In his research article entitled Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity (Hiep, 2007) discusses the appropriateness of using CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) in various contexts. He also refers to the ignorance of context in which the language learning takes place as one of the short comings that CLT faces with.
He presents the main principals of CLT and implies that Communicative method is based on a broad theoretical framework in which "a view of language, of language learning, and teaching that most teachers aspire to" exists. Hiep also argues that this broadness of theoretical position of CLT cause some issues to emerge when putting it into practice. The article then concludes that language learning should be based on real communication rather than learning vocabulary and grammatical structures of the language. Hiep also raises the question: "How real communicative competence is to be developed?"
The answer provided for this question reveals that for achieving this goal different approaches should be taken in various contexts. For instance while such activities as: pair work and group work, authentic language input and production of language for meaningful communication seems to be vary suitable in a native speaking country, they probably won't pay off in a different context. He then presents opposing ideas toward implementing CLT in language classes of contexts other than native environments however; Hiep himself takes the moderate point of view and advocates the notion that we shouldn't sacrifice something valuable and that although Communicative language teaching originates in the West, considering it inappropriate for different contexts means to ignore developments in language teaching. Hiep then presents his study conducted in Vietnam to further elucidate the issues emerging in different teaching/learning contexts while implementing Communicative language teaching.
II. Article's Position
The first stage of the communicative 'revolution' was based on the idea of grouping small pieces of language according to 'communicative functions' or 'speech acts' like apologizing, requesting, advising and so on. And the second stage of the communicative 'revolution' really took off by the early 80s, mostly spreading out from the UK; the most important tenet was the dividing of classroom work into 'accuracy' work and 'fluency' work; accuracy work was for concentrating on learning new bits of language (grammar patterns, functional exponents, vocabulary, etc); fluency work was for getting the students to speak freely (say in discussions).
The theory of language teaching underlying the Communicative Approach is holistic rather than behavioristic. It starts from a theory of language as communication (Richards & Rogers, 1986) which implies knowledge of the grammatical system as well as performance. In contrast to the audio-lingual method the Communicative Approach tries to teach the grammatical forms through meaning and "learning activities are selected according to how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authentic language use (rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns)" (Richards & Rogers, 1986: 72).
Communicative Language Teaching is considered as an approach rather than a method (Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S., 1986). The difference is that within methodology a distinction is made between methods and approaches, in which methods are believed to be fixed teaching systems with particular techniques and practices, whereas approaches represent language teaching philosophies that can be interpreted and applied in a variety of different ways in the classroom (Rodgers, 2001) . So, CLT is quite often defined as a list of general principles or features. David Nunan (1991) puts these features of CLT into five categories:
"1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the Learning Management process.
4. An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning.
5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activities outside the classroom".
However, despite of its popularity and effectiveness communicative language teaching faces with some criticisms. In his article "Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity" (Hiep, 2007) addresses one of the major attacks on communicative language teaching and criticizes Communicative language teaching for paying insufficient attention to the context in which teaching and learning take place. The communicative approach can be very successful if the teacher understands the students and their problems which result from the influence of their first language or cultural issues, meanwhile native speaking teachers of the target language might still have difficulty understanding them.
According to Pham (2007) some scholars advocate the idea that a method cannot be exported from one particular context to the other (Holliday, 1994). (Larsen-Freeman, 2000) Also holds the view that a method is not equally suited to all contexts and that different methods suit different students and teachers in various contexts. (Ellis, 1996) Mentions 'the cultural conflicts' arising from the introduction of a predominantly Western language teaching approach to Far Eastern cultures. He argues the method should be modified so that it can be used in an Asian context. (Pennycook, 1994) Talks about ideological/cultural imposition, too. (Bax, 2003) On the other hand, suggests that neglecting the context in which learning a language takes place could have serious consequences.
III. Research Methodology
The study conducted by (Hiep, 2007) is based on the observation and data collection from three classes taught by three different teachers. All the teachers received their education and training in Australia a native English speaking country. This might cause obstacles in the process of teaching because almost all of techniques and training they received were related to a different context (Australia) which might be in contradiction with their current context, Vietnam. A more realistic study can be done with the teachers who have had their education in Vietnam, the context in which they teach.
It is also stated that although the participants represent diversity in ages, seniority, teaching specialization and length of experience but they are female. A more comprehensible and thorough study could also be done with an equal number of participants from opposite sex.
The other issue is the teachers attitudes toward the communicative language teaching is very much positive as if CLT is a perfect method for language teaching ready to be implemented in any language class in any context.
So CLT is considered the best method in this regard . . . (Xuan)
I have no doubt that CLT is the right method… (Thao)
So I feel that CLT is a good teaching method… (Lien)
These kinds of attitudes might later cause difficulties for teachers to deviate from what is CLT in Western context and modify it so that it can be implemented in the destination context properly and if they can do it they will not do it confidently as it is stated by some of them:
I have trouble identifying what I do is CLT, what is not. When I prepare for a particular activity, I open the methodology book, read again about CLTtheory, and see if the technique I want to use is CLT.
I keep asking myself if I am using CLT when I allow the students to use Vietnamese for their group discussion, then one [group member] presents [the work] to the whole class in English. They prefer this way.
IV. Findings and Implications
It is very difficult and almost impossible to find a single and an effective methodology in language teaching. What makes the communicative language teaching a superior and well-developed teaching methodology is not just the adoption the Western techniques and practice them in language classes but what it makes CLT ideas effective is adaptation and modification of them to be implemented in a different context and to answer to the needs of students. What seems to be the most important in language classes is the context itself. According to (Bax, 2003):
It is time for the profession to place methodology and communicative language teaching where they belong - in second place - and recognize that the learning context, including learner variables, is the key factor in successful language learning.
V. Comparative Study
A comparative study is conducted in the language teaching and learning context of Iran where English language teacher like most of their Asian counterparts try to implement communicative language teaching in their classes. As expected they face difficulties in practicing CLT ideas in their classes yet interestingly they get positive feedbacks. In this study a questionnaire was designed and sent through internet to three Iranian teachers who work in a private language institute in Zanjan, Iran. They are all male teachers. One of them hold an M.A. degree in TEFL and the others have B.A. degree in English Language and literature. They all teach teenagers who are 14-16. From their responses it seems that they share the same problem regarding the group work. According to one of the teachers:
When you require students to engage in group work activities they end up chatting with each other in their first language and the constant supervision is needed for that matter.
They are also very happy about the size of the class rooms which are reduced to 12-15 in recent years, and also the attitude of students towards using the language outside the class room as indicated by one of the teachers interviewed:
It is very interesting to find young student try to speak in English with each other outside the classroom. They want themselves to seem classy or important by doing so but no matter the intention this results in better learning.
These results show that in many ESL/EFL settings the implementation of CLT ideas requires a careful understanding of the context in which learning takes place.
VI. Future Directions
We should be aware of that the classroom is a place for students not only to study the target language but also to develop their relationship with the teacher and their peers. As indicated in the previous parts the context in which the learning takes place is more important than the method of teaching. Future studies might want to study the techniques for gradual changing of the dominant context e.g. cultural behavior of students who cannot engage in group activities by offering courses with more social behavior nature.
