The Application of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Turkish Primary and Secondary Schools
Arzu Nihan Küçük, Turkey
Arzu Nihan Küçük studied English Language and Literature at İstanbul University. She also holds an MA in ELT and Applied Linguistics from King’s College, London. She has been teaching English as a foreign language since 2007 and at the moment she is working as an English Instructor at Bahçeşehir University.
E-mail: arzu_kucuk@yahoo.com
Menu
Introduction
The teaching context and the way CLT is considered
Educational culture and applicability of CLT to the curriculum
The hegemony of native-speaking countries in ELT
Ways of using CLT efficiently
Conclusion
References
Thanks to the economical and political power of the UK and USA, English has spread worldwide and it has been considered as an international language (in some countries like India, Bangladesh it is used as a second language; however, in countries such as Turkey and Russia it is a foreign language). This spread of English has brought with it the inevitable promotion of the methodologies and approaches in ELT which stemmed mainly from the centre –the norm providing countries -, as Kachru (1985) names it. One of these methods which have been criticised vehemently is the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Method. Central to CLT is the discussion of whether this Western discovery has ‘universal applicability’ in various contexts (Ellis 1996).
In this paper I am going to discuss the appropriacy of CLT to my teaching context in Turkey. First, I will provide some brief information about my context, underlying the position of CLT and misconceptions about it. Then I will move on to relate CLT to the educational culture of my context and its suitability to the curriculum. Following this, the hegemony of the native-speaking countries in ELT will be discussed in relation to CLT. After suggesting solutions to make efficient use of CLT in my context, I will conclude by summarizing my views on the applicability of CLT in Turkey
What is prominent in the practice of language teaching is not finding one ideal methodology, but adjusting the methodology used to the culture one teaches in (Pennycook, 1994) . To achieve this end, one must scrutunise the key features of the context English is taught. In Turkey it is believed that people who can speak English are more educated and elegant; they are deemed superior. Moreover, some schools in Turkey use English as their academic language as part of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). English is learned as a foreign language in Turkey hence learners do not have much chance to communicate in English outside the classroom which is a drawback. However, the learners have the chance to use English communicatively through the Internet. Obviously learners’ motivation and urge to speak in English is the focal point at this stage; that is they can find ways to communicate in English with the help of technology, if they want to. As English is taught mainly in TESEP (tertiary, secondary, primary) institutions, the importance of accuracy and form excels the communicative use of the language. Moreover, learners’ level of English is assessed through written exams which ‘relegates’ the importance of spoken English to a certain extent. As Ellis convincingly asserts “the EFL teacher could be doing the student a disservice by focusing on oral skills when, for example, the examination is testing for translation skills” (Ellis, 1996:215). As a TESEP teacher I would be seen as neglecting the needs of the students, if I focus more on speaking rather than form and vocabulary because the learners are tested on grammar and vocabulary.
Another obstacle for implementing CLT is that “English … is taught as part of a wider curriculum and is therefore influenced and constrained by wider educational, institutional forces…” (Holliday,1994:4). As a result, in Turkey English is not considered as the core subject like it is in BANA institutions but as a complimentary gatekeeper for higher education, not as a tool to communicate. This causes English to be considered secondary as opposed to other core subjects like mathematics and science. Within this system teachers need to follow the national curriculum to an extent for their learners’ success. Even though the teachers are expected to use CLT, “the pressure of their examination culture and the resultant need to transmit huge amounts of knowledge …determines their methodology” (Tomlinson, 2005:139); therefore teachers can deviate from CLT to be effective in their context. Though CLT is the method that is required to be used, in Turkey communicative methods are mainly used as additional back-ups depending on the initiative of the teacher. This situation does not provide a very convenient environment to implement CLT; however, it is not impossible to use it efficiently.
One of the aspects of CLT which is controversial in terms of applicability is authenticity. As the learners in BANA institutions have access to English they can read authentic texts, they can take place in authentic conversations. However, the learners in Turkey always question the authenticity of the materials and activities because some of them already know that they will not have the chance to go abroad and use the language just for communication. As a result authenticity and its necessity are questionable in various contexts; this will be discussed in the last section.
Apart from the difficulties caused by the context, another problem is that neither the teachers nor the learners are really aware of the tenets of CLT. Learners and some teachers believe that CLT disregards teaching grammar and it renders learners more powerful than the teachers. To use CLT more effectively learners should be informed about the tenets of CLT as well as the teachers. If the learners are young or more motivated, it is easier for them to adjust to CLT, like the learners who are learning English in a BANA institute are ready to adopt new methodologies easier (Holliday: 1994).The misconceptions mentioned by Thompson (1996) about CLT are still prevalent in Turkey and undoubtedly these misconceptions hinder the effective use of CLT.
It is a widely accepted fact that there is no best method in ELT. One of the factors that determine the suitability of a method is the culture of the context English is taught. “To be appropriate, a methodology must be sensitive to the prevailing cultures surrounding any given classroom” (Holliday, 1994:161). Central to the problems related to culture in terms of CLT are the traditional views of teaching in Turkey, the roles of teachers and learners, and lastly the applicability of CLT into the existing curriculum.
The difficulty of implementing CLT in Turkey stems from the clash between the principles of CLT and the way English language teaching is regarded. Mostly, learners in Turkey expect the teacher to write down the rules of grammar as formulae and work on them through exercises, which is PPP (presentation, practice, production). The main aim for learners is to acquire linguistic competence. They want to see the concrete ‘evidence’ of their language learning; otherwise they would assume that they are not learning anything or the teacher does not do her/his job properly. However, in CLT the focus is on meaning and the message rather than form. People who support CLT believe that “the formal realization of the target language system is unnecessary and that these features should be left to students to acquire through exposure” (K. Johnson & Porter D., 1983:14). This assumption is questionable for Turkey on grounds of the pressure of accuracy as a result of the examination system. Besides English is used only as a foreign language in Turkey so the learners are not much exposed to English to learn it through exposure and discovery in an authentic environment, “the EFL teacher is cast in the somewhat onerous role of sole provider of experience in the target language” (Ellis, 1996:215).
Another problem related to CLT is the roles of learners and teachers. Traditionally, teachers have the power to decide for learners’ needs in Turkey, so the notion of ‘teacher as facilitator’ does not really fit in. Littlewood (1981: 92) describes the roles of a teacher in communicative activities as “(he) will let learning take place through independent activities”. In many institutions in Turkey a teacher who uses such activities would be labelled ‘lazy’. Apart from this prejudice learners want teachers to be the decision-makers; they expect the teacher to assist them throughout the tasks. To be able to use communicative activities learners should be taught to take responsibility of their learning. One of the basic characteristics of CLT that Nunan (1991) declares is that learning in the classroom should be related to and continued outside the classroom as well. Trying to apply this to the context in Turkey is difficult in that, mostly the only way the learners can use English outside the classroom is the Internet and most learners are not autonomous to further their English themselves.
Another difficulty is that teachers are believed to dictate their knowledge; learners are the passive recipients to be filled up with knowledge. Learners tend to prefer repeating what the teacher conveyed as opposed to thinking and discovering (Holliday, 1994) and some learners mistake learning through discovery for “learning without teaching” (ibid:84).Though this situation seems to pose a problem, preparing problem-solving or information gap activities on topics that will evoke learners’ interests will help teachers to use communicative activities. Adolescent learners enthusiastically involve in communicative activities, especially role playing that are based on their favourite music bands, films (e.g. Twilight, Harry Potter). However, if the activities on the book followed are about pollution, global warming or the history of Britain they are not interested. A case study done in a BANA institution where the teachers were to teach communicatively by activating the schemata revealed that “when learners' interests are engaged, and when they are able to bring their own background schemata to classroom interactions, these (activities) can begin to be truly communicative” (Nunan, 1986:142).
Applicability of CLT to the existing curriculum is the last point to be discussed in this section. As English is being taught mainly in TESEP institutions, the curriculum is based on national examinations. Due to written assessment, the curriculum focuses on grammar and vocabulary. Learners should avoid making mistakes, if they want to be successful. This aspect of the education system is in conflict with one of the tenets of CLT: regardless of their errors, learners can continue to communicate as long as they can convey the meaning (Harmer, 2003). Several cases have been reported where tolerating mistakes resulted in being fossilised like “a twenty-five year old Guatemalan woman” who lived in the US for four years made the same grammar mistakes, even though her vocabulary was improving (K. Johnson & D. Porter, 1983). Though it is critical to state that this one instance is not enough to generalise the assumption, what most teachers experience, including myself, is that when mistakes are not corrected, they become fossilised. The best way to prevent this situation in contexts where examinations dominate the curriculum is to correct the mistakes at the end of the lesson. Fotos’ views on the obstacles of implementing CLT sums up the problems in Turkey:
“Access to the target language remains a problem, and the need for students to
develop sufficient accuracy to pass proficiency examinations in English remains
a paramount teaching objective “(Fotos, 2003: 667).
It can be understood that the lack of exposure to English and the need to focus on grammar, vocabulary and translation makes it arduous for teachers to use CLT in its strong form.
As a result of the popularity of English, many methodologies have been invented by the centre and they have been imposed upon the non-native teachers who are teaching in the “outer” and “expanding circle” (Kachru: 1985). The Western culture has taken the ‘responsibility of improving the standards of ELT’ around the world by bearing ‘White Man’s Burden’ again. No one should undermine the benefits of the West to ELT; however, one should always bear in mind that the pivotal point is not to use the newest and the most popular method but to find the best way to teach according to the needs of the learners and the context.
What is detrimental is that mostly, non-native teachers accept and try to implement methodologies which are developed by the centre without questioning their suitability to their context (Holliday, 1994). They believe that what the centre developed as the best method will fit into their context. This situation results in the clash of the needs of the learners and the expectations of the teachers because “(the experts in ELT) are not expected to become integrated into the local community... Centre ELT experts are not encouraged to develop a regional specialization” (Bowers, 1983: 261). Due to their lack of knowledge about the context and culture, they impose inappropriate methods. Taking these Western methods for granted is not really sensible since “second language acquisition theories ... falsify social theory and serve to maintain and perpetuate the hegemony, linguistic and social, of the dominant group” (Phillipson R., 1991:40). It is obvious that second language acquisition research, by disregarding social context, tries to impose the ideology of the centre; so teachers should do their own research and understand the needs of their learners. Only after analysing their context, can the teachers find the best method for teaching and learning.
In my context CLT is regarded as superior to Grammar-Translation and Audio-lingual Method, merely because it is the newest method promoted by a Western English-speaking country which excels in technology and experience in ELT. However, the centre does not take into account the differences between cultures, the reasons for learning English and the education systems and this “serves to facilitate the reproduction in the Periphery of the institutions and practices of the Centre and militates against finding (more appropriate) solutions” (Phillipson, 1992:62). For instance; in CLT the students are regarded as internally motivated, there is no pressure of exams, the number of the students in a class is limited so the teacher can monitor all of them easily. What happens when CLT practices are reproduced in Turkey is that the students are not intrinsically motivated for learning English, so the teacher should try motivate them and evoke their interests constantly. Because of the importance of exams as gatekeepers, communicating in the target language is secondary to linguistic competence. Lastly, a large group of learners in a class makes it difficult for the teacher to control the learners especially, if they are young. It is reasonable to say that choosing the right methodology both serving the teaching objectives and the context is through analysing the needs of the learners and the learning styles in that context (Savignon, 2003) rather than choosing a methodology that disregards the different needs of other contexts. As the Centre is not familiar with the needs of the other contexts, it should not preach the periphery how to teach best. As Cook (2008: 165) convincingly states “... the responsibility for international languages has passed out of the hands of the original owners ... the right to say how something should be taught is even less a right of the native speaker ...”. It is clear that the centre has no right to claim which method is best for a certain context as English is considered as a Lingua Franca. “Its (an approach’s) merits have to be accepted or rejected by the experts on the situation- the teachers and students who live and work there” (Cook, 2008:165), that is teachers and learners should be the ones to decide which method is appropriate for them, not the norm providing countries.
“Many scholars realize that ... what teachers practise in language classrooms rarely resembles any specific method as it is prescribed in manuals” (Canagarajah, 1999: 103). Even though most teachers assert that they are using CLT, the method they generally use is PPP or the combination of different methods because there is no best way to teach English. Despite the tenets of different methodologies what teachers do is to adopt eclectic methods to cater for the diverse needs of the learners. As Fotos (2003) justifiably claims instead of favouring one method over the other, grammar teaching and communicative activities should be mingled to achieve teaching goals. Even though I am to use CLT, I combine Grammar-Translation, PPP and CLT. On grounds of my learners’ needs I have to teach grammar directly through sample exam questions with examination strategies otherwise my learners do not feel confident. Most of the time teachers cannot devote a long time for learners to find the rules inductively because of shortage of time; consequently they are using PPP to ‘cover’ an aspect of language in an hour; however it is disputable whether this method is really effective.
Apart from the controversies on the applicability of CLT, there are disputes on the use of weak and strong versions of CLT as well. On account of the conditions of my context and learners; teachers cannot apply the strong version of CLT. Holliday (1994) argues that the weak version focuses on structures and enhances communication with the teacher rather than the language itself that is the learners are dependent on the teacher to understand the language instead of analysing it themselves. However, teachers cannot spare much time for discovery learning because of the tight curriculum. Combining PPP and the weak version of CLT seems to be the best option for Turkish learners because the learners want the teacher to guide them throughout their learning process. However, it is not impossible to use the strong version of CLT, if one has enthusiastic learners.
In terms of authenticity CLT can be used with some restrictions. With intermediate and upper-intermediate learners I used English versions of National Geographic and Times which are easily available. After choosing appropriate reading passages from these authentic materials, I prepared comprehension questions and discussion topics. The learners felt confident because they realised they could understand an original text and talk about it genuinely. Since these topics were contemporary, they could activate their schemata and they could contribute to discussions by communicating their opinions and beliefs. In addition to these foreign publications, the leading newspapers of Turkey have English translations at the weekends and they can be read in English online as well. As the textbooks produced are mainly Anglo-centric (Prodromou, 1988) it might be beneficial to use these authentic materials. Owing to the curriculum one cannot concentrate on these materials all the time so I guide my learners to read these materials outside class and once a week I expect from one of them to talk about an article or news that they are interested in from these publications and discuss it with the class. From that point on it is the learner who should take the responsibility of his/her learning.
Though one can easily find ways of teaching reading, writing and listening communicatively in an EFL country; it is difficult to teach speaking in a genuine environment with a real context. As it is well known speaking activities that take place in most classes are not really communicative, the functions that learners should use are already given beforehand. The conversation is constructed by the dictation of the textbook or the teacher. Due to the lack of exposure to the target language, the only time learners are in need of communicating in English is the classroom. To consolidate their speaking teachers can encourage their learners to use the Internet and interactive programmes on the multimedia, though they are not always authentic. Teachers can arrange pen friends; there are websites where learners can communicate with each other. It is not only crucial that the learners are directed in the right way but also they should be motivated and willing to continue their learning on their own.
Within the limited scope of this paper I discussed the suitability of CLT to my context in Turkey. After providing information about my context and prevalent views about CLT, I scrutinised the applicability of CLT in the light of the educational culture and the existing curriculum. Finally possible ways of adopting CLT to my context have been suggested as opposed to the doctrines of the centre.
In addition to being an EFL country, due to the pressure of exams and the importance of accuracy CLT is used in its weak form in Turkey. Besides these the lack of knowledge about CLT results in misunderstandings of the core aspects of CLT both for teachers and learners. Moreover, the recognition of the “teacher as facilitator” (Ellis, 1996:216) in Turkey will probably take some time because of the established traditions. As the centre countries dominate ELT sector, most of the time they undermine the characteristics of the countries where English is taught as a foreign language. It can be concluded that in terms of the methodologies in ELT teachers should analyse their context and their learners’ needs before acknowledging these methodologies as the best way to teach. By combining the right strategies with the needs and expectations of the learners one can use CLT successfully.
Bowers, R. (1983). Language Teacher Education: An Integrated Programme for EFL Teacher Training. London: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council, ELT Documents 125.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. (ed.) (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4th edition). London: Hodder Education.
Ellis, G. (1996). ‘How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach?’. ELT Journal 50/3: 213-218.
Fotos, S. (2003). ‘Traditional and Grammar Translation Methods for Second Language Teaching’. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning Mahvah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.653-668.
Harmer, J. (2003).‘Popular Culture, Methods, and Context’. ELTJournal 57/3, pp 288-294.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. & D. Porter. (eds.) (1983). Perspectives in Communicative Language Teaching. London: Academic Press.
Kachru, Braj B (2006). ‘The English Language in the outer circle’. In K. Bolton and B.B. Kachru (eds.) World Englishes. London: Routledge, pp 241-255.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1987).’Communicative Language Teaching: Making it Work’. ELTJournal 41/2, pp136-145.
Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Harlow: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1991) ‘Some hidden items on the agenda of second/foreign language acquisition’ in R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith and M.
Swain (eds). Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters, pp 38-51.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prodromou, L. (1988). ‘English as cultural action’. ELT Journal 42/1, pp 73-83.
Savignon, S. (2005). ‘Communicative Language Teaching: Strategies and Goals’. In
Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning Mahvah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.635-649
Thompson, G. (1996). ‘ Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching’. ELT Journal 50/1, pp 9-15.
Tomlinson, B. (2005). ‘English as a foreign language: matching procedures to the context of learning’ in Hinkel, E. (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahvah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
|
