Valor Agregado Bruto Total y las Exportaciones Petroleras Subperíodo (1993-2007)

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an approach that is based on the principle of learning a language to communicate (Nunan, 1991; Wu, 2008). This is where language learning entails using language as a social tool to convey meaningful messages and to communicate about something to someone for some purposes either through oral communication or written communication. The central focus of communicative teaching and learning is on the importance of authentic comprehensible language to enable the learner to accomplish communicative goals and to interact meaningfully, rather than just organize language forms (Harmer, 1982; Kavanagh, 2012).

CLT is a teaching methodology that requires learners to engage in real communication. The principle of CLT states that language is best developed when it is used in ways that are active, convey meaning and have communicative purposes. Hence, language- teaching techniques in CLT should engage learners in pragmatic, authentic and functional use of language for meaningful purposes (Brown, 2000). Such type of language is accessible through the use of authentic materials. Mulat (2003) explains, “the use of authentic materials is felt to give students the opportunity to develop the strategies for understanding language as it is actually used by native speakers” (p. 19). Role plays, simulations, dramas, games, projects and problem solving are some of the examples of activities which can help the learner to improvise and communicate spontaneously and not just undertake mechanical practice of language patterns via repetition and drills (Rao, 2002). Information gaps, making choices and offering and receiving feedback are also thought to be truly communicative, as these activities are

done with a communicative intent. The literature shows that despite the fact that there are various definitions and versions of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), there are a considerable number of similarities. The following list is taken from Brumfit (1984), Celce-Murcia (1991), Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983), Johnson (1982), Larsen- Freeman (1986), Littlewood (1981) and Richards and Rodgers (1986):

1. There should be an emphasis on the integration of linguistic form, meaning and function;

2. Fluency and accuracy are complementary principles underlying communicative techniques;

3. Learners should be engaged in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes;

4. The principles of CLT apply to reading and writing skills as well; 5. Class teaching/learning should emphasize pair or group work; 6. Errors are natural and should be tolerated;

7. Evaluation should be carried out in terms of fluency and accuracy;

8. The student’s native language is best avoided;

9. The role of the teacher is to facilitate students’ learning.

As explained earlier, communicative competence covers both the knowledge of linguistic items and communicative skills; thus the first principle of CLT emphasises the incorporation of linguistic knowledge, meaning and functions. In other words, CLT focuses both on metalinguistic awareness, or knowledge of rules of syntax and discourse, as well as meaning (Johnson, 1982; Larsen-Freeman, 1986; Savignon, 2002). This is because as mentioned earlier, the emphasis of CLT is on meaning (i.e. the message learners try to convey or tasks10 they are carrying out) rather than form (accuracy of language and language structure). Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) say “meaning is paramount since it helps the learners to manage the message they engage with the interlocutors” (p. 91). In other words, the classroom goal of CLT is to focus on all the components of communicative ability and not just grammatical or linguistic competence (Brown, 2000).

10_{“An activity or action which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language (i.e. as} a response) for example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing a command” (Richards, Platt & Weber, 1985, as cited in Nunan, 1991a, pp. 280-281)

This conception leads to one fallacy about CLT that is common among teachers, namely that it means not teaching grammar. In other words, in CLT, the teaching and learning process does not require the explicit teaching of grammar. However, it is argued that attention to form (structure) is required in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) as students need to be involved in a communicative event in order to enhance language development. Ungrammatical structures or utterances in communication may impede the flow of ideas and eventually affect the understanding and comprehensibility of the messages. Wu (2008) contends that an exclusive focus on meaning and totally disregarding form fails to develop students’ language competence; instead it may result in students using broken language or pidgin11. Celce-Murcia (1991) makes the same point,

In spite of the intuitive appeal and the anecdotal evidence supporting the proposal for exclusively communicative language teaching, there is equally appealing and anecdotal evidence...that a grammarless approach...can lead to the development of a broken, ungrammatical, pidginized form of the target language beyond which students rarely progress.

(p. 462)

Savignon (2002) explains that, “communicative language teaching does not necessarily mean total rejection of familiar materials [grammar]” (p. 7). Nowadays, there seems to be a consensus among the educators that grammar is important and should be taught deductively. Rather “the focus has now moved away from the teacher covering, to the learners discovering grammar” (Thompson, 1996, p. 11). One suggestion is for grammar to be taught implicitly by incorporating grammatical structure under various functional categories so that focus is less on the overt presentation and discussion of grammatical rules but more on the application of the rules (Brown, 1994). Savignon (2002) 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” (p. 7). This is mainly because to neglect grammar totally can lead to communication breakdown, because learners seem to focus best on grammar when it relates to their communicative needs and experiences (Savignon, 1991, 2001; Thompson, 1996).

11_{A simplified form of a language made up of elements of two or more other languages with a reduced} vocabulary and grammatical structure and considerable variation in pronunciation (Longman Dictionary

In relation to the above characteristic, CLT emphasises both fluency and accuracy in communicative techniques (Brown, 2000). The ability to use the language fluently refers to the ability to use a language naturally when a speaker engages in meaningful interaction and maintains comprehensible and on-going communication without too many hesitations, pauses, repetitions or false starts which can between them cause communication breakdowns (Lan, 1994; Richards, 2006). According to Jones (2007), speakers are fluent when they are able to express themselves despite a lack of knowledge of vocabulary or grammar. Accuracy, however, focuses on creating correct examples of language use, which do not contain phonological, syntactic and semantic errors (Jones, 2007; Lan, 1994; Richards, 2006). In language classrooms, fluency and accuracy are enhanced through different types of classroom tasks and activities. And for the development of communicative ability teachers are encouraged to use a balance of fluency and accuracy activities and to make greater use of small-group work, because pair or group activities give learners greater opportunities to use the language and therefore to develop fluency.

Originally CLT focused on programmes and methodologies that promoted the development of functional language ability through learner participation in communicative tasks and events, where fluency and accuracy became the aim and objective of language learning (Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999). Thus, the initial development of CLT proposed that learners’ communicative ability is enhanced by focusing on the aim of acquiring the target language, the setting within which the target language is to be used, the social role of the learners in the target language, the communicative events within which the learner can participate, the language functions concerned in those events, the notions or concepts involved, the discourse and also the rhetorical skills, the kinds of the target language required, the grammatical content and the lexical content (Richards, 2006). This was in line with the idea that developing communicative competence emphasizes learning the functions of the language needed for communication in various situations (communicative competence being defined as mastery of language functions).

However, it is argued that occasionally fluency is more important than accuracy so as to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use because “fluency and acceptable language is the primary goal and accuracy is judged in contexts” (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983, p. 93). In many cases, fluency is emphasized over accuracy mainly

because, in order to build fluency, a great deal of use of and exposure to authentic language is needed. Nevertheless, it is vital to note that fluency is not important when communication is unclear and ambiguous (Brown, 1994).

It is also argued that a functional approach to CLT and focusing on learners’ ability to communicate fluently and accurately does not ensure effective communicative ability among the learners. Savignon (1991) mentions,

A distinction between fluency and accuracy is misleading as it suggests that the form of a message is somehow unrelated to its meaning and implicitly proposes an absolute grammar norms for learners. Accuracy in this instance is measured in terms of discrete features of phonology, morphology and syntax, and thus fails to take into account the context- relevant, collaborative nature of self-expression. Fluency, on the other hand, suggests speed or ease of self-expression, which may or may not enhance communicative effectiveness.

(p. 269)

This all suggests that it is likely to be difficult to develop fluency and accuracy simultaneously. In classrooms that focus on fluency tasks, where the emphasis is on getting meaning across, learners tend to be less motivated to be grammatically or phonologically accurate. Indeed, learners were not able to apply the language they learned in classrooms in their daily communication because the classroom interaction patterns did not provide genuine communication between teacher and learner or between learner and learner (Savignon, 1991). In other words, the interactions that take place through the classroom tasks and activities do not portray real life communication, or are ‘unnatural’, thereby breaking one of the principles of developing communicative ability.

Lessons in the classrooms should provide opportunities for students to interact with each other and rehearse real-life situations and provide opportunities for real communication. One reason is that language learning does not only mean producing grammatically correct sentences, it also involves the processes of interaction among the learners, the creation of meaningful interactions, negotiations of meaning to arrive at mutual understanding, learning through feedback, incorporation of new forms and experimenting with different ways of saying things (Freeman, 1986; Nattinger, 1984; Richards & Rodgers, 1987; Savignon, 1991; 2002; Richards, 2006). However, research has found that this is precisely what lacking in classrooms based on CLT (Chang,

2011b; Chowdhury, 2011; Fuller & Snyder, 1991; Hiep, 2007; Mangubhai, Dashwood, Berthold, Flores & Dale, 1998; Mtika & Gates, 2010).

CLT is not limited to oral communication and applies equally to reading and writing activities (Savignon, 2002; 2007). Teachers sometimes have the misconception that CLT is devoted to teaching only speaking (Thompson, 1996; Wu, 2007) however it is important to understand that communication through language can be both written and oral. Thompson (1996) explains “learners reading a text silently to themselves are taking part in communication (assuming that the text has something of relevance to them) just as much as if they were talking to their partner” (p. 12). Hence, CLT does not merely entail speaking but also reading and writing activities that engage readers and writers in the interpretation, expression and negotiation of meaning.

In CLT, active learning through pair or group work in tasks such as problem solving is also emphasized as group tasks provide increased opportunity and motivation for communication where students learn to negotiate meaning. In group or pair work students are usually required to transfer (and if necessary to negotiate) meaning as one person has information that others lack (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Thompson (1996) and Savignon (2002) regard group and/or pair work as flexible and useful techniques that enable the students to engage in active learning where students learn to negotiate meaning and engage in problem-solving activities. Through pair or group work, students ultimately have to use the language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts (Brown, 2000). However, CLT does not require small group or pair work all the time. Classroom group or pair work should not be considered an essential feature because it may well be inappropriate in some contexts (Savignon, 2002). However, many teachers assume group/pair work is applicable in all contexts and is the only way to conduct communicative teaching.

In CLT errors are considered as “a natural outcome of the development of the communication skills and are therefore endured” (Mulat, 2003, p. 23). Errors cannot be avoided because while learners communicate with one another, their minds are focused on the content of what they’re saying, not on the linguistic features. Hence, corrective feedback is to be avoided and if correction is needed, it should be unobtrusive (Jones, 2007). An example is the use of recasts where teachers reformulate learners’ incorrect utterances, while at the same time confirm the content or meaning. This allows students

to continue talking and expressing themselves without specifically focusing on the form of the language. Hence, although students has limited linguistic knowledge but they can still be successful communicators (Larsen-Freeman, 1986).

As mentioned earlier, effective communication should focus both on fluency and accuracy, rather than on accuracy alone, hence CLT emphasizes that evaluation of CLT should cover both fluency and accuracy (Mulat, 2003). This is based on the principle that the best communicators are not always those who are good at the language structures and vocabulary. The evaluation can be a formal evaluation, such as a communicative test, or an informal evaluation of student performance, with the teacher acting as an advisor or co-communicator (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). Savignon (1991, 2002) accordingly concludes the foremost appropriate and relevant sort of analysis for communicative approach is qualitative evaluations of learner achievement than quantitative assessments of distinct linguistic items.

In the CLT approach, the use of students’ native language is avoided or ignored or at least not encouraged (Larsen Freeman, 1986; Rao, 2002). The target language should be used both during communicative activities and for the purpose of classroom management, so that maximum exposure to the target language can be provided, to ensure successful learning. Hence, teachers themselves need to have a fairly high level of proficiency in the target language (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Unsurprisingly perhaps, several studies on the implementation of CLT in countries such as Turkey (Ozsevik, 2010), Japan (Cook, 2009), Korea (Li, 1998), Libya (Orafi, 2008, Orafi & Borg, 2009) and China (Chang, 2011b) have found that lack of language proficiency among teachers is one of the main challenges to successful implementation of CLT-based curriculum reform. Nonetheless, considerable evidence on the importance and positive role of native language use in second or foreign language learning suggests that, as long as teachers are able to find the right balance between the quantity and quality of L1 and L2, and base the teaching and learning process on the comprehension of the students, the use of the native language is acceptable (Finocchiaro & Brumfit, 1983). L1 use can thus ensure that students understand and, by reducing the time taken on elucidating problems, it can actually maximize the use of the target language.

Martin (1999) argues that the use of two or more languages in a classroom can contribute to the accomplishment of teaching and learning where one language supports

the other. There is some empirical evidence for this conclusion. For example, in a study by Martin (2003) examining the language used to accomplish lessons in Brunei primary schools, it was found that the use of Malay alongside the language of instruction, English, was crucial to ensure that pupils understood the lesson, participated in it, and learned the key points from it in a context where exposure to English was absolutely minimal. Cummins (1993) in a review of research and theory on bilingualism and second language learning concludes, “the predominant L1 instruction throughout the grades does not seem to impede the acquisition of conversational or academic skills of the majority language” (p. 65). At a general level it can be argued that classroom instruction, at least at initial stages, should be conducted in a language that is familiar to the students if learning is to take place (Mapunda, 2011).

Finally, in CLT, the teacher’s role changes from knowledge transmitter to facilitator, manager, advisor and co-communicator (Breen & Candlin, 1980; Littlewood, 1981). CLT advocates that the teacher’s job is to facilitate students’ learning, manage classroom activities, give advice during the activities and engage in the communication along with the students. With this transformation within the teacher’s role, students have to be compelled to become managers of their own learning. Students are expected to interact with other people through pair and group work. They are communicators and actively engaged in negotiating meaning that means in making an attempt to make themselves understood. They learn to speak by communicating (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). Since the teacher's role becomes less dominant, the teaching/learning process is student-centred rather than teacher-centred because learners play the key role in a large proportion of the learning process.

Based on the characteristics described above, it is clear that the underlying properties of CLT are that: 1) communicative competence is the goal of instruction, 2) interaction between language learners or users and their environment is a primary objective of all learning activities, and 3) the process involved in using language, namely the strategies for making sense of something and for negotiating meaning, are the centre of attention. CLT is an approach that gives priority in meaning making where in the process learners experiment with and create language independently through trial and error It is believed that learning a target language is more effective when in the process people struggle to make oneself understood (Hawkes, 2012).