Reflection+on+Some+Misconceptions+about+Communicative+Language+Teaching+by+Geoff+Thompson+by+Ummuhan+Aslan

Reflection on //Some Misconceptions about Communicative Language Teaching// by Geoff Thompson Ummuhan Aslan

I agree with the writer on the point that there are confusions, misunderstandings and misconceptions about CLT. The known point is that it involves an emphasis on communicating by means of the foreign language and is is associated with some activity types, like porblem solving and pair work. The writer gives 5 most common misconceptions about CLT and explains them: The writer emphasises that this one is the most common one. He then continues: One line of argument is that grammar teaching is impossible because the knowledge that a speaker needs in order to use a language is simply too complex (Prabhu 1987). The other one is that grammar teaching is unnecessary because that knowledge is of a kind which cannot be passed on in the form of statable rules, but can only be acquired unconsciously through exposure to the language (Krashen 1988). I can say that I am fully agree with the writer when he emphasises that communicating without studying, teaching grammar is almost impossible and an appropriate amount of class time should be devoted to grammar, this has not meant a simple return to a traditional treatment of grammar rules. CLT was influenced by the general movement in linguistics towards giving primacy to the spoken language. For many learners, the main uses of the language are oral: getting around in the foreign country if they visit it, talking to visitors from that country, etc. Even if they are unlikely in reality to use the language outside the classroom, learners are often willing to keep their disbelief and act as if they might need the language for personal contacts. Therefore, the emphasis is likely to be on speaking and listening skills. I agree that role play can certainly be a useful technique. However, pair work (and group work) are far more flexible and useful techniques than that suggests.Moreover, just memorizing and repeating what was written is not very creative and useful for learners, I think. Instead of just seeing pair work as a useful follow-up, we can see it as a potential preliminary stage to any contribution from the learners. Actually, the writer emphasises that it is hard to say that this is not the case as lessons tend to be less predictable; teachers have to be ready to listen to what learners say and not just how they say it, and to interact with them in as 'natural' a way as possible; they have to use a wider range of management skills than in the traditional teacher-dominated classroom. However, for English teachers,whose job is to teach English to their students, I think this is not something to be afraid of. After all, we are teachers and nothing is easy, so have just have to teach children learn English and the way of doing this should help us not scare. CLT has taken some time to work out the implications for all aspects of the teaching/learning process. CLT is by no means the final answer—no doubt the next 'revolution' in language teaching is already under way somewhere. But whatever innovations emerge, they will do so against the background of the changes brought about by. In order to ensure that these changes are not pushed aside in future developments, it seems essential to attempt to clear away misconceptions that might otherwise be used to damn them and CLT as a whole.
 * //Misconception 1: CLT means not teaching grammar //**
 * //Misconception 2: CLT means teaching only speaking //**
 * //Misconception 3: CLT means pair work, which means role play //**
 * //Misconception //****4; //CLT means// //expecting too// //much from the// //teacher// **
 * //Conclusion //**

Comments