MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIALIZED EDUCATION OF
THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
TASHKENT STATE PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY
NAMED AFTER NIZAMI
FOREIGN LANGUAGES FACULTY
SELIMOVA GULSANA REFATOVNA
Formation of communicative linguistic ability in teaching English: the role of
the teacher
Course paper
5111400 – Foreign language and literature (English)
Scientific supervisor:_____ S.S. Nishonova
“Recommended”
Head of the department
“Theory and methods of teaching English”
_____associate professor Z.R. Abdujabborova
“ ______ ” ______ 2022
Tashkent – 2022
1
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ...................……………………………………………. 3
Chapter 1 Theoretical background to approaches focused on formation of
communicative linguistic ability in teaching English ……………….......... 4
1.1 The notion of communicative linguistic competence ........................…. 4
1.2 Traditional communicative language teaching and current trends in
communicative English language teaching .................................……..…. 7
Chapter 2 Practical methods and process of formation communicative abilities in
teaching English
….…………………………………….….………….. 12
2.1 . Benefits of Communicative Language Teaching …………………… 12
2.2 The role of teacher in developing communication competence
The role of learners in developing communication competence .....……… 18
2.3 Surveys and results of studies ....................................................……. 23
Conclusion ..…………………. 26
Glossary …………………… 28
The used literature ……….…. 29
2
INTRODUCTION
English is embedded, as a core and compulsory subject from years 1-12, in our
education system. Keeping English in this position indicates that an increased
emphasis is placed on learning English. However, many argued that, despite this
change, most of the students are still unable to communicate in English effectively.
This paper presents arguments for an emphasis on developing communicative
competence and to analyze traditional approaches of developing communicative
linguistic ability in English and to find out the most effective and modern ways of
improving communication competences of learners with the role of teachers
The topicality of this research is due to the fact that the issues of forming speaking
skills in English is studied insufficiently and require more attention and
methodological development.
The aim of the research paper is to analyze ways of developing communicative
linguistic ability in English.
The general aims define the following objectives of the research:
1. To explore what is the communicative linguistic ability
2. To consider the theoretical background of CLT approach.
3. To study effective approaches of forming communicative competence and role
of the teachers in forming.
The object of the given research is the process of developing communicative
linguistic ability.
The subject is the ways of forming communicative competence.
The major methods used in the research process are: the qualitative research
method and analysis, which let us create the theoretical basis of the present course
3
paper. The method of continuous selection was used to single the research material
out. The structural, formalization methods were used for working with the results
got in the research process. The given material presents a broad field for research.
It also gives us an opportunity to rich the set goals of the present research.
The sources of the research paper while investigating the given qualification work
are the works of the well-known methodologists and the Internet web sites which
are given in the references that follows the conclusion.
The theoretical value of the research paper is for those willing to take up their
future carrier in the field of teaching especially developing communicative skills
as valuable reference to the subject matter of Methodology in teaching language
skills.
The practical value of this work is that the suggested modern methods of forming
communicative linguistic ability in English that can be applied into FL classes.
The research paper consists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion and the list of
used literature.
CHAPTER 1 Theoretical background to approaches focused on formation of
communicative linguistic ability in teaching English
1.1 The notion of communicative linguistic competence
What is communicative linguistic ability? we can clarify this term by first
comparing it with the concept of grammatical competence. Grammatical
competence refers to the knowledge we have of a language that accounts for our
ability to produce sentences in a language. It refers to knowledge of the building
blocks of sentences (e.g. parts of speech, tenses, phrases, clauses, sentence
patterns) and how sentences are formed. Grammatical competence is the focus of
4
many grammar practice books, which typically present a rule of grammar on one
page, and provide exercises to practice using the rule on the other page. The unit of
analysis and practice is typically the sentence. While grammatical competence is
an important dimension of language learning, it is clearly not all that is involved in
learning a language since one can master the rules of sentence formation in a
language and still not be very successful at being able to use the language for
meaningful communication. It is the later capacity which is understood by the term
communicative competence.
Communicative competence includes the following aspects of language
knowledge:
 knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and functions
 knowing how to vary our use of language according to the setting and the
participants (e.g. knowing when to use formal and informal speech or when to use
language appropriately for written as opposed to spoken communication)
 knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts (e.g. narratives,
reports, interviews, conversations)
 knowing how to maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s
language knowledge (e.g. through using different kinds of communication
strategies.)
On the other hand communicative competence has been defined in various ways.
According to Littlewood, communicative competence means, a degree of mastery
of a very considerable range of linguistic and social skills which depend in part on
the learners' sensitivity to meaning and appropriacy in language and on his/her
ability to develop effective strategies for communicating in the second language.'
(Littlewood, 1981.87)
K. Johnson and K. Marlow say that communicative competence is 'the ability to be
appropriate, to know the right thing to say at the right time.' (Johnson and Morrow,
1981.2)
International Encyclopedia of Education defines communicative competence as the
5
"effective use of language in social contexts." (The International Encyclopedia,
1985.834) According to Widdowson, communicative competency is "the ability to
produce sentences for communicative effect." (Widdowson, 1978.1)
It is revealed from the above definitions that communicative competence is The ability to use language appropriately in a given social context.
The ability to be appropriate to know the right thing at the right time.
Linguistic competence plus an understanding of proper use of language in various
contexts. Knowledge which is additional to linguistic competence. Ability to
communicate something which is grammatical, proper, socially accepted, formally
possible, fluent in a particular context. In this way communicative competence
includes both grammatical knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge to
perform different kinds of functions like enquiring, suggesting, greeting,
denying, advising, reporting, apologizing, inviting and promising.
Components of Communicative Competence
- Grammatical Competence
Grammatical competence, which refers to Chomsky's notion of linguistic
competence, is indispensable for the practice of linguistic formation of the
language. The focus is on suitable structure which helps the learners to use the
language appropriately and freely.
-Sociolinguistic Competence
Sociolinguistic competence refers to an understanding of the social context in
which communication takes place, including role-relationships, the shared
information of the participants and the communicative purpose for their
interaction.
-Discourse Competence
Discourse competence refers to the interpretation of individual message elements
in terms of their inter-connectedness and of how meaning is represented in
relationship to the entire discourse or text.
-Strategic Competence
6
Strategic competence refers to the coping strategies that communicators employ to
initiate, terminate, maintain, repair, and re-direct communication.
In CLT classrooms, the teachers need to create activities that would necessitate
learners to practice well in the target language.
1.2 Traditional communicative language teaching and current trends in
communicative English language teaching
Historical background of CLT
The emergence of CLT occurred at the time when language teaching was
looking for a change (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). Due to the unsatisfactory
traditional syllabus that failed to facilitate learners’ ability to use language for
communication, linguists attempted to design a syllabus to achieve the
communicative goals of language teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 1986).
Wilkins’s (1976) notional syllabus had a significant impact on the development
of CLT. To support the learners’ communicative needs, Wilkins (1976) included
communication function in a notional syllabus. Notions refer to concepts such
as time, sequence, quantity, location, and frequency. Communicative functions
refer to language functions such as requests, denials, offers, and complaints.
Based on the notional syllabus, a communication language syllabus consisting
of situations, language activities, language functions, notions, and language
form was developed. As a result, the design of foreign language syllabus
focused on a learner-centered and communication-oriented language
instruction (Richards & Rodgers, 1986).
Theoretical background to CLT
Since the mid-sixties, the focus in linguistic theory has shifted from the
study of language in isolation to the study of language in a social context
(Savignon 1991, 2007). It is this sociolinguistic perspective, which is the
unifying principle and the driving force behind a communicative approach to
7
language teaching. Although this socio-linguistic approach is basically a
language theory rather than a learning theory, taking into account Richards
and Rodgers' (1986) definition of approach, CLT encompasses a theory of
language and a theory of language learning, and see it as an approach than
a method. Briefly, they define an approach as a set of theories about the nature
of language and of language learning. It is axiomatic, as it takes a number of
assumptions as a starting point. A method, on the other hand, is the level at
which theory is put into practice and at which choices are made about the
particular skills to be taught, the content to be taught, and the order in which
the content will be presented. Besides, these writers claim, "at the level of
language theory, CLT has a rich, if somewhat eclectic theoretical base"
(1986:71).
Language Theory
The rise of interest in the individual and in relationships among
individuals, which characterized the sixties, marked the emergence of
sociolinguistics, that branch of science where sociology and linguistics meet. A
new light was shed on language, not simply as a system of structurally related
elements, which form a rule, but as a vehicle for the expression of meaning
and social interaction. In other words, the structural view was supplemented
with a functional, a semantic and interactional view. It was this idea of
language as communication that started off the whole communicative
movement (Widdowson, 1978, 1979; Savignon, 1991). And it was Hymes
(1972) that made history by challenging Chomsky's view on linguistic
competence, and replacing it by the notion of communicative competence
cited in (Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Savignon, 1991).
In the words of Canale and Swain (1980:7) communicative competence
refers to the "interaction between grammatical competence, or knowledge of
the rules of grammar, and socio-linguistic competence, or knowledge of the
rules of language use". In other words, rules of use and rules of usage are
8
complementary and not mutually exclusive. According to Canale and Swain
"the primary goal of a communicative approach must be to facilitate the
integration of these two types of knowledge for the learner" (1980:25).
Savignon (1991) notes that communicative competence characterizes the
ability of language learners to interact with other speakers to make meaning,
and "[it] is relative, not absolute, and depends on the cooperation of all the
participants involved" (1983:9). Broadly speaking, communicative competence
is an aspect of our competence that enables us to convey and interpret
messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific contexts.
According to socio-linguistic theory, the act of communication is seen not
as basically an exchange of linguistic messages, but rather as a social
phenomenon in which the use of language plays a part. In the field of the
ethnography of communication, which Stern (1983:220) defines as "the study
of the individual's communicative activity in its social setting." language is a
subordinate, yet integrated part of social and situational systems, which are
actually behavior patterns. Halliday (1978) argues the existence of a semantic
network is the linguistic realization of patterns of behaviour. He postulates
that" the more we are able to relate the options in grammatical system to
meaning potential in social contexts and behavioural settings, the more insight
we shall gain into the nature of the language system" (1978:44). In his
functional account of language use, Halliday has criticized Chomsky's
linguistic, theory of competence. He says "Linguistics ... is concerned ... with
the description of speech acts or texts, since only through the study of language
in use are all the functions of language, and therefore all components of
meaning, brought into focus" (1970:145). This view complements Hyme's
opinion of communicative competence, and we can only understand language
if we view it as an instrument or as a communicative tool. To which Widdowson
(1979:50) adds that "once we accept the need to teach language as
communication, we can obviously no longer think of language in terms only
of sentences." This statement provides the justification for the emphasis on
9
discourse in CLT.
Characteristics and Principles
The communicative approach to language teaching is, relatively, a newly
adapted approach in the area of foreign/second language teaching. CLT is a
"hybrid approach to language teaching, essentially 'progressive' rather than
'traditional'...." (Wright, 2000:7). CLT can be seen to derive from a
multidisciplinary perspective that includes, at least, linguistics, psychology,
philosophy, sociology and educational research (Savignon, 1991). It is
generally accepted that, proponents of CLT see it as an approach, not a
method (Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Savignon, 1991; Brown, 1994). For Brown,
for instance, "[Communicative language teaching] is a unified but
broadly based theoretical position about the nature of language and language
learning and
1. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components of communicative
competence and not restricted to grammatical or linguistic competence.
2. Language teaching techniques are designed to engage learners in the
pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes.
Language forms are not the central focus but rather aspects of language
that enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.
3. Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying
communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to take on more
importance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged
in language use.
4. In the communicative classroom, students ultimately have to use the
language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts (Brown,
1994: 245).
The communicative approach is a hazy concept, which can have a variety
of meanings along the continuum between a strong version and a weak one.
Johnson (1979) argues that the weak version attempts to integrate
communicative activities into an existing program, whereas the strong version
10
claims that language is acquired through communication. Howatt adds that
creating information gap activities, games, role-plays, dramas, simulations
etc., are some of the exercise types in the weak versions of CLT. Although we
have different versions and various ways in which CLT is interpreted and
applied, educators in the area, Littlewood (1981); Finocchiaro and Brumfit
(1983); Brumfit (1984); Candlin (1981); Widdowson (1978, 1979); Johnson
and Morrow (1981); Richards and Rodgers (1986); Larsen-Freeman (1986);
CelceMurcia (1991) and Johnson (1982)
How then does one appropriately distinguish between a communicative
approach, communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1972;
Savignon, 2001), communicative performance (Canale & Swain, 1980), and
communicative language teaching (CLT)?
Richards and Rodgers (1987) claimed that a communicative approach is
the same as communicative language teaching (p. 65), but I would argue that CLT
refers more explicitly to pedagogy and design (the how of language teaching); a
communicative approach, on the other hand, seeks to identify a set of assumptions
that flow from a theoretical understanding of the essential social function of
language (the why behind a specific flavor of language teaching).
The notion of communicative competence, coined by Hymes (1972), stems from
his perceived inadequacy of Chomsky‟s (1965) distinction between linguistic
competence and performance. Hymes argued that it was not enough to view
competence and performance with respect to a language speaker‟s knowledge of
grammatical rules; rather, a speaker must be able to manipulate grammatical
knowledge within the appropriacy dictated by the context in which the
communicative exchange occurs2. In short, communicative competence, according
to Canale and Swain (1980), is the “relationship between linguistic competence
(rules and grammar) and socio-linguistics competence (rules for use)” (p. 6).
Canale and Swain, building on this definition of communicative competence,
recognize that competence as knowledge is itself not readily observable; a
11
language speaker‟s competence, linguistic or communicative, can be realized only
through social interaction “in the actual production and comprehension of
utterances” (p. 6), or communicative performance.
Chapter 2 Practical methods and process of formation communicative
abilities in teaching English
2.1 . Benefits of Communicative Language Teaching
Figure 1: The above figure represents a collusion of communicative ability (Level
1), its component definitions (Level 2), and the different tasks (Level 3) used to get
at the first two levels.
The CLT approach has benefits as well as challenges. One of the benefits is that
CLT build up a rapport between the teacher and the student of a context in which
teacher-centred approach perpetuates (Chang & Goswami, 2011). Then, CLT is
concerned with various competence, rather than only grammatical competence as
in GTM, such as linguistic, communicative, sociolinguistic, discourse, and
12
strategic competence. Therefore, the educators globally have adopted the CLT
approach to a greater extent. Another benefit of using CLT approach is that
learners learn language by using it (Strong version). In other words, CLT
emphasises the learners’ involvement in language learning. Consequently, learners
can learn to communicate quickly and effectively in CLT approach comparing to
other methods of teaching. Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote also highlighted
involvement, "Tell me, I'll forget. Show me, I'll remember. Involve me, I'll
understand" Notwithstanding these benefits, CLT encounters some challenges.
This approach, for example, may not be compatible with every context (Bax,
2003). Then, Yang (2014) found some misunderstandings of CLT as threats, for
example — CLT focuses only on meaning rather than form, ignores learners’
errors, and stresses on fluency more than accuracy. Moreover, CLT may be
inappropriate in contexts where a cultural stereotyping perception is powerful. The
Asian students, for instance, don’t like working in groups or Polish students are
very interested in grammar (Thornbury, 2006). Some other challenges are also
apparent for implementing CLT worldwide such as insufficient facilities of
teaching materials; of authentic language environment; of textbooks; and of
computer, internet, overhead projector, video and audio.
However, using CLT approach has had many more advantages than shortcomings
as the challenges are plausible to overcome. The positive CLT outcomes can be
achieved through implementing new CLT-user-friendly techniques and changes
such as using ICT in communicative English programme yields rather effective
learning for students (Bañados, 2013).
Main characteristics:
1. It is felt that students need knowledge of the linguistic form, meaning and
functions. However, CLT gives primary importance to the use or function
of the language and secondary importance to its structure or form (LarsenFreeman,
1986; Johnson, 1982). This does not mean that knowledge of
grammar is not essential for effective communication, rather systematic
13
treatment of both functions and forms is vital. Stressing on this, Littlewood
says "one of the most characteristic features of communicative language
teaching is that it pays systematic attention to functional as well as
structural aspects of language" (1981:1). "CLT suggests that grammatical
structure might better be subsumed under various functional
categories...we pay considerably less attention to the overt presentation
and discussion of grammatical rules than we traditionally did" (Brown,
1994:245). Emphasis is also given to meaning (messages they are creating
or task they are completing) rather than form (correctness of language and
language structure). For Finocchiaro and Brumfit "meaning is paramount"
(1983:91) since it helps the learners to manage the message they engage
with the interlocutors.
2. "Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying
communicative techniques" (Brown, 1994:245). However, at times fluency
may have to take on more importance than accuracy because "fluency and
acceptable language is the primary goal" (Finocchiaro and Brumfit,
1983:93) and accuracy is judged not in the abstract but in contexts. Fluency
is emphasized over accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully
engaged in language use. It is important, however, that fluency should
never be encouraged at the expense of clear, unambiguous, direct
communication. And much more spontaneity is present in communicative
classrooms (Brown, 1994).
3. Language teaching techniques are designed to engage learners in the
pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes.
Classrooms should provide opportunities for rehearsal of real-life
situations and provide opportunity for real communication. Emphasis on
creative role plays, simulations, dramas, games, projects, etc., is the major
activities which can help the learner provide spontaneity and
improvisation, not just repetition and drills. Another characteristic of the
classroom process is the use of authentic materials because it is felt
14
desirable to give students the opportunity to develop the strategies for
understanding language as it is actually used by native speakers. In the
classroom, everything is done with a communicative intent. Information
gap, choice and feedback are thought to be truly communicative activities
(Johnson & Morrow, 1981).
4. Grammar can still be taught, but less systematically, in traditional ways
alongside more innovative approaches. Savignon (2002:7) says "... for the
development of communicative ability [communication depends on
grammar], research findings overwhelmingly support the integration of
form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience". Grammar is
important; and learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to
their communicative needs and experiences. Disregard of grammar will
virtually guarantee breakdown in communication (Savignon, 1991, 2001;
Thompson, 1996). These writers also say there are some misconceptions
about CLT that makes difficult for many teachers to see clearly what is
happening and to identify the useful innovations that CLT has brought.
One of the persistent misconceptions is that CLT means not teaching
grammar although "the exclusion of explicit attention to grammar was
never necessary part of CLT" (Thompson, 1996:10). In CLT involvement in
communicative event is seen as central to language development, and this
involvement necessarily requires attention to form (structure). In fact, it is
certainly understandable that there was a reaction against the heavy
emphasis on structure at the expense of natural communication.
Nonetheless, it would seem foolish to make mistakes on the side of using
communicative approach exclusively and totally disregard grammar
teaching.
5. Communicative approach is not limited to oral skills. Reading and writing
skills need to be developed to promote pupils' confidence in all four skills
areas. Students work on all four skills from the beginning, i.e., a given
activity might involve reading, speaking, listening, and perhaps also
15
writing (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Of course, oral communication is seen to
take place through negotiation between speaker and listener (most likely
among students), so too is interaction between the reader and writer, but
no immediate feedback from the reader. Hence, in the classroom,
emphasis is given to oral and listening skills, as contact time with language
is important. It paves way for more fluid command of the language.
Learners do not hear the teacher all the time, but having personal contact
themselves, practicing sounds themselves, permitting sentence patterns
and getting chance to make mistakes and learn from doing so. The idea
of emphasizing the oral skills creates uncertainty among teachers. They
misconceived CLT as if it were devoted to teaching only speaking. But, "CLT
is not exclusively concerned with face to face oral communication"
(Savignon, 2002:7). The principles of CLT apply equally to reading and
writing activities that engage readers and writers in the interpretation,
expression, and negotiation of meaning. In other words, it is important to
recognize that it is not only the speaker (or writer) who is communicating.
Instead, communication through language happens in both the written
and spoken medium, and involves at least two people.
6. Students regularly work in groups or pairs to transfer (and if necessary to
negotiate) meaning in situations where one person has information that
others lack (Celce-Murcia, 1991). More emphasis should be given to active
modes of learning such as pair or group work in problem solving tasks in
order to maximize the time allotted to each student for learning to
negotiate meaning. Many people assume group/pair work is applicable in
all contexts. However, classroom group and/or pair work should not be
considered an essential feature used all the time, and may well be
inappropriate in some contexts. Thompson (1996) and Savignon (2002)
claim that group and/or pair work are flexible and useful techniques than
that suggests, and they are active modes of learning which can help the
learners to negotiate meaning and engage in problem-solving activities.
16
7. Errors are seen as a natural outcome of the development of the
communication skills and are therefore tolerated. Learners trying their best
to use the language creatively and spontaneously are bound to make
errors. Constant correction is unnecessary and even counter-productive.
Correction noted by the teacher should be discreet. Let the students talk
and express themselves and the form of the language becomes secondary.
If errors of form are tolerated and are seen as a natural outcome of the
development of communication skills, students can have limited linguistic
knowledge and still be successful communicators (Larsen-Freeman, 1986).
8. Evaluation is carried out in terms of fluency and accuracy. Students who
have the most control of the structures and vocabulary are not necessarily
the best communicators. A teacher may use formal evaluation i.e., he/she
is likely to use a communicative test, which is an integrative and has a real
communicative function (e.g., Madsen 1983; Hughes 1989). A teacher can
also informally evaluate his students' performance in his role as an advisor
or co-communicator (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). Savigonon (1991, 2002)
reports that the communicative approach follows global, qualitative
evaluation of learner achievement as opposed to quantitative assessment
of discrete linguistic features.
9. The students' native language has no role to play (Larsen-Freeman, 1986).
The target language is used both during communicative activities and for
the purpose of classroom management. The students learn from these
classroom management exchanges, too, and realize that the target
language is a vehicle for communication. Whatever the case may be, "the
teacher should be able to use the target language fluently and
appropriately" (Celce-Murcia, 1991:8).
10 The teacher is the facilitator of students' learning, manager of classroom
activities, advisor during activities and a 'co-communicator' engaged in the
communicative activity along with the students (Littlewood, 1981; Breen &
17
Candlin, 1980). But he does not always himself interact with students;
rather he acts as an independent participant. Other roles assumed for the
teacher are needs analyst, counselor, researcher and learner. Students, on
the other hand, are more responsible managers of their own learning.
They are expected to interact with other people, either in the flesh, through
pair and group work, or in the writings. They are communicators and
actively engaged in negotiating meaning in trying to make themselves
understood. They learn to communicate by communicating (LarsenFreeman,
1986). Above all, since the teacher's role is less dominant, the
teaching/learning process is student centered rather than teacher centered. In other
words, it is the learner who plays a great role in a large
proportion of the process of learning.
2.2 The role of teacher in developing communication competence
The role of learners in developing communication competence
Our understanding of the processes of second language learning has changed
considerably in the last 30 years and CLT is partly a response to these changes in
understanding. Earlier views of language learning focused primarily on the mastery
of grammatical competence. Language learning was viewed as a process of
mechanical habit formation. Good habits are formed by having students produce
correct sentences and not through making mistakes. Errors were to be avoided
through controlled opportunities for production (either written or spoken). By
memorizing dialogs and performing drills the chances of making mistakes were
minimized. Learning was very much seen as under the control of the teacher.
In recent years language learning has been viewed from a very different
perspective.
It is seen as resulting from processes of the following kind:
 Interaction between the learner and users of the language
18
 Collaborative creation of meaning
 Creating meaningful and purposeful interaction through language
 Negotiation of meaning as the learner and his or her interlocutor arrive at
understanding
 Learning through attending to the feedback learners get when they use the
language
 Paying attention to the language one hears (the input) and trying to incorporate
new forms into one’s developing communicative competence
 Trying out and experimenting with different ways of saying things
Roles of Teachers in the Classroom
The teacher is not a model for correct speech and writing and does not
have the primary responsibility of making students produce plenty of error-free
sentences. The teacher is facilitator/ advisor, answering questions, monitoring
their performance, note making of their errors, and co-communicator.
Teachers and students are the live actors in a CLT classroom. Both these characters
have some roles to play (Abate, 2014). As has already been mentioned, CLT
engages students in communication for developing their communicative
competence (Chung & Huang, 2010). So, students have a vital role to play for CLT
to be implemented. Firstly, students are negotiators who negotiate meaning
between themselves (Mondal, 2012) within the pair-work or group work form of
interaction. Secondly, students are the active participants in classroom activities.
Lastly, students take their own responsibility for learning (Ullah, 2013).
On the other hand, teachers’ roles vary depending upon the type of syllabus,
course, setting (which part of the world it takes place), teaching methods and so on.
For example, a student centred course needs teachers’ managerial roles for helping
students to learn, but a teacher directed course requires a direct input of teaching
(Jordan, 1997). As CLT is a learner-centred approach (Lewis, 1997), managerial
roles work best with it. These managerial roles are teacher as classroom manager,
instructor, facilitator, co-communicator, group organiser, and so on.
19
Both of the characters above — students and teachers — are to understand their
respective roles to play. In other words, a balance of explicit understanding of
these roles between students and teachers needs to be maintained. So an induction
and/or a training programme on their roles can be arranged prior to starting their
CLT classes.
In CLT classroom teachers play a vital role in teaching/learning process of English.
Teachers select learning activities according to the interest of the learners and
engage them in meaningful and authentic language use. There are various roles to
be played by the teachers in order to facilitate the language learning process.
According to Hedge (2000.63), a communicative classroom involves the teacher in
"setting up activities, organizing material resources, guiding students in group
works, engaging contributions, monitoring activities, and diagnosing the further
needs of students." Richards Rodgers (2001) also describes the roles of the teacher
as: needs analyst, counselor, and group process manager. Similarly, Harmer (1991)
as cited in Nunan and Land (1996) describes the roles of the teacher as: Controller,
assessor, promoter, participant, resource, tutor and investigator. Of all these roles,
Nunan and Lamb suggest that it is the teacher as organizer that is the most
important and difficult from the perspective of classroom management.
In order to perform all these roles effectively, teachers should be competent
enough in all aspects of language teaching. In line with this, Hedge (2000.67)
states that, "teachers need to build competence and confidence in fulfilling these
various roles and in-service training is necessary within institutions to ensure that,
in any moves towards implementing communicative approaches in the classroom,
teachers are properly supported.
Roles of Learners in the Classroom
Communicators should participate in classroom activities cooperatively
rather than individualistically, be comfortable with listening to their peers in
group work or pair work tasks, rely less on the teacher as a model, and take
on a greater degree of responsibility for their own learning. Advantages of CLT
20
As opposed to grammatical and linguistic competence that is focused for
example on audio lingual and grammar-translation methods, Richards (2006)
mentioned that CLT focuses on and aims at communicative competence. Thus,
enabling the learners to use the language in a communicative situation to
satisfy their needs in real-life communication is a priority in CLT. In contrast,
Brown (1994) mentioned that the grammar-translation method "does virtually
nothing to enhance a student’s communicative ability in the language". In this
regard, meaning is emphasized in CLT (Finocchiaro and Brumfit, 1983).
Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) pointed out that CLT focuses on meaning as
opposed to methods like audio lingual that focus on form and grammatical or
linguistic knowledge. So, CLT shifts from learning structure of language to
learning how to communicate and how to communicate effectively.
In CLT, the linguistic system of the target language is learnt best while
the learner is attempting to communicate. In this case, the major portion of
the learning process is not upon the teacher thus illustrating that CLT classes
have moved from teacher-centeredness to learner-centeredness.
CLT gives the learners more responsibility and involvement in the process
of learning. In other words, learner-centeredness takes precedence over
teacher-centeredness. Thus, the role of the teacher in a CLT class can be
regarded as a facilitator that helps the students and learners in the process of
learning to conduct effective communication. This notion is helpful as it is the
learner who must learn how to communicate effectively and use the language
comprehensibly. Thus, the learner should exercise and communicate enough
in the CLT class to achieve communicative competence.
21
2.3 Surveys and results of studies
The qualitative research method was applied for this study. Some reasons stayed
behind using this method. Firstly, the teachers’ and students’ perceptions were
interpreted in words, not in numbers. As is also stated by Bryman (2012, p.380)
that, “Qualitative research is a research strategy that usually emphasises words
rather than in the collection and analysis of data.” Then, the study aim was to
uncover the participants’ feelings, opinions, and experience about CLT.
Similarly, the qualitative research also refers to how people make sense of their
world and the experiences they have in the world― to understand the meaning the
people have shaped (Holloway and Wheeler, 2013).
Participants
Two categories of participants were selected for this study: three teachers (males)
and six students (Four males and two females). All three teachers had teaching
experience, qualifications, and formal training. One of them achieved Masters in
TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages), CELTA (Certificate
in English Language Teaching to Adults qualifications. They also practised
teaching utilising both GTM and CLT. The second category of participant was of
six students. Two of the participants, who shared their experience of
communicative language learning, are currently studying at University. Almost all
of these student-participants started learning English at their early age (From
primary school). Their purpose of learning English was to get a better job and good
salary, to study in aboard, and to do business. They also had experience of learning
communicative language in high school level. However, both students and teachers
were chosen as participants for this study because they are directly associated with
CLT.
Instrument
The qualitative research data collection tools are observation, interviews, document
or artifact review (Wheeldon & Faubert, 2009).
22
Procedure
All the participants were interviewed over the phone. Having taken permission of
the participants, a recording device (Dictaphone) was used to record the interviews.
After finishing all the interviews, audio recordings were transcribed. Important
notes were taken down during the interviews. The obtained data were analysed in
words.
RESULTS
As is previously mentioned, the teachers and students were interviewed in order to
investigate students’ and teachers’ feelings and understandings about whether they
prefer CLT or not.
Hence, after completing the interviews, three major themes pertaining to the
teachers’ and students’ perceptions emerged from this study. These themes are: 1)
how teachers and students find CLT, 2) teachers’ and students’ preference between
CLT and GTM, and 3) strengths and weaknesses of CLT.
First theme: All the teacher participants expressed their satisfactions with CLT as
this approach is the best and a modern approach — students can learn very
promptly, and become competent in communication.
For example — one of the teachers stated that, “yea, I am completely comfortable.
CLT is the best method to teach.”
Nevertheless, despite these positive feelings; they also encountered difficulties
when teaching.
English communicatively such as students’ demotivation for learning English, their
inattentive behaviour towards the teaching topics, insufficient teaching materials,
and so on.
For instance, another teacher described that, “ Actually, you know that we are very
much under developed country. Most of the students of under developed countries
are not eager to learn English. I should say they are not very much zealous for
learning English. They just learn Russian language from their parents where they
are born. That is why they show very much indifference for learning language.”
23
Like teachers, students also had mixed feelings about communicative English
learning and teaching. Every student-participant became zealous to communicate
with others in English, and also showed their preferences for CLT. Nonetheless,
they indicated some CLT phenomena: unfavourable environment for English
learning, students’ tendency of using L1 in lieu of English, teachers’
uncommunicative behaviour, and little scope for being involved in
communication.
One of the students narrated that, “yes, it is so much difficult to speak English
because we are not able to understand because the situations are not available to
learn English.”
Second theme: The teachers mentioned that they prefer CLT to GTM — because
GTM develops writing and reading skills rather than four skills (Reading, Writing,
Listening, and Speaking).
For example, a teacher believes that, “Actually, the GTM is only for the writing,
not for speaking. If any students practising GTM for 10 yrs they might not know
how to speak. They know how to write. They don’t be competent in speaking, but
in CLT they become competent in both of them. They can be able to speak and
write as well. It is the best way to teach. I don’t think it is suitable for the modern
world.”
Likewise, as is already found that students opt for CLT. They only learn grammar
for communicating accurately.
A student participant remarked, “Naturally we learn many grammar here, when we
communicate we try to speak fluently, then grammar actually we try to use it…”
Third theme: Every teacher participant pointed out some strengths and weaknesses
of CLT approach. They observed that CLT is progressing gradually and students
can learn English easily and quickly with this approach. Young teachers,
particularly, are interested in CLT. But varied weaknesses they also noticed such
as students from rural areas attempt to by-pass communicative language learning,
less opportunity for teacher to be trained, students feel shy and fear to
24
communicate, large classes, and inadequate teaching materials and congenial
environment. Some teachers, not all, are still employing GTM.
One of the teacher participants revealed that, “They feel shy. There is another
problem; our surrounding environment is congenial for learning English. Not very
much favourable for us.
We with some of my friends speak English in an open place, and other persons
watch us and they comment us that we speak English. Our environment is not
suitable for learning English.
We have no enough platforms to practice English.” Students, as weaknesses,
focused on teachers’ inefficiency of exploiting CLT, lack of suitable
learning environment, and their introverted behaviour. On the contrary, they
mentioned that communicative English helps them seek for a better job, and study
aboard.
DISCUSSIONS
The results of this study indicate that both students and teachers have blended
views about CLT — positive and negative. At the one extreme, they desire CLT.
At the other extreme, there is little scope for involving in communication in a
classroom context, since there is a lack of communicative atmosphere in the
classroom. Above all there is a little scope for practicing English either inside or
outside the classroom (Butler, 2011). Another point can also be taken
into account that the teachers and students should be incentivised for learning
communicative English (Rahman, 2015a) in order to get rid of the problems.
Moreover, the government should take the CLT matters as concerns to make it
work. The results also reveal that the students and the teachers are in favour of
CLT rather than GTM as the GTM does not integrate all four skills of language
learning and it is a teacher-directed method. So it suggests that the teachers believe
that CLT is beneficial, but they are aligned with their beliefs in their teaching
practice. Another reality has appeared from this study that the young-aged teachers
are interested in CLT rather than the old-aged ones. Alongside the teachers,
25
students are responsive to CLT too.
Then the results suggest that students are introverted; they are sometimes reluctant
to talk to each other in the classroom. This seems like a cultural problem that
Thornbury (2006) mentioned as the cultural stereotyping, but in this study students
have appeared as intrapersonal characters due to their introversion. Another
important and unexpected phenomenon has derived from this study that people
have a tendency to tease at those who speak English to each other in public places.
This tendency embarrasses the learners. This is a new understanding which has not
been found in the literature. Moreover, teachers’ incompetence in CLT is a
major shortfall of CLT. But the literature pointed out that teachers, as managers,
are to play a major part in a learner-centred class.
Conclusion
This paper has examined Formation of communicative linguistic ability in teaching
English and the role of the teacher. Recent research has shown that Traditional
approaches to language teaching gave priority to grammatical competence but was
not focused on improve Communicative Competence. Current communicative
language teaching has been widely implemented in practice and communicative
language teaching today refers to a set of generally agreed upon principles that can
be applied in different ways, depending on the teaching context, the age of the
learners, their level, their learning goals and so on. Compared with other methods
and approaches, CLT activities are more difficult to design and implement and
place greater burden on EFL teachers.
Not only the implementation, but also the assessment of this method seems to
be difficult for EFL teachers who are usually used to clear cut assessment
procedures. Considering the perceived difficulties in utilizing CLT demands and
what the EFL situation in many countries allows, it can be concluded that such
problems need to be resolved if CLT is to be successfully implemented in EFL
contexts. Awareness of such problems can provide EFL teachers and learners
26
with insightful ideas about how to manage and, if required, to change their
teaching and learning activities for the successful implementation of this
method.
In CLT classroom teachers play a vital role in teaching/learning process of English.
Teachers select learning activities according to the interest of the learners and
engage them in meaningful and authentic language use. There are various roles to
be played by the teachers in order to facilitate the language learning process.
27
Glossary
CLT -Communicative Language teaching
EFL teachers- teachers of English as a foreign language
COLT- Conceptions of learning and teaching
Incentivize students – making students want to learn something
Qualitative research - a research strategy emphasises words rather than in the
collection and analysis of data
Approach – a way of looking at teaching and learning
TESOL - Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
CELTA - Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults
PTLLS - Preparing to Teach in the Lifelong Learning Sector
GTM – Grammar Translation Method
28
The used literature
1 Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2 Widdowson, H.G. (1978). The teaching of English as communication. ELT
Journal, 27/7: 15-19
3 Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction.
Cambridge University Press.
4 Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin.
5 Johnson, K., & Morrow, K. (1981). Communication in the classroom:
Applications and methods for communicative approach.
6 Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art.
TESOL QUARTERLY, 25(2), 261-277.
7 Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What's
ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 207-220
8 Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing.
Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1-47.
9 Johnson, K. (1979). Communicative approaches and communicative
processes. In Brumfit, C.J., & K. Johnson (eds.), The communicative
approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10 Abate, E. B. (2014). Prospects and Challenges of Communicative Approach in
EFL Context.
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(25), 128-136.
29