English Literature

Choosing the most appropriate method in teaching a second language has always prompted arguments among educators in the field. The earliest practice known as the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) has been overshadowed by Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in many classrooms worldwide. This is due to the realization that communicative competence is much more important than linguistic competence as far as global competitiveness is concerned. However, several studies conducted abroad demonstrate that although governments have mandated the use of CLT, many teachers still opt to apply GTM due to their apprehension in using CLT. In this paper, we examine the differences between the two methods, and address issues relating to CLT in order to promote its use.

Language educators in the 19th century saw the need to study the structure of a language in order to promote its use. Hence, the development of Grammar Translation Method (GTM) aimed at promoting what Chomsky (cited in Nazari, 2007) called as linguistic competence. For grammarians, the best way to learn a language is to know its structure. This means memorizing vocabulary, translating text from the first to the second language, and constructing sentences following established rules. As such, a typical GTM lesson consists of the presentation of a grammatical rule, a study of lists of vocabulary and a translation exercise.

The teaching of grammar and translation emphasizes adherence to standardized structure of the language. However, considering that not all utterances follow grammar rules, educators saw the need to accommodate versatility of the language, thus giving birth to other methods. In the 80s and until now, the conception of CLT has overshadowed earlier approaches in the aim to develop communicative competence. Hymes defines communicative competence as the knowledge and ability to use the language with respect to whether and to what degree something is possible, feasible, appropriate, and done. In other words, he perceives communicative competence as the ability to communicate properly and appropriately. Communicating properly means constructing statements using correct syntax, while communicating appropriately implies conveying message in agreement with the intended purpose, means, degree, and effect.  Richards and Schmidt (1999) classify the major principles of CLT as follows
Learners learn a language through using it to communicate.

Authentic and meaningful communication is the goal of classroom activities.
Fluency and accuracy are both important goals in language learning.
Communication involves the integration of different language skills.
 Learning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and error.

What is the main difference between CLT and GTM
With communicative competence as its main goal, CLT seeks to make meaningful communication and language use the focus of all classroom activities. This is entirely different from a GTM classroom, which promotes linguistic competence through translation and structural knowledge. By strictly implementing grammar rules, GTM differs a lot in its treatment of students. It is more rigid and corrective, while CLT is more accommodating and considerate. Students in the CLT classroom are encouraged to speak their minds using the target language, paying no particular attention to grammar correctness. This leads to the issue that CLT prohibits the teaching of grammar.  

Does CLT prohibit grammar teaching
Richards and Rodgers (1997) state that the CLT approach pays systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language, and the aim behind learning is gaining communicative competence that enables the students to use the language in different contexts. Thompson (1996) explains that CLT does not prohibit the teaching of grammar. However, it promotes teaching grammar inductively. Unlike in GTM where grammar is the core of instruction, the CLT classroom allows students to discover structures and initiate the discussion of grammar. The teacher should not design the lesson in such a way that students will feel obliged to construct sentences based on certain grammatical structures and rules as with the Grammar Translation Method. Instead, communicative activities should lead them to inquire about language issues. Only when students raise questions regarding structure, can a shift to a grammar lesson be appropriate. In this way, the teaching of grammar becomes incidental and sometimes nonexistent. Therefore, to balance instruction, teachers should develop among students the sensitivity to express meaning using correct syntax. This can be done by monitoring them closely, and clarifying grammar-related issues when necessary.

In addition to the grammar-related issue, some teachers also question the role of the teacher in the CLT classroom (Rao, 2002). CLT classrooms make extensive use of student activities where learners take the central role in the instruction. This is different from just participating actively as students do in a GTM classroom. In the GTM classroom, students are asked to do board work, give sentences applying rules, and analyze sentence errors. The translation procedures thus imply active participation of the students. However, in the CLT classroom, learners themselves provide direction to a later discussion of language functions by performing activities that require authentic use of the target language. Unlike in GTM where the teacher is at the center of instruction, teachers act only as facilitators in CLT. They lead and monitor learners in performing activities, and provide assessment at the end of each exercise. This suggests a big difference between the two classrooms in terms of physical structure.

How is the physical structure of a GTM classroom different from a CLT classroom
The CLT classroom relies mostly on student activities, such as role-playing, interview, discussion, etc. These activities usually require students to move around, work in groups, and perform in front of the class. Considering this, the CLT classroom should provide enough space where students can move freely. Chairs and tables can be arranged in a circular shape, allowing students to stay at the center when performing. In contrast, the GTM classroom requires students attention to be focused on the board, thus all of them should be facing front.

The nature of the exercises in the CLT classroom implies focusing on speaking skills. Does this mean neglecting other language skills

Oppositions to CLT include the concern that by promoting speaking exercises, CLT neglects the other language skills. Thompson (Ibid.) explains that this misconception arises from the fact that CLT was derived from approaches that gave importance to speaking skills. However, he also explains that CLT is not limited to speaking. It includes listening, reading, and writing skills. Listening easily comes along with speaking strategies, while reading and writing go hand in hand as learners write manuscripts or reflection papers based on what they have read.

By promoting the ability to communicate, CLT limits learners to doing paired exercises and role playing strategy. What are other strategies employed in the CLT classroom

Another misconception arising from the need to achieve a balanced instruction is that CLT is limited to paired exercises, which in turn implies the overuse of role playing. Thompson (Ibid.) addresses this issue by saying that to assess communicative competence, there is always a need to do paired exercises, but this does not always mean asking the learners to do role-playing. Instead, learners could work on problem solving and grammar exercises, argumentation, simple discussion, etc. Informal assessments such as answering worksheets, making scripts, or doing recorded conversations can take the place of role playing.

Al-Kwaiter (2001) provides a different view of issues relating to CLT. In his study conducted in Qatar, the author noted one teacher saying that with CLT activities, students tended to behave disruptively (Ibid. p.38), making it more advisable to adopt other approaches that did not require interaction among students. Another teacher questioned CLT strategies in terms of allowing students to decide activities on their own. He mentioned that this would only make them noisy, and would end up not accomplishing anything.

In China, Rao (2002) noted the preference of some English teachers to use GTM over CLT due to the fact that college entrance examinations and national tests contain a lot of grammar-focused items. In particular, high school students prefer to learn grammar because this will serve as their passes to their dream colleges whether local or international. Therefore, while many countries have adopted CLT, its use in China is still questionable. Raos findings suggest the need for orientation on the use of CLT not only among teachers but education administrators as well.

The many advantages that CLT offers make it the most commonly used method for second language teaching. Promoting overall competence in the target language, CLT has far exceeded GTM and other methods known. Today, many approaches and methods are patterned after CLT with some improvements on the strategies or devices used. In particular, the popularity of computer and Internet learning implies revisions to CLT principles in the next couple of years.