Direct Approaches in L2 Instruction: A Turning Point in Communicative Language Teaching?

Direct Approaches in L2 Instruction: A Turning Point in

Communicative Language Teaching?

Writer                          : Marianne Celce-Murcia; Zoltán Dörnyei; Sarah Thurrell

Journal                         : TESOL Quarterly

Date Published            : 05/03/2007             

This article provides two main issues of CLT. The first is the linguistic content base of CLT.  The primary focus in CLT was the elaboration and implementation of notional-functional syllabus in which language functions were introduced in a range of context, with some coverage of degrees of formality and politeness as well as of cross-cultural issues. However the lack of its firm linguistic guidelines led to a diversity of communicative approach then caused problem on testing the learning outcomes. Fortunately, researches could give a clear specification for communicative competences. It is oriented on linguistic competences which are then made as content base of CLT. The second issue is the pedagogical treatment of linguistic forms in CLT. In practice, linguistic content base of CLT merely made learning as conscious presentation of grammatical forms or lexical items which did not adequately prepare learners for the effective and appropriate use of language in natural communication. Therefore, many CLT proponents neglected linguistic competence and accepted the premise that linguistic form emerges on its own as a result of learners' engaging in communicative activities. However, in practice, instead make learning efficient, communicative activities make learner pay attention to and practice the objective; learning is merely an automatic process. In addition, it takes a longer time than learning based on linguistic competence which is then believed can greatly increase the rate of language attainment by making learners aware of structural regularities and formal properties of the target language. Finally, linguists argued that communicative competence is a matter of knowing a stock of partially pre-assembled patterns, formulaic frameworks, and a kit of rules, so to speak, and being able to apply the rules to make whatever adjustments are necessary according to contextual standards. In sum, a turning point of CLT is explicit, direct elements which are gaining significance in teaching communicative abilities and skills.

The authors put themselves in this article as initiators for further discussion towards CLT. They discuss the two main issue of CLT: the linguistic content base of CLT and the pedagogical treatment of linguistic forms in CLT, to explain clearer information about the turning point of CLT.

I agree that CLT using indirect approach which is engaging students to do conversation and excluding to teach grammar will make students merely do an automatic process of communication.  They cannot produce a new utterance because they aren’t given the pattern of the language.

I’ve ever read a book of CLT. The book provides the same information as in this article that the term of ‘communicative’ had been shared widely with different meaning which comes up to general meaning that communicative is to engage students in conversation. For example, teachers have already been said using CLT if they make students communicate. There are no firm linguistic guidelines of CLT.