International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1308-9501
International Journal of Educational Researchers
International Association of Educators

Original article | International Journal of Educational Researchers 2016, Vol. 7(2) 14-24

Advocating Communicative Language Teaching for Too Long Now: The Inevitability of Grammar Translation Method and a Balance Between CLT and GTM in Instructional Settings

Fuat Fındıkoğlu & Dilek İlhan

pp. 14 - 24   |  Manu. Number: ijers.2016.005

Published online: June 01, 2016  |   Number of Views: 258  |  Number of Download: 843

Save PDF

Abstract

The CLT, after it was introduced in 1970s, started to be rejoiced as many teaching approaches had often gone short of answering a wide range of needs as CLT. It was all of a sudden that the CLT became the most popular method of all as it attached specific utmost importance to the ultimate goal of learning a language: communicating in the target language. The CLT put everything else aside and focused on speaking activities, thus exposing students to real-life examples as much as possible. Gradually though, the main focus shifted from communicating in the target language to the fact that the very idea that it was actually the structures required to become communicatively competent, not to mention the recent studies indicating fluency and accuracy of communication were dependent upon the explicit grammar instruction. The CLT was a way of contradicting the GTM in a way at the beginning. However, along the way, it turned out that grammar was an indispensable part of building on knowledge of language and ensuring grammatically meaningful messages. For the two opposite models, this study suggests a re-evaluation of the two altogether and a balance of GTM on CLT. In doing so, different theories advocating and reasoning against both approaches were evaluated from different aspects along with attributing reference to course books designed in tune with CLT and still providing many tips for bits of grammar in great detail. In conclusion, this study reviews research from past till now and concluded that in selecting teaching approaches it shouldn’t be a matter of trading one approach for another or choosing one way over another, rather, with specific reference to CLT and GTM, the preference of an approach could be an integrated entity where bits of several teaching approaches are blended and act as a complementary approach.

Keywords: Communicative language teaching,grammar translation method; language teaching approaches

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Findikoglu, F. & Ilhan, D. (2016). Advocating Communicative Language Teaching for Too Long Now: The Inevitability of Grammar Translation Method and a Balance Between CLT and GTM in Instructional Settings. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 7(2), 14-24.

Harvard
Findikoglu, F. and Ilhan, D. (2016). Advocating Communicative Language Teaching for Too Long Now: The Inevitability of Grammar Translation Method and a Balance Between CLT and GTM in Instructional Settings. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 7(2), pp. 14-24.

Chicago 16th edition
Findikoglu, Fuat and Dilek Ilhan (2016). "Advocating Communicative Language Teaching for Too Long Now: The Inevitability of Grammar Translation Method and a Balance Between CLT and GTM in Instructional Settings". International Journal of Educational Researchers 7 (2):14-24.

References
  1. Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278-287. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Longman. [Google Scholar]
  3. Carr, J. C., & Parsons, J. (2007). Success: Student's book. Essex: Pearson Longman. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chang, S.-C. (2011). A contrastive study of Grammar Translation Method and Communicative Approach in teaching English grammar. English Language Teaching , 4(2), 13-24. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cook, G. (2001). Using the first language in classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cook, G. (2003). Applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cook, G. (2007). A thing of the future: translation in language learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 396-401. [Google Scholar]
  8. Crystal, D. (2005). How language works. London: Penguin Books. [Google Scholar]
  9. Duckworth, M., & Gude, K. (2003). Countdown to first certificate: Student's book. Oxford : Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. doi:10.2307/40264512 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Evans, V., & Dooley, J. (2002). Enterprise 4: Coursebook. Berkshire: Express Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fotos, S. S. (1994). Integrating grammar Instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-351. doi:10.2307/3587436 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Garret, N. (1986). The problem with grammar: What kind can the language learner use? The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 133-148. [Google Scholar]
  14. Haines, S., & Stewart, B. (2004). First certificate masterclass: Student's book. Oxford : Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Harmer, J. (2005). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Essex: Pearson Longman. [Google Scholar]
  16. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Krahnke, K. J. (1985). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 591-603. [Google Scholar]
  18. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow, Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 256-270). Bostan, MA: National Geographic Learning. [Google Scholar]
  19. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and priciples in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lebeau, I., & Rees, G. (2008). Language leader: Coursebook and CD-ROM. Essex: Pearson Longman. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  22. Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners’ beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English learning. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37(2), 191-215. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing on focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2004). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nassaji, H. (2002). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 241-250. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Newby, D. (2015). The role of theory in pedagogical grammar: A Cognitive + Communicative approach. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 13-34. [Google Scholar]
  27. Oxenden, C., & Latham-Koenig, C. (2010). New English file: Intermediate student's book. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology. System, 28(1), 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  29. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2003). New headway English course: Student's book. Oxford : Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching. In J. Cummins, & C. Davison, International Handbook of English Language Teaching (Vol. 15, pp. 271-288). New York: Springer US. [Google Scholar]
  32. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2009). Interaction research in second/foreign language classrooms. In A. Mackey, & C. Polio, Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 157-175). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40(1), 36-43. [Google Scholar]
  34. Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, P. J. (2009). A study of teacher and student perceptions concerning grammar-translation method and communicative language teaching. Nanya Journal, 28, 135-152. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wells, G. (1999). Using L1 to master L2: A response to Antón and DiCamilla's ‘Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 248-254. [Google Scholar]
  37. Whitney, N., & White, L. (2001). Team up: Student's book 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Whitney, N., & White, L. (2013). Oxford team!: Student's book 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhang, J. (2009). Necessity of grammar teaching. International Education Studies, 2(2), 184-187. [Google Scholar]
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 7 Issue 2

July 2016

All Articles

International Journal of Educational Researchers

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.