Post CLT or Post-Method: major criticisms of the communicative approach and the definition of the current pedagogy

Abstract

Abstract. The paper is focused on the origin and definition of the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach as well as its major criticisms. The study aims at examination of typical features of CLT to establish the reason why none of the methods or approaches so far has come to replace it; whether it is plausible to suggest that any such method or approach will appear in the future; whether it is possible to describe the current situation as post-method. In order to achieve this goal strengths and weaknesses of the CLT approach have been scrutinised and its influence on the present day post-method state has been explored. The authors state that in spite of all criticisms, CLT has a great impact in the present teaching context. Having given special attention to the description of post methods pedagogy, it is obvious that this condition may be considered as a consequent stage, which has emerged as a result of CLT breakdown. Nevertheless, the term "post-CLT" seems to be general and does not reflect the specificity properly, i.e. coexistence of various approaches and methods with the focus on context requirements.

Communicative Approach in the Five Curricula of English Subject for Secondary Schools: A Paradox in English Language Teaching in Indonesia

“…Some of the benefits of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) have been criticised by some as rather questionable and inconsistent, and they could be regarded as the weaknesses of the approach rather than its strengths (Didenko & Pichugova, 2016).…”

“…Three different models of Communicative Competence were produced by Canale andSwain (1980), Celce-Murcia et al (1995), and Bachman and Palmer (1996) during more than ten years of studies, but whether such models have made CLT more manageable in classroom application seems doubtful (Brown, Tarone, Swan, & Ellis, Rod, 2007;Butler, 2011;Swan, 1985;Vongxay, 2013). Didenko and Pichugova (2016) argue that one reason why CLT failed to achieve its ideal goal is that it attempted to embrace so many language-related disciplines at once. This is based on Thomson's (1996) and Widdowson's (2009) argument that those who adopted the models and principles of CLT from mainly the linguistic theories simply omitted unattractive or ambiguous parts, producing a fragmented and confusing mixture of misconceptions about models and conflicting ideas, like teaching no grammar at all, or teaching only speaking.…”

“…There is considerable criticism of CLT, which is based on evidence that CLT has failed to fulfil its many promises to innovate language teaching. One foremost issue is the lack of real communicativeness in the approach (Didenko & Pichugova, 2016;Kumaravadivelu, 2006;Nunan, 1987Nunan, , 2003. Nunan (1987) argues that CLT teachers cannot manage to create real-life communication in their classes as well as to create conditions conducive for developing communication skills.…”

Implementation of Postmethod Pedagogy as an Alternative to Communicative Language Teaching at the Tertiary Level Education

“…This approach was originated to counter the shortcoming of the audio-lingual method and grammar-translation method (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). CLT can also be defined as a theoretical approach that implements a communicative view of the target language from syllabus design to classroom activities (Didenko & Pichugova, 2016).…”

Enfoque Comunicativo en el Proceso de Enseñanza-Aprendizaje del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera

“…Consequently, Irmawati (2012), endorses that, the fundamental principles of the communicative approach, include: 1) Effective communication; 2) Learning language by using it to communicate; 3) Emphasis on meaning and appropriate use; 4) Emphasis on fluency and accuracy; 5) Use of authentic materials to reflect the real-life situation; and, 6) Integration of the four skills (speaking, writing, reading and listening). Likewise, Didenko & Pichugova (2016), point out that the communicative approach employs a communicative perspective in language pedagogy.…”