AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Introduction
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an approach to language teaching that has dominated for more than 40 years (301 text, p.19; Thompson, 1996, p.9). CLT focuses on communication and interaction, and because it allows learners to use the language effectively in meaningful social situations, it has become a highly favourable approach to use (Hiep, 2007, p. 193; Hu, 2002, p. 96). However, this does not mean CLT works in every situation. The context, including students’ needs, wants, their cultural background and their expectations, are of utmost importance too (Bax, 2003, p. 282). This essay will illustrate why a CLT-based coursebook is not the most suitable option for this situation, and will begin by considering the context, and how CLT and its main focuses might not benefit learners in this situation. It will then explain how this context and its cultural beliefs and views can conflict with CLT, and will finish with my suggestions as to how this type of situation can be combatted and prevented.

Context and CLT
There are important factors to consider in this context including learners’ country, class size, age, and the institution itself. CLT-based coursebooks, such as Cutting Edge, focus on very communicative principles such as language fluency and meaningful use (Hiep, 2007, p. 196). In contrast, classrooms in East Asia do not consist of these features; even large cities in China use traditional, grammar-based methods over CLT (Hu, 2005, p. 66). Therefore, because around half of the teachers in this situation are locals, this coursebook will be unfamiliar to both them and the students, and teachers will unlikely have the CLT training or confidence that is required to teach CLT-based courses (Beaumont & Chang, 2011, p. 294). This institution has learners from all levels learning English, which would result in differences in understanding as everyone would have to use the same coursebook, regardless of whether it was appropriate for them or not. In CLT curriculums, pair and group work is favoured over teacher talk and instruction (Hu, 2002, p. 96). Because the classroom consists of 15-25 students, group and pair work could become loud and hard to monitor, and learners may revert to their L1 unnoticed (Littlewood, 2007, p. 244; Sakui, 2004, p. 160). The learners’ ages are another factor to consider. As teenagers and young adults, these learners may possibly find the CLT coursebook topics, activities and games childish or demotivating.

The core principles of CLT do not match the the learners’ needs and aims in this situation. Students at this institute are learning English to pass tests for university or work; not for communicative, interactive purposes–which CLT is based around–and do not intend to use English outside of the classroom. CLT commonly uses role-plays and activities to encourage speaking. However, these will not be extremely helpful in this context due to the learners’ assessments usually requiring only grammar and lexical knowledge, not meaningful use and fluency (Littlewood, 2007, p. 245). Furthermore, the learners do not intend to travel to an English-speaking country in the near future, making CLT and its speaking and fluency principles meaningless for these learners. Students and their parents are paying reasonably high fees to attend this institution, which further supports the idea that they would rather see lessons focused around achieving their aims. Furthermore, because the classes are only four hours per week, it can be difficult to cover the curriculum and make strong classroom bonds (Burnaby & Sun, 1989, p. 229).

Beliefs, Confucianism and CLT
Due to their approach to education and their Confucian-heritage culture, CLT is not highly compatible in some East Asian countries. In these contexts, education is seen as accumulating knowledge, rather than constructing it (Hu, 2002, p. 97). For example, in China, textbooks and reading are considered the ‘source of knowledge’, which differs greatly from CLT, where learners discover and negotiate knowledge themselves (p. 98). The coursebook Cutting Edge consists of strategies, vocabulary and listening tasks which are all brought together by relevant topics, which include things such as, ‘At rest, at work’ and ‘Ambitions and dreams’, to allow learners to use language in meaningful, authentic situations (301 text, p. 22). However, these tasks conflict with various East Asian traditional views of foreign language learning, which focus on grammar, literature analysis and memorisation (Burnaby & Sun, 1989, p. 222). These learners’ assessments are often future-defining, and these teachers and students believe that CLT-based coursebooks will not prepare them to pass, which means not achieving their aims (Littlewood, 2007, p. 245; Burnaby & Sun, 1989, p. 222). Additionally, traditional East Asian structures are believed to carry more prestige for learners at tertiary level, which some of these learners are, and suggests why the teachers and parents alike request a structural approach (p. 223).

Hu (2002) argues that Confucianism dominates much of East Asia and influences its views toward education (p. 96). Its tradition places education on a pedestal, declaring that it requires serious commitment and effort to achieve, which almost goes against CLT and its light hearted activities (Beaumont & Chang, 2011, p. 294). Furthermore, the teacher is viewed as a respectable role-model and authoritative figure for learners (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996, p. 179). This conflicts with the CLT approach, which suggests that the teacher is a facilitator in a very learner-centered classroom (Beaumont, 2011, p. 309). That is why communicative tasks like those in Cutting Edge, where learners negotiate meaning without involvement from the teacher, are a concern for teachers in East Asia, and why these teachers find this CLT curriculum unsuitable (Littlewood, 2007, p. 244). Also, due to insufficient training in CLT, there is a common misconception in Asia where teachers believe CLT only focuses on oral language, ignoring grammar and accuracy (Goto Butler, 2011, p. 41).  However, Goto Butler (2011) notes that students in East Asia have shown positive attitudes toward CLT before, and this idea of teaching in Asia being teacher-focused and rigid is not always correct (p. 40). Therefore, CLT could perhaps be suitable in this context to some extent, but because of misconceptions, conflicting views and Confucian influence, the CLT approach is generally not very compatible with non-western cultures of learning.

Recommendations
From my position as a member of the Development Team, I would recommend that the institution employ a curriculum that has a combination of both CLT and grammar-focused principles. The CLT approach and audio-lingual and grammar-translation methods all have strong points, that if incorporated into one, could be beneficial to all at the institution. CLT has very engaging aspects, as does the coursebook Cutting Edge, as the lessons are already pre-planned and transparent, which will not only save the teacher time and stress, but allow both learners and teachers to see what is coming up in each lesson (301 text, p. 22). CLT would also provide these learners with communication competence and help teachers to keep up with methods and approaches that are used outside of East Asia (Liao, 2004, p. 270). Thompson (1996) suggests that learners are not only more likely to speak more in a class that uses CLT over a grammar-focused approach, but will also read and write more diverse texts (p. 12). CLT also teaches learners how to use strategies to cope with language barriers, and more recently, CLT has adopted competencies so students know what they will be able to achieve in the course (301 text, p. 20). This further supports my recommendation to include diverse, communicative and authentic CLT principles. These students should be not only taught English to pass tests, but to further improve their language and learning skills by learning English in meaningful contexts.

On the other hand, while communication is important, it cannot fully take place without grammar control (Hiep, 2007, p. 194). Therefore, I think it is essential to incorporate grammar, and components from traditional methods such as audio-lingual and grammar-translation in order to achieve a positive learning environment. Grammar is a necessary function to communicate in the L2, so classrooms should include both (Thompson, 1996, p. 10). Reading and writing skills, which are commonly tested in assessments in this situation, are just as beneficial as speaking skills, and can be used in both large or small classes (Beaumont & Chang, 2011, p. 299).
These students would benefit from a coursebook that includes CLT features, especially those involving authentic, meaningful language use such as social situations and speaking activities, but also grammar-focused features such as teacher-led drills and vocabulary lists translated into the L1. Furthermore, the teachers would find it easier to teach using a transparent CLT coursebook, accompanied by a segment of each lesson that is dedicated to understanding grammar.

Summary and Conclusion
It is very evident that contextual issues can be both motivating and constraining factors when it comes to language learning and teaching. Incorporating a CLT-based curriculum depends on the class size, the learners’ ages, their beliefs, expectations and importantly their wants and aims, but also the country’s cultural beliefs and traditions. These factors are all important to consider when introducing a new curriculum, and in this situation, are necessary in understanding why certain people adapt to and accept changes well and why others do not. A CLT-based coursebook provides meaningful language use, diverse games and activities to improve confidence and fluency in the L2. However, it also brings confusion for teachers who may not be fluent in English and not used to CLT, and frustration for students who do not see the relevance or benefit of trivial games and tasks. Its learner-centered, implicit tendencies also clash with a largely valued traditional belief that education is serious and intense, requiring teacher-driven input and passive learning. Therefore, it is understandable to see why many would report dissatisfaction with the CLT-based coursebook and its aspects.

There is hope for a combined view on education, however. Although it appears that contexts such as this in East Asia, which are heavily driven by traditional views and Confucian beliefs, would have to seriously consider changing their whole outlook on education before CLT could ever be introduced, that might not be entirely necessary. CLT is able to incorporate many grammar aspects and methods which are already familiar to those in this context, and at the same time, teachers can use meaningful activities from coursebooks while combining their usual methods–whether that be audio-lingual, memorisation or teacher talk–to get their point across and allow learners to free chat in either their L1 or L2. My suggestion is that we should not let contextual factors limit the way we teach, but we should also not allow CLT to dominate while ignoring other approaches and views. There needs to be a combination of both communicative and traditional principles, and a wider understanding of cultural ideas and preferences to ensure that positive language learning is accomplished.

References

Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(2), 278-286 and 57(3), 295-6.

Beaumont, M. & Chang, K.S. (2011). Challenging the traditional/communicative dichotomy. ELT Journal, 65(3), 291-299.

Beaumont, M. (2011). A response to Carol Griffiths. ELT Journal 65/3, 309-310.

Burnaby, B. & Sun, Y. (1989). Chinese teachers’ views of Western language teaching: Context informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 219-238.

Cortazzi, M. & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goto Butler, Y. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific Region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.

Hiep, P.H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61 (3), 193-201.

Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: the case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.

Hu, G. (2005). “CLT is best for China” - an untenable, absolutist claim. ELT Journal, 59, 65-68.

Liao, X. (2004). The need for communicative language teaching in China. ELT Journal, 58, 270-272.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.

Sakui K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155-63.

Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50, 9-15.

Wette, R. (2016). Langtchg 301 textbook. Applied Language Studies & Linguistics (pp. 19-22). Auckland: University of Auckland.