially EFL
methodology. In the original versions of CLT, meaning was emphasized over form, fluency over accuracy. It also led to the development of differentiated courses that reflected the different communicative needs of learners. This needs-based approach also reinforced another trend that was emerging at the time – that of learner-centred education (Nunan, 2004, pp. 6-7).