It is lea the that the ea i g of CLT has ha ged o e ti e, ith fo e a ple a ide range of interpretations and an increasing range of variants, and that it means different things at different times and to different people, all of which make it difficult to talk about CLT as a single entity. However, rather than focusing on CLT or its variants, it a e o e app op iate to thi k e o d ethod , as dis ussed i Section 4.1.4 above.
108
However, in spite of the comments above, there may still be a case for using o u i ati e la guage tea hi g o the o u i ati e app oa h as ge e i te s to refer to teaching which exhibits certain broad traits such as having a focus on meaning over form and a tolerance of errors, and which is flexible enough to allow for the different emphases and procedures to be applied in relation to the broad traits.
My own view of communicative competence and CLT was, at the start of this study, very much based around the types of principles outlined by Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) and Richards and Rodgers (2014) described above.
Over time, I began to realise that my view was very much a kind of pre-packaged, static and context-free view of CLT . Fo e a ple, p i iples su h as the teacher acts as a fa ilitato i setti g up o u i ati e a ti ities a d as a ad iso du i g the a ti ities (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, p.121) was something very much ingrained in my own philosophy on teaching, reinforced as it had been during my own teacher training and development, and subsequently as a teacher trainer myself. However, spending time in the setting allowed me to see that principles such as this do need re-evaluating and that any application of CLT needs to take context into account. My view therefore became more in line with Weddell and Malderez (2013, p.102) who highlight the central role of context in any interpretation of CLT , stating that tea he s i a o te t a e said to be following a broadly communicative approach if their teaching is based on a contextually appropriate interpretation of a particular set of beliefs about language and language learning.
Recognising the difficulty in pinning down what CLT actually means, Littlewood (2013, p.3) suggests that e should ai to develop principles which help each teacher to develop a form of communication-oriented language teaching (COLT) suited to his or her own specific context. Littlewood (2014) believes COLT could encompass a range of communicative approaches to language teaching such as task-based approaches. He further develops these ideas (ibid., p.355-359), exploring COLT in relation to five areas that have been the subject of e e t de ate, at least i Weste TE“OL a d a ade i settings: post ethod pedagog ; li ki g p a ti e ith theo a d esea h ; opti al combinations of analyti a d e pe ie tial st ategies - a issue at the hea t of the
109
distinction between the eak a d st o g e sio s of CLT ; a s to deepe a d pe so alise the o te t of L o u i atio i the lass oo ; a d the ole of the
othe to gue i the la guage lass oo .
Drawing on the work of Schuerkens (2004), Littlewood (2014, p.359) concludes by noting that, whereas CLT was perceived and developed at a time when methods tended to flo f o the e t es of ELT to the pe iphe a d to ig o e the lo al o te t, COLT reflects a o ld i hi h i o atio a d di e sit efle t lo al o ditions, as they result f o a eati e i tu e of glo al ele e ts ith lo al ea i gs a d ultu al fo s . Although this more flexible idea of o u i ati el -o ie ted la guage tea hi g remains appealing, at the same time I have become more questioning, struggling to understand the impact of background and biases when considering what might be suitable approaches in given settings. In particular, with the setting for this study being Ke ala, a o -Western TESOL setti g, ut uch of the literature discussed above itte Weste a ade i s, ho ha e espoused, for the most part, Weste TE“OL led views, both on CLT and more generally on methods , it feels difficult to quantify the effect of this on my own thinking.
An example of this Weste TE“OL ias i the lite atu e would be the fact that there is a relatively little focus on the use of L1 in the language classroom within CLT , or even within ide dis ussio s of ethod a d postmethod . However, as Kerr (2016, p.515) notes:
outside of contexts where students come from multiple language backgrounds o he e the tea he does ot sha e the stude ts la guage, so e deg ee of own-language use on the part of the teacher appears to be the norm.
Indeed, as Hall and Cook (2012, p.16) asse t, it is a pa t of a tea he s e e da lass oo p a ti e , although the also poi t out that % of tea he s feel guilt he using their own language (Hall and Cook, 2013, p.41).
110
Having surveyed a number of studies on the topic, Kerr (2016, p.523) concludes that there is a very clear consensus that some own-language use can support the learning of a new language. He goes o to suggest i id. that:
a move away from own-la guage use as a ut h to a ds o e p i ipled practices will be facilitated by two changes within English language teaching. The first is the incorporation of own-language issues in teacher training and de elop e t …. “e o dl , the appea a e of o e p a ti al suggestio s i published form will provide teachers with more options to explore.
The point to make here is that this issue, though a very relevant one for many English teachers around the world, is not one that is particularly widely discussed in much of the lite atu e o e i g e e t app oa hes to ELT . It is also not, in my experience, something covered in teacher training programmes. It is also not something that, until recently, I have spent much time considering in my own teaching or when reflecting on my own views on ELT methods and methodology generally or on CLT in particular.
In the light of the a o e dis ussio s, o i te p etatio of CLT has e o e a o e flexible one, taking into account the needs of particular settings.
4.3. Educational change
The notion of introducing new approaches in ELT cannot be discussed without considering this in relation to the process of making educational change happen.
When changes in educational policy require teachers to adopt a new approach in the classroom, there is often a misconception that, with a little training, teachers will be able to adapt to accommodate any new requirements. This is not necessarily the case. As Lortie (1975) notes, not only have teachers spent many hours in the classroom as teachers, they have also spent many hours in the classroom as students and this app e ti eship of o se atio a p odu e eliefs a out tea hi g that a e diffi ult to change.
111
As Hayes (2012) points out, attempts to improve English by focusing on learner-centred edu atio ia CLT ofte eet ith little su ess fo a ious easo s elated to the change process. These reasons include the nature of change being too great, the speed too fast, the resources and/or infrastructure inadequate, the fact that the pedagogy is imported, that the change is driven by those who do not have to implement it, and that there is a lack of joined-up thinking with, for example, assessment systems not reflecting the change. In terms of importing pedagogy, he draws on the debates around linguistic i pe ialis Phillipso , a d the i flue e of Weste ideologies o pedagog (Canagarajah, 1999; Holliday, 2005) in suggesting that:
though the e a e so ethi g to e lea t f o othe s e pe ie e, the atte pt si pl to t a sfe est p a ti e i edu atio f o o e ou t to another is a cause of failure in much innovation (Hayes, 2012, p.50).
This section considers a number of issues involved in implementing change and managing the change process.