Free Literature Review- communicative language teaching method Dissertation Example

0 / 5. 0

Literature Review- communicative language teaching method

Category: College

Subcategory: Communication

Level: PhD

Pages: 3

Words: 825

Second Theme: Teachers Perception towards Communicative Language Teaching
Student’s name
Institution

Second Theme: Teachers Perception towards Communicative Language Teaching
Studies have revealed that different teachers exhibit positive and negative perceptions or attitudes towards the application of “communicative language learning” (CLT) in teaching linguistics. One of positive attitudes or perceptions depicted by teachers towards CLT is that the strategy improves the meaningfulness of teaching English (Mondale, 2012). This statement means that the levels of satisfaction among teachers using CLT to teach English increases. A recent study determined that teachers disregard the traditional strategies of teaching English, which demands that students memorize the grammatical rules (Mondale, 2012). CLT helps learners to comprehend language forms and apply the rules in communicating (Rahimi & Naderi, 2014). Teachers believe that communication is an essential way for students to practice linguistic rules in meaningful manners. With such a strong perception of the benefits of CLT, teachers employ the technique regularly in their classes.
Teachers also believe that the “communicative language teaching” (CLT) strategy encourages group work learning of a language, which provides a sufficient platform for communication and practicing of linguistic rules. The procedure offers learners with unlimited opportunities to converse in the targeted language (Farooq, 2015). The technique encourages student-student and teacher-student interactions that facilitate communication and mastery of a given language. Teachers also perceive that CLT promotes cooperation among learners, especially during group work.
According to Jafari, Shokrpour, and Guetterman (2015), a study conducted on teachers’ perception about CLT revealed an overall favorable attitude of the technique. The general agreement among the interviewees was that group work activities in classrooms are instrumental in helping students to apply the targeted language in communicating with the peer. The teachers interviewed in the study approved teacher-student interactions as effective ways of promoting learning. Even Siddiqui and Asif (2018) investigated the perception of tutors at a university in Saudi Arabia and found that many favored using CLT in teaching English. The results of the study depicted a high level of favor for group works as promoted by CLT. Ounis and Ounis (2017) report about a survey of Tunisian English teachers in secondary school level, who perceive CLT as instrumental in encouraging role plays and games among students that promote real communication.
Teachers supporting “communicative language teaching” (CLT) believe that the approach improves motivation levels and communication skills of students. A study conducted by Chang (2011) on 55 Taiwanese English instructors in colleges revealed that majority experienced satisfaction with CLT because of its ability to replace the burden of memorization of grammatical rules. CLT eliminates the elements of multiple grammatical errors that feature during the application of traditional instructional techniques (Lashgari, Jamali & Yousofi, 2014). As such, CLT motivates learners to nurture their communication skills and enjoy learning.
A study conducted by Sarab, Monfared and Safarzadeh (2016) on 75 Iranian secondary school English teachers affirmed the necessity of “communicative language teaching” (CLT) in teaching English. Majority of the respondents believed that CLT promotes effective communication among students in the second language (L2) classrooms. The levels of motivation and enjoyment among students increase as they collaborate with each other and speak the target language.
One of the concerns of teachers disfavoring the use of “communicative language teaching” CLT is that the technique does not allow the teaching of grammar. The teachers disfavoring CLT believe that it would be better if it incorporated writing and speaking. The teachers support the idea of encouraging communication among learners but emphasize the significance of grammar teaching, which nurtures language. Focusing on grammar has a significant impact on the learning process. According to Wong and Barrea-Marlys (2012), teachers expressed that grammar drills and repetitions helped them in learning Spanish as the second language.
Jabeen (2014) reports that some teachers disfavor the promotion of “communicative language teaching (CLT)” because it tends to isolate grammar lessons. Such teachers emphasize that there should be the isolation of grammar in curriculums. Grammar and CLT must accompany each other for teaching to be effective. No one can disregard the significance and centrality of grammar in teaching.
Another negative attitude of teachers towards “communicative language teaching (CLT)” attributes to its promotion of group work learning. The opposing teachers dislike group work in classrooms because they encourage noisy scenes (Sarab, Monfared & Safarzadeh, 2016). Such teachers believe that active learning should involve separate instruction of students to work independently. This attitude is negative towards the implementation of CLT.
Another negative perception held by teachers over “communicative language teaching” (CLT) attributes to the tendency to tolerate errors. Since teaching in CLT focuses on helping learners communicate in the target language, teachers are likely to tolerate the mistakes. This element of error toleration is against the doctrines of some teachers, who believe that correction is an invaluable part of learning. According to Raissi and Nor (2013), a study involving 30 secondary school teachers of English in Malaysia indicated that the majority believed in error correction as a means of effective teaching of the English language. This belief contradicts the principles of CLT. Majority of the samples thought that failure to correct wrong pronunciation by students could make the errors stick in their minds. The feedback that also entails correction of mistakes is essential in teaching a second language.
Teachers of English as the Second Language (ESL) favor the explicit teaching of grammar by describing and explaining sentence structure to students in the best way possible. This belief contradicts the principles of “communicative language teaching (CLT).” Majority of ESL teachers believe in focusing on fluency and accuracy (Sarab, Monfared & Safarzadeh, 2016). The teachers hold that students without a strong command of sentence structure and word cannot be fluent in communication. In CLT, language use is the most critical step, and accuracy follows later.

References
Chang, M. (2011). EFL Teachers’ Attitudes toward Communicative Language Teaching in Taiwanese College. Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles, 53, 17-28.
Farooq, M. (2015). Creating a Communicative Language Teaching Environment for Improving Students’ Communicative Competence at EFL/EAP University Level. International Education Studies, 8 (4), 178-188.Jabeen, S. (2014). Implementation of Communicative Approach. English Language Teaching, 7 (8), 68-72.
Jafari, S., Shokrpour, N. & Guetterman, T. (2015). A Mixed Methods Study of Teachers‟ Perceptions of Communicative Language Teaching in Iranian High Schools. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5 (4), 707-718.
Lashgari, M., Jamali, F. & Yousofi, M. (2014). Investigating EFL Teachers Attitudes toward CLT. International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research, 3 (3), 160-164.
Mondal, N. 2012(). College Teachers’ Evaluation of Communicative Language Teaching in Bangladesh. Report and Opinion, 4(2), 34-40. Ounis, A. & Ounis, T. (2017). Tunisian Secondary EFL School Teachers’ perceptions regarding Communicative Language Teaching: An exploratory survey. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 4 (1), 2909-2930.
Rahimi, M. & Naderi, F. (2014). The relationship between EFL Teachers’ Attitudes towards CLT and Perceived Difficulties of Implementing CLT in Language Classes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3 (3): 273.
Raissi, R. & Nor, F. (2013). Teachers’ Perceptions And Challenges Regarding The Implementation Of Communicative Language Teaching (Clt) In Malaysian Secondary Schools. Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education (GSE2013), 875-88.
Sarab, M. R., Monfared, A. & Safarzadeh, M.M. (2016). Secondary EFL school teachers’ perceptions of CLT principles and practices: An exploratory survey. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 109-130.
Siddiqui, O. & Asif, F. (2018). Teachers‟ Perceptions of the Communicative Language Approach at a Saudi University. International Journal of English Language Education, 6 (1), 45-65. Wong, C. (2012). A Case Study of College Level Second Language Teachers’ Perceptions and Implementations of Communicative Language Teaching. Perceptions and Implementations of Communicative Language Teaching, 36 (2), 1-16.
Wong, C. C. & Barrea-Marlys, M. (2012). The Role of Grammar in Communicative Language Teaching: An Exploration of Second Language Teachers’ Perceptions and Classroom Practices. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9 (1), 61-75.

All Examples

Do you need an original paper?

Approach our writing company and get top-quality work written from scratch strictly on time!

Get an original paper