Compare and contrast the communicative approach

This proposed that published materials stifle the communicative approach. Education was a high priority for the Council of Europe, and they set out to provide a syllabus that would meet the needs of European immigrants.

After learning more about each other, and getting to share about themselves, students will feel more comfortable talking and sharing during other communicative activities. These abilities are directly applicable to many real-world conversations, where the goal is to find out some new piece of information, or simply to exchange information.

Audiolingual Method and Communicative Language Teaching: A Comparison

Canale refined the model by adding discourse competence, which contains the concepts of cohesion and coherence. In his critique, he mentions that CLT is not an altogether cohesive subject, but one in which theoretical understandings by linguists and practical understandings by language teachers differ greatly.

Students may use the same utterances repeatedly when doing this activity and not actually have a creative conversation. The two practices described here have many contrasting points that may help to better understand both of them. A second point of contrast is that AL method sees linguistic competence as the desired goal, while CLT seeks for the ability to use the linguistic system effectively and appropriately thereby having communicative competence as the desired goal.

Wilkins, that defined language using "notions" and "functions", rather than more traditional categories of grammar and vocabulary. This was evident in how many spelling and vocabulary words we would assign students to memorize.

It was later thought, instead, to be socio-cognitive, meaning that language can be learned through the process of social interaction. THAT is the difference between the two methods you ask about. They promote collaboration, fluency, and comfort in the TL.

Some critics of CLT suggest that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and instead allows students to produce utterances which are grammatically incorrect as long as the interlocutor can get some meaning from them.

Because there is not such agreement, students may be seen to be in possession of "communicative competence" without being able to make full, or even adequate, use of the language.

In early stages, the learners may not understand the meaning of what is being repeated, but this is not seen as a disadvantage, since by listening to the teacher, imitating accurately, and responding to and performing controlled tasks, they are learning a new form of verbal behavior.

If the students have not been well prepared for the task at hand, then they will not communicate effectively. In conclusion, AL method worries about the language structural features, at the same time that CLT focuses on real language, on communication itself, in terms of fluency and interaction.

As such, the aim of the Dogme approach to language teaching is to focus on real conversations about practical subjects, where communication is the engine of learning.

Communicative competence redefined what it meant to "know" a language; in addition to speakers having mastery over the structural elements of language, they must also be able to use those structural elements appropriately in a variety of speech domains.

They need to know certain vocabulary words, certain structures of grammar, etc. First language is a system for the expression of meaning, second the primary function of language is to allow interaction and communication, next the structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses, and lastly the primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural features, but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in discourse.

The instructor introduces a topic and asks students to contemplate their opinions about it. The teacher is a facilitator of the student. As I explained, it involved repetition and quick recall.

Special emphasis is given to personal life experiences and situations that are relevant to the student. Students are assigned a specific role within the group. This approach is the antithesis of situational language teaching, which emphasizes learning through text and prioritizes grammar over communication.

According to Finocchiaro and Brumfit the best way to illustrate the difference between communicative approaches and earlier traditions in language teaching is by making a contrast. The time-table is filled in half-way, but some of the boxes are empty.

They saw a need for students to develop communicative skill and functional competence in addition to mastering language structures. Before the growth of communicative language teaching, the primary method of language teaching was situational language teaching.

Higher-level speakers should be having unpredictable conversations in the TL, where neither the questions nor the answers are scripted or expected. However, there are some attempts of describing theories of language learning that are compatible with CLT and it is possible to infer some beliefs.

In student feeling, there are no principles which relate to this area. This critique is largely to do with the fact that CLT is often highly praised and is popular, when it may not necessarily be the best method of language teaching.

Student errors are seen as natural outcome the development of communication skill. In Britain, the introduction of comprehensive schoolswhich offered foreign-language study to all children rather than to the select few in the elite grammar schoolsgreatly increased the demand for language learning.

The instructor gives each student the same set of questions to ask a partner.

Communicative language teaching

Students are assigned a group of no more than six people.Audiolingual Method and Communicative Language Teaching: A Comparison Since the early days of humanity, for many different reasons – economic, diplomatic, social, commercial, or military - there is the need of getting in.

Compare and contrast between the Audio-Lingual Method and Communicative Language Teaching. DIRECT METHOD & COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH DIRECT METHOD INTRODUCTION Established in Germany and France aroundit was developed as a reaction of dissatisfaction to the grammar-translation approach.

•/5(8). The Comparison of Various Methods of Teaching Languages By Careemah Choong Student ID: //28 Assignment Unit 1 B In fulfillment of LTTC Graduate Diploma Instructor: Mr. Sebatian Powers 27th May Introduction This essay will highlight various methods of language teaching.

Compare and contrast the Communicative Approach with the Audio-lingual Method from the point of view of teacher, the learner, the activities and types of materials used, and any underlying theory of language or learning.

Discuss to what extent the Communicative Approach was an improvement over the Audio-lingual Method. Communicative Language Teaching and Audio-Lingual Method: Definition Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is an approach to the teaching of second and foreign languages that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language.

Get an answer for 'What are the differences between situational language teaching and direct method?' and find homework help for other ESL/EFL/FLES/Foreign Language Teachers questions at eNotes.

Download
Compare and contrast the communicative approach
Rated 0/5 based on 89 review