CLT: to be or not to be?!

The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching

Generally, this article argued that CLT has led to a neglect in context teaching. As I started reading I felt a sort of CLT vs. Context attitude and was further surprised by the seemingly harsh beliefs about communicative language teaching and their teachers. For example, “if you don’t have CLT, then you are backward, and can’t learn language” (p. 280), followed by the four “illustrations” that CLT implementers “believe”. Not so much so because I personally tend to like certain aspects of CLT but more so because the “CLT attitude” which was introduced here, was not (in this article) proven as a valid enough claim for me to agree with. I found that the article presented itself in an overpowering manner against CLT which is almost exactly what it criticizes CLT for (overpowering context). I felt that it went almost as far to say that teachers who have this “CLT attitude” believe that no one can learn a language without a CLT approach (p. 280). I have to disagree that any ‘good’ teacher (whatever that may be) would never make such an ignorant claim considering the overwhelming amount of people in the history of the world who have learned a language without CLT focus or with it.

I also found the articles claim, “communication approach is the way to do it, no mater where you are, no matter what the context” (p. 281) a little over exaggerated. I would have rather argued that maybe, CLT can work in a variety of contexts which could be why it is so popular overall. It then, almost immediately, goes to say that ‘to put context first then consider teaching’- which seems to have a, let’s say, “Context Attitude”?

I did, however, find that articles claim that CLT is too teaching based rather than learning based interesting and possibly valid.  I have to agree that the overall claim that CLT is not the ONLY way.  I don’t believe there is one way nor do I believe a well-educated teacher, even a supporter of CLT, would argue that.

Finally, I found the article to be a little hypocritical. In general, it didn’t present relevant enough arguments against CLT to persuade me- even though I wouldn’t say I have definite idea of what I personally think works and doesn’t work. I remain open-minded to new approaches of learning and teaching. I think context is important but also communication. I have to say, I would need to know more about this context approach before making more valid arguments.

CLT in China

Very briefly, I found this article particularly interesting for personal reasons. As a new and beginning teacher at the ELI, I have found that my most intimidating student is from China and surprisingly, also my most proficient student. I have always considered that fact that his cultural beliefs on education may be a factor as to why his learning in my class sometimes scares me. I think it is best described in the article (no pg. #) “the Chinese view education as a goal in itself has been internalized throughout Chinese society, even by those who are have not received any schooling” they even have a saying that “everything is low but education is high”. I find this interesting as it relates to my own experience with my Chinese student. Often it seems, he would prefer a more traditional and industrialized approach to a class that solely requires almost any type of verbal communication. Maybe this is why some of my approaches to the class seem unimportant to him. I think it’s important that maybe I try to consider his educational ideals while still considering that CLT is probably helpful for him too in some aspects!