Post #4: CLT and TBLT

            Two of the articles this week discuss CLT and the third talks about TBLT. In Bax’s article he explains how the dominance of CLT has been useful, but argues that it has neglected “the context in which language teaching takes place” (Bax 278). With CLT being such a dominant method, there’s the common assumption that the only way to properly learn a language is by the use of CLT. Bax believes that the use of CLT needs to be toned down and that something new needs to be put in its place. His suggested approach is called the Context Approach. Some characteristics of this approach include: considering the whole context and the idea that methodology is only one factor in language learning. Whereas on the other hand, with CLT, it’s believed that without the method it is impossible to learn a language and it is considered the only methodology that matters. I agree with Bax. I think that communication is definitely necessary in order for SLA to occur, but I also think that communication can be included into lessons without the use of the CLT method. I never realized that the CLT method doesn’t take into consideration the context in which learning takes place.

            Hu’s article also discussed the method if CLT but is different than the one Bax wrote since it’s specific to the use of CLT for language teaching in China. Hu explains how they are trying to adopt the use of CLT in Chinese classrooms but that is hasn’t made the expected impact that it would since it conflicts with the Chinese culture of learning. This is a problem since the aspects of the culture that conflict with CLT are “deep rooted in the Chinese culture of learning” (Hu 94). CLT and the Chinese culture have different assumptions about the “respective roles and responsibilities of teachers and students…encourage different learning strategies...and reward different qualities in learning” (Hu 102). There are obviously many sociocultural differences between the two. The author feels that educational policy makers and teachers must make pedagogical choices after taking into account the sociocultural differences which could interfere with what they decide. I agree that sociocultural differences should be taken into account when creating and determining the use of pedagogical methods. I always thought that CLT and the other methods we discussed in class are only used in the US. Are they used in other countries as well? After reading the two articles, it seems that CLT is a highly criticized and controversial language teaching method.

            Skehan’s article talks about TBLT. The reading from last week stated how some people consider CLT to be a framework of TBLT. Skehan never really goes into detail on describing TBLT, but we briefly discussed TBLT last week, comparing it to CLT. TBLT involves the use of two tasks: the target task and the pedagogical task. The pedagogical task, which takes place in the classroom, is used only to prepare students for the target task, which is done outside of the classroom. I like how the ultimate goal of TBLT seems to be getting students to use the TL outside of the classroom. This seems like a great goal for all language teachers to have for their students. In Bax’s article, he talks about the problems with CLT and proposes the use of the Context Approach instead. I wonder whether he created that approach before or after TBLT was thought of. Does TBLT take into consideration the context of language learning, unlike CLT? Would Bax approve of TBLT as a replacement method for CLT?