1.0 COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING (CLT)
This approach concentrates on students to be able to communicate perfectly and fluently. Hymes (1972) says the goal of language teaching is “communicative competence”. According to Halliday, he claimed that learning an L2 is viewed by proponents of CLT as acquiring the linguistic means to perform different kinds of functions. Canale & Swain (1980) also made an influential analysis of communicative competence. They identified four dimensions of communicative competence which are grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic and strategic competence. Savignon (2002) stated that communicative language teaching (CLT) refers to both processes and goals in the classroom learning. Generally, CLT aims to make communicative competence the goal of language teaching, and at the same time develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills.
Berns (1990) before claims that appropriate communicative competence for learners requires understanding of sociocultural contexts of language use. Besides, the task principle also another example of element of the CLT practices. As stated by Johnson (1982), he explained task principle as the activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks that promote learning. Johnson (1984) and Littlewood (1984) once claimed that acquisition of communicative competence in a language is one example of skill development. As stated beforehand, we always know that CLT offers enthusiastic lesson opportunities based on the principles aligned.
The major problem why CLT is indeed difficult to apply in Malaysian classroom is because of the traditional approach of teaching grammar. Teachers usually use method of drilling, which focus on form and functions when dealing with grammar. Despite the objectives of lessons implemented CLT, activities for grammar activities still do not reflect communicative approach. Previously, I have tried implementing CLT in teaching grammar, in a sense where language focus is being emphasized throughout the lesson development. I do agree it was kind of difficult especially dealing with students at rural area. This is because their exposure to the language is not much as those at urban areas. I believe drilling works the best for them from my observation. There were indeed comfortable and able to understand better if I used drilling.
Richards & Rodgers (2001) claimed that CLT is basically about promoting learning. Lowe (2005) suggests that CLT follow Halliday’s lead and rejected the difference between learning and acquisition. If particular individual able to master the language, they will certainly able to perform better in exams, if that is their aim or objective of learning. CLT also helps in motivating students in learning. Basically, the most important part is ensuring there is a convenient learning environment. Doman (2005) suggests that “the need for ongoing negotiation during interaction increases the learners’ overt participation”....