AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

For years the goal of English language teaching was to develop linguistic competence, which focuses on the form (for example, grammar and vocabulary) of the language. However, more recent teaching practices show a movement towards focusing on language function rather than form, which is consistent with Hymes’ proposal (1972, cited in Hiep, 2007), that knowing the rules of a language is not enough, learners should also be able to use the language appropriately outside of the classroom. This is one of the key distinctions of the communicative language teaching approach (CLT). Brandl (2008) notes “CLT is based on the theory that the primary function of language use is communication” (pg5). Therefore, the main purpose of CLT is to improve students’ ability to communicate (Harmer, 2001), so that learners would be able to use the language effectively to cater to their real communicative needs rather than just having knowledge of the grammar system (Hiep, 2007). In other words, the goal of CLT is to assist students’ development of communicative competence and fluency. This goal can be achieved through processes, which are activities involving learner interaction, the use of authentic materials, a focus on the learner and the existence of information gap.  This essay will use the activity outlined in the article “Teaching grammar through community issues” by Jason Schneider to further discuss the elements of CLT.

To break the CLT elements down further, Brandl (2008) defines communicative competence as “the ability to interpret and enact appropriate social behaviours” (pg6). It consists of linguistic competence (knowledge of form and meaning), pragmatic competence (ability to speak appropriately in different situations), discourse competence (ability to create coherent text and to understand them), and strategic competence (tools to continue communication) (Brandl, 2008). Fluency is the ability to produce coherent speech in time. Both communicative competence and fluency are indicators of a successful communicator.  Another component of CLT is the use of information gap. Outcomes from activities with information gap are unpredictable because each individual learner would have control over what is spoken and how it is spoken and with successful communication, the gaps are closed, further developing communicative competence (Clark, 1989). These activities reflect conversation in the real world. Authentic materials and learner-focused tasks will be discussed later in the essay.

In the article “Teaching grammar through community issues”, Schneider conducted a lesson to teach the passive voice using information about the on campus labour dispute, which was occurring at the time. The activity consists of several parts. The first part involves brainstorming as a class about the issue. This is followed by looking at quotes from newspapers and official statements made by related parties and determining the source of each quote. Next, students discuss in pairs than as a group, the meaning of sentences containing the passive voice. After which, the students are given some cloze exercises to gain some more practice with passive voice and lastly the lesson ends with a class discussion, where students are able to freely express their opinions about the issue. The key point that Schneider was trying to establish through this lesson was how the teaching of grammar can be supported and complemented by local issues (the combination of form and function) in order to make learning more relevant and engaging for the students (Schneider, 2005).

Many features of the activity mentioned above are consistent with CLT. Firstly, Schneider uses pair work and class discussions throughout the activity. Both are popular methods of CLT because as Brown (cited in Hiep, 2007) suggests, these techniques engage students in producing language for genuine, meaningful communication and this is reflects the interactional nature of CLT. Discussions usually support the development of pragmatic and strategic competence. It can be noted that during discussions, the main focus is on the interpretation or meaning of the text rather than accuracy of language structure in speech. The interaction of learners also provides them an opportunity to improve their fluency in the language through constructing appropriate responses. The quotes in the second part of the activity support the development of discourse competence and are examples of using authentic materials.  Using authentic text in CLT is important because it contextualises the language used in the real world and engages the learner’s interest by making the task relevant and purposeful (Clarke, 1989). The activity is mostly learner focused which mean that students’ needs are considered. Taking into account the students’ English level (advanced) and background as graduate students, Schneider had selected an issue that would most likely stimulate their interest. He also provided opportunities for the students to express ideas and to negotiate meaning of the quotations. In this activity, Schneider guides and supports the learning of students rather than just giving out direct instructions. The lack of teacher intervention in the process of obtaining the answer is one of the features of fluency activities described by Brumfit (1984, cited in Hedge, 2000).   Lastly, the discussion at the end reflects the information gap element to an extent. Even though the topic is provided, there is still unpredictability as students are able to express their own opinions about the issue. This activity overall is very relevant to learners because discussion of current issues is very common in real life.

The main feature of the activity that does not reflect CLT is the cloze exercises where the main focus is on form and the activity is highly controlled by the teacher and does not include any interaction of learners. However, cloze exercises are important in this activity because it reinforces the lesson and provides more examples of the use of passive voice outside the context.

From the Schneider’s lesson, I have discovered that activities do not have to be either communicative or non-communicative, but rather activities occur on a continuum. Schneider’s activity is more communicative. I have also discovered that in theory, CLT is an excellent approach with many benefits. A case study of teachers’ beliefs in Vietnam suggests that CLT can improve classroom atmosphere, motivates learners, teach language for a practical use and it is fun and stimulating. However in reality, a fully CLT oriented approach is hard to implement due to a number of reasons such as structure of examinations, cultural and personal constraints, size of class and so forth (Hiep, 2007). This led me to believe that careful planning is required in order to successfully implement CLT because many factors would need to be considered, such as the learners’ capabilities and the social environment. 

Word Count: 1082

Reference List

Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Clark, D. F. (1989). Communicative theory and its influence on materials production. Language Teaching, 22(2), 73-86.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (3^rd edition). Essex:Longman.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Schneider, J. (2005). Teaching grammar through community issues. ELT Journal, 59(4), 298-305.