Traditional Teaching Methods vs. CLT: A Study
Divya Nimit Walia
IIS University, Jaipur, IndiaEmail: divy81@gmail.com
Abstract
Methodology in language teaching has been characterized in a variety of ways. Withinmethodology we have methods and approaches, in which methods are the fixed teachingsystems with prescribed techniques and practices, and approaches are language teachingphilosophies that can be interpreted and applied in a variety of different ways in theclassroom.Where classrooms in 1950s were dominated by traditional methods of rote learning of grammar rules, the CLT approach, based
on the principle of ‘learning a language by
using it
’
, made an entry into the language classrooms in the 1980s. However, in theIndian scenario CLT is still not the preferred approach for language teaching (asindicated by the practitioners of language teaching).Though it is being followed to acertain extent as a modern teaching technique and is being implemented in theclassrooms according to the learning needs and background of the learners, yet thefindings indicate reluctance on the part of teachers in using it as a language teachingmethodology. Consequently a study is required to find out and explore the challengesbeing entailed by CLT resulting in hesitant attitude of teachers in using it in theclassroom. Simultaneously, the paper seeks to compare and contrast it with thetraditional Teaching methods so that the strengths and limitations of the two could bebrought forth and a blended methodology could be suggested for effective languagelearning.
Keywords:
Methodology, CLT, Traditional Methods, Grammar, Language Learning
Introduction
The period from the 1950s to the 1980s is known as "The Age of Methods," duringwhich a number of quite detailed prescriptions for language teaching emerged.Situational Language Teaching evolved in the United Kingdom while a parallel method,Audio-Lingualism, emerged in the United States. In the middle-methods period, avariety of methods were proclaimed as successors to the then prevailing SituationalLanguage Teaching and Audio-Lingual methods.These alternatives were promoted under such titles as Silent Way, Suggestopedia,Community Language Learning, and Total Physical Response. In the 1980s, with theevolution of more interactive views of language teaching, these methods gotovershadowed by Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach. The basis of this approach was a broad set of principles which advocated that:
•
Learners learn a language by communicating in it.
•
The goal of classroom activities should be to encourage authentic and meaningfulcommunication.
• An important dimension of communication is fluency
• Different language skills should be integrated within the communication
• Learning is a process
of creative construction and therefore, involves trial and error.
Frontiers of Language and Teaching
…...…………………………………………….…
Volume 3 (2012)
126Another technical advancement that further strengthened the concept of interaction andcommunicative competence in the language classroom was the use of Internet andlanguage laboratory. After having established the importance of communicativeapproach in the language classroom, linguists and researchers found that electronicdiscourse tends to be lexically and syntactically more complex than oral discourse(Warschauer, 1996a) and features a broad range of linguistic functions beneficial forlanguage learning (Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Wang, 1993). The paper is an attempt todraw a comparison and contrast between the traditional approach and the CLT approachof language teaching and explore re
asons for teachers’ respective preference.
Literature Review
According to B. Kumaravadivelu (1993) Communicative language teaching (CLT)which started in the early 1970s has become the dynamic power that shapes theplanning, implementation, and evaluation of English language teaching (ELT)
programmers nearly in all parts of the world. Austin J Damiani (2003) in his paper “TheGrammar Translation Method of Language Teaching” states “As a teacher, I liked using
the grammar translation method because I could assume the intelligence of my students;I could talk to them like the intelligent people that they are, and we could talk about thegrammar and vocabulary that I was teaching. In another method, I would have had touse simple language and familiar phrases to communicate in the target language, andeven then, I could not be sure that my students knew and understood what it was that
they were saying.”
According to Wen Wu (2008) one of the fundamental principles of CLT is that learnersare required to be involved in significant communication to accomplish communicative
fluency in ESL settings. Wenjie (2009) in his study ‘Using Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) to Improve Speaking Ability of Chinese Non-
English Major Students’
has also drawn a comparison between CLT approach and Traditional Grammar teachingapproach; however this study was conducted on Chinese students. Sarwar, Alam M. inhis paper Teaching English Grammar through Communicative Language TeachingApproach (CLTA) in the Context of Bangladesh (2011) defines why and how grammarfits in CLTA and seeks to understand teaching grammar through communicative
language teaching approach (CLTA) in the context of Bangladesh. ‘A
Contrastive Study of Grammar Translation Method and Communicative Approach inTeaching
English Grammar’ by Shih
-Chuan Chang (2011) aims to compare thecontrollability and feasibility of these two approaches and find out which one is moresuitable for grammar teaching in Taiwan. The present paper seeks to bring out theadvantages and limitations of the two methods as experienced by the teachers in thestate of Rajasthan (India) and aims at identifying the more effective methodology of language teaching
Traditional Methods of Language Teaching
Among the traditional methods popular ones are Grammar translation method, DirectMethod and Audio Lingual Method. The three traditional methods focused more onlearning about a language and as such were based on the following principles- A careful analysis of the target written language, particularly its grammar.- Learning of The Grammar rules- Use of Native tongue as the medium of instruction
Frontiers of Language and Teaching
…...…………………………………………….…
Volume 3 (2012)
127- Greater use of translation exercises- More emphasis on Reading and Writing SkillsWith changing time and specialized language learning needs, these methods failed togive the desired outcome expected of them. As with any other process, the demands andneeds of language learning keep on changing and so should the methodology andapproach. (Attar and Chopra, 2010) It can be traced back to Hymes(1972), whoproposed that knowing a language involved more than knowing a set of grammatical,lexical, and phonological rules.
Limitations of Traditional Methods of Language Learning
The traditional methods focus and emphasize mainly on the learning of grammar ruleand vocabulary and as such do not pay much attention to the four skills mainly LSRW.While writing, students are mainly dependent on grammar rules and translating themfrom their native tongue and while reading,
“gra
mmar translation method produced
habits indicative of deciphering and not of reading” (Tyler 2
008).The student tries to understand every single word and its grammatical form, because hebelieves it is essential for understanding the text.Besides, in the traditional methods, there is lack of attention being paid towardsspeaking and learning of pronunciation,
“there is no oral or pronunciation work, since it
is
the written language which is taught, and ‘mental discipline’ is stressed rather than
any abilit
y actually to use the language” (White
1988).Jack C. Richards states that
“techniques
that were often employed included memorization of dialogs, question andanswer practice, substitution drills and various forms of guided speaking and writing
practice”
(Richards 2006).Most importantly, traditional methods regarded language learning as transfer of knowledge with the help of board and rules rather than considering it as a skill, wherelearning of rules and vocabulary items in isolation could not yield the desired learningoutput.In order to use the language effectively learners need to develop communicativecompetence
—
the ability to use the language they are learning, appropriately, in a givensocial encounter. Hymes' notion of communicative competence was elaborated by anumber of practice-oriented language educators, most notably by Canale and Swain(1980) who contended that communicative competence comprises grammaticalcompetence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategiccompetence. Thus with 1980s came the approach of CLT, which established interactionas the means and goal of learning a language and as such involved incorporation of teaching techniques like role plays, pair work, simulations etc. Though still a popularapproach among the classrooms, it has its own challenges, like, challenge of inculcatingSelf Learning, since the teacher involvement is minimal
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Approach
The emergence of Communicative Language Teaching approach has led to manyinnovations in the field. Its origin can be traced back to the vast human traffickingemerging in North America and Europe as immigrants and guest workers, thus resultingin language teaching for specific purpose and combined with functional-notional levelof language learning, forming a cohesive whole: CLT. CLT today has resulted frommany experiments and modifications over the years since its inception in 1970 when itwas first practiced in Germany in a rather crude form. A few years later, in its practice,the practical aspect of language teaching and learning was emphasized instead of
نظرات شما عزیزان:
برچسبها:
تبادل لینک هوشمند