刊物属性
  • 刊物名称:校园英语
  • 国内刊号:CN 13-1298/G4
  • 国际刊号:ISSN 1009-6426
  • 邮发代号: 18-116
  • 数据库收录:中国知网
  • 投稿邮箱:
      tougao@xiaoyuanyingyu.com
  • 时间:2020-07-02 来源:校园英语杂志社

    作者:王诗艺
      【Abstract】There has been much debate over which approach is better to teach English. In this article, it will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) so as to provide some suggestions to optimize second language learning.
      【Key words】Teaching approach; Second Language Learning
      【作者簡介】王诗艺(1991.2-),女,汉族,浙江金华人,上海财经大学浙江学院,讲师,硕士,研究方向:英语教育。
      Ⅰ. CLT
      CLT aims to set the communicative competence as the goal of language teaching and learning (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). It identifies new pedagogical orientations, showing that learning grammatical forms and structures alone could not help to adequately prepare learners to effectively and appropriately use the language they are learning (Berns, 1990). The use of authentic materials, situations and activities could help students to be better prepared for the real-world communication. Moreover, the innovative classroom activities such as games and role plays could help to stimulate learners’ interest and motivation and let them become more involved (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).
      However, some studies conducted in various contexts reveal that the so-called communicative classrooms are not communicative at all. Some research show that CLT is difficult to implement and receives resistance from teachers and students in some contexts such as China and Japan (Sato, 2002). Due to the various factors, CLT gradually loses its popularity and paves way for the renewed interest in TBLT. However, it is worthy mentioning that although the communicative innovations fail to achieve the promise, they highlight the importance of oral and aural skills and provide effective strategies teachers could use in the classroom.
      Ⅱ.TBLT
      The combination of meaning and form constitutes one of the key features of TBLT. It tries to harness the advantages of focusing on meaning through adopting an analytic syllabus. Simultaneously, through focusing on form, it will deal with its known flaws, particularly the development rate and incompleteness where the accuracy of grammar is concerned (Long & Norris, 2000).Pedagogically, TBLT could strengthen the following aspects: a focus on learning to communicate by interacting in the target language; the use of authentic materials; opportunities provided for the learners to focus on language and the process of learning it (Nunan, 2004).
      However, Burrows (2008) doubts how much students’ proficiency has been extended because of the predominant focus on the accomplishment of the task. As students have the freedom to choose the language and grammatical items used when completing the tasks, they may accomplish the task without using the target form that being supposed to use.Besides,in the context where competitive examination system exists and accuracy-focused written test is considered to be the major factor influencing language teaching and learning, there seems to be a mismatch between the situation and the speaking-oriented communicative activities suggested by TBLT (Sato, 2010).
      Ⅲ.Conclusion
      It is remarked that there is no best approach to teach English. Different approaches are suitable for different people. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses. Whether the approach is appropriate to adopt depends on the factors such as social situation, educational organizations, teacher-related and learner-related factors (Prabhu, 1990).Teachers should make their decision based on these factors to facilitate students’ second language learning.
      References:
      [1]Burrows, C.2008. Socio-cultural barriers facingTBLin Japan. The Language Teacher, 32 (8), 15-19.
      [2]Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006. TESOL Methods: Changing Tracks, Challenging Trends. TESOLQuarterly, 40(1): 59-81.
      [3]Nunan, D.2004. Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
      [4]Sato, R. 2010. Reconsidering the effectiveness andsuitability of PPP and TBLT in the Japanese EFLclassroom. JALT Journal, 32 (2),, 189-200.