Downsides of CLT

Communicative Language Learning is a method that although once very popular, is slowly losing its high ranking among methodologies for various reasons. In Hu’s article, he discusses why CLT is losing whatever popularity it did have in China. In the article “The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching” by Stephen Bax, he talks about all of the reasons that CLT is no longer effective and why we should shift our thinking. The third article by Peter Skehan discusses the multifaceted aspects of Task-based instruction, a method rooted in CLT. Specifically in the first two articles, they discuss much of why CLT is becoming less useful and/or popular. Hu lays out some reasons why CLT hasn’t taken off in the PRC. Many of the reasons have to do with a fundamental difference between the educational values of the Chinese and the underlying principles which CLT represents. CLT as a method values an egalitarian relationship between teachers and learners, something which contrasts the Chinese educational philosophy. In general, the teacher is the authority in the classroom and they are ultimately responsible for whether or not a student fully grasps the subject matter. This is an excellent example of CLT’s lack of focus on context. Although CLT is a great method that can be very useful in many classrooms, it is not always beneficial in every situation. In Bax’s article he talks about how many modern thinking teachers believe that CLT is the end all be all. It is the ultimate method to use and “a country without CLT is somehow backward” (Bax 279). However, he argues that these teachers are putting way too much stock in the method of CLT and not considering other factors that could inhibit this method being used effectively. For example, in the Chinese culture, “learning is equated with reading books” (Hu 98). Classrooms in China believe that books are the best way to gain knowledge, it is a concept deeply rooted in their culture. CLT is a method that does not highly value textbooks; rather it values the students’ input and contribution to classroom discussion. If one were to consider the effect of cultural context, they would realize that it would be very difficult to incorporate CLT into a traditional Chinese classroom. The method of Task-based instruction would also be a very difficult one to use in any context. One of the tenets of TBL is Negotiation of meaning which “concerns the way learners encounter communicational difficulties while completing tasks, and how they do something about those difficulties” (Skehan 3). This concept would also be a very difficult one to work into a Chinese system. Although they may be open to the idea of negotiation of meaning, because of their education philosophies, it could be substantially hard to break through those walls and begin real world problem solving activities.

                When reading the Hu’s article about Chinese educational culture, there were several tenets of their philosophies that I found actually very similar to the American ideals of education. “It is a firm belief in the Confucian tradition that through education, even a person of obscure origin can achieve upward social mobility” (Hu 97). Although this is listed as a Chinese value, this very much echoes the American dream. With an education, you can do anything, you can rise above your origins. Another quote from Hu is this, “education can bring along social recognition and material rewards” (97). These values caught my eye because even thought the author was discussing another culture, it very much reminded me of some American values. Are we a society that welcomes CLT as well? Do we take education too seriously to be able to participate in some of the more lighthearted activities involved with CLT?

In Bax’s article, he talks of an “obsession” with CLT. Many teachers today believe that CLT is the ultimate method. If a teacher is not using that method there is something wrong. He gives examples of teachers who are shocked and amazed that despite the absence of CLT, “many students still manage to learn to speak good English” (279). I believe that there a few different reasons for this. Methodology isn’t the only factor in learning a language. The teachers themselves have a profound impact on how well a student learns. Even though we have been talking in class about different methods and what the best method could be, isn’t that a very small part of learning a language? Granted, it is important, but there are so many other factors! Context, environment, teacher attitude and skill level, culture, student background, the list goes on and on. Even if we just focus on the teacher, that’s a huge factor. These teachers who were amazed that students could learn without CLT probably weren’t considering other factors. Some teachers can make any method fun and get the point across to the students. Grammar translation method, although dry and traditional, can be taught very well by an outstanding teacher. Furthermore, different students learn in various ways. Personally, I learn very well using traditional methods such as GTM and Direct Method. It’s possible that although these methods are older, some students grasp concepts better through them than CLT.

 Which ultimately has more effect on a student’s learning, the teacher and their personality, or the method employed? Would you still “demote CLT to second place” as Bax states, or do you think that despite the ignorance of context, it can be a useful method?