Download - Search

150 DEFENG LIis that Bachman takes a far broader vic.12 of thc role of strategies than Canalc antl S\vain doand separates strategic compctcnce completely from \vhat he calls language competencies(Bachman, 1990; North, 1997).In CLT, meaning is paramount. Wilkins (1 972) classifies meaning into notional andfunctional categories and vicws learning an L2 as acquiring the linguistic means to performdifferent kinds of functions. According to Larsen-l:recman (1 986), thc most obviouscharacteristic of CLT is that “almost everything that is (lone is done lvith a communicativeintent” (p. 132). Teachers select learning activities according to how well they engage thestudents in meaningful and authentic. language use rather than in the merely mcchanicalpracticc of language patterns.Another dimension of CLTF is “its learner-centered antl experience-based view ofsecond language tcaching“ (Richards and Kodgcrs, 1986, p. 69). According to CUI theory,individual learners possess unique interests, styles, necds, and goals that should he reflectedin the design of instructional mcthods (Savignon, 1 99 1 ).CLT is characterized by123456a focus on communicative functions;a focus on meaningful tasks rather than on language per se (e.g., grammar or vocabularystudy) ;efforts to make tasks antl language rclcvant to a target group of learners through ananalysis of genuine, realistic situations;the use of authentic, from-life materials;the use of group acti\-ities; andthe attcmpt to create a secure, nonthreatening atmospherc.I stress that thc description abovc reflects just one definition of CLT, what Holliday (1994)terms the weak version of C1.7. According to Holliday, the strong version is actually quitediffercnt:The focus is not on language practicc but on Icarning ahout how language worksin discourse.The Icsson input is language data in the form of text, and communicative relatesmore to the \lay in \vhich the student communicatcs \vith the text. Also, students collaboratefor the purpose of helping each other solve language problems rather than for the purposeof communicating with each other. Because the aim is not to practice language forms,teachers do not need to monitor group and pair work closely, antl in fact activities do nothave to be carried out in groups or pairs. As long as students are communicating with richtext and producing uscful hypotheses about the language, \vhat they arc doing iscommunicative, according to Holliday (pp. 171- 172).CLT in EFL contextsA number of reports in thc literature deal with CLT innovations in EFL contexts. Whcrcassomc accounts have emphasized the local needs antl the particular English tcachingconditions in the EFL countries and the importance antl success of traditional languageteaching methods (Bhargava, 1986; Sampson, 1984, 1990), others have strongly advocatedthe adoption of CLT in EFL countries (Li, 1984; Prabhu, 1987). However, the majority ofaccounts have recognized the difficulties EFL countries lace in adopting CL,XBurnaby and Sun (1 989) report that teachers in China found it difficult to use CLT.Theconstraints cited include the context of the wider curriculum, traditional teaching methods,class sizes and schedules, resources antl equipment, thc low status of tcachers who teachcommunicative rather than analytical skills, antl English teachers’ drficiencics in oral English