Applying Communicative Language Teaching and Task-Based Language

Teaching Techniques Together in Response to Students’ Needs

Foad Yamini
TESOL student

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to show that if a teacher has CLT and TBLT to choose from, he
should not be worried about which one to pick. The writer argues that teachers can have an
eclectic approach. By making a comparison between the two methods and discussing the
similarities and differences, the essay tries to convince the reader that not only is it
harmless but also it is beneficial to make use of the best technique(s) suggested by each
method whenever the need arises. The paper states the similarities before everything, and
claims that because of these similarities, a teacher can apply either of them. After the
similarities, the paper states the differences and argues that using students’ mother tongue,
evaluation techniques, and deductive or inductive presentation of grammar all depend on
the class need and taking an eclectic approach is the best thing a teacher can do.
 It seems unacceptable to a teacher not to have a fixed teaching method to stick to but
regarding CLT and TBLT it seems that a teacher can use both of them in their class to meet
the class or course needs. CLT and TBLT are alike in some aspects. These similarities
make it possible to profit from both of them at the same time.
The first aspect where CLT and TBLT are similar to each other is their goals as both
of them make students interact in the target language. The goal of the teacher in CLT is
creating communicative competence and developing techniques to teach the four language
skills (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, p. 155). Likewise, in TBLT, teacher tries to get
students involved in different kinds of tasks that have clear outcomes (Larsen-Freeman and
Anderson, 2011, p. 156) through which students have to do their best to interact with each
other to finish the task. Therefore, there is no harm in using either of the methods because
the goal of the teacher in both methods is the same: interaction in the target language.
The second similarity is in teacher and learner’s roles. Both methods provide the class
with a real-life-like situation. In CLT, teachers facilitate communication by creating
situations to stimulate communication (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2001, p. 122).
Similarly, in TBLT, teachers choose real-life-like tasks based on the students’ needs to
promote learning (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, p. 156). In CLT, students do their
best to express themselves even if their language knowledge is incomplete (Larsen-
Freeman and Anderson, 2011, p. 122); in TBLT, likewise, they communicate with other
students to complete the tasks (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, p. 156) regardless of
the errors they may make. So, it can be seen that the teacher and the learner’s roles are alike
and applying either of the methods never hurts.
The third characteristic that makes CLT and TBLT alike is the learning process which
in both cases involves communicative tasks. There are communicative activities such as
games, role-plays, and problem-solving tasks in CLT. Teachers use authentic materials and
then students do the tasks in small groups (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, pp. 122,
123). The same happens in TBLT where teacher presents the language through a pre-task,
then students get engaged in a meaningful task which is most of the time again authentic
like when there is an input-providing task in which students get engaged in the receptive
skills of listening and reading (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, pp. 156, 159).
Therefore, it can be seen that both CLT and TBLT make use of communicative tasks in the
process of learning. This gives teachers two similar processes to choose from.
Despite the superficial difference in the areas of language emphasized, they are quite
similar in this aspect, too. Richards (2006, p. 3) believes that the areas of language
emphasized in CLT are functions, settings, and participants of the language and how to
produce and understand language texts in spite of limitations in language knowledge and
Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011, p. 156) claim that in TBLT the emphasis is on the
meaning dimension of language and believe that any of the four skills can be utilized
depending on the nature of the task- information-gap task, opinion-gap task, reasoning-gap
task, unfocused task, focus task, input-providing task, and output-providing task. Taking a
careful look, one can observe that there is not much difference since the nature of the tasks
in TBLT is the same as the ones in CLT are. In an opinion-gap task in TBLT, for instance,
students might be asked to come up with some possible solutions to a social problem by
exchanging ideas or might be asked to compose a letter of advice to a friend about a
dilemma (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, p. 158) which focuses on the same areas in
CLT. So, again there is no difference able to worry a teacher about which of the methods
they have to pick.
In spite of several similarities the two methods have, three differences can be
observed. It is true that it makes no difference whether a teacher uses CLT or TBLT
wherever they are alike but in the areas they differ, a teacher is forced to choose the best
one depending on the requirements of their class.
The first difference is the use of students’ mother tongue in class. Teachers
applying CLT have nothing to worry about using L1 for the judicious use of students’
mother language is accepted in CLT (Richards and Rodgers, 2001, p. 156). In contrast, if
students have difficulty understanding what to do to complete the task, teacher will have to
do something about it only in L2 because they don’t seem to be allowed to speak in
students’ mother language since “there is no explicit role for students’ native language” in
TBLT (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, p. 157). I myself had a lot of difficulties
when my six graders were confused about what steps they had to take to complete the task
but now using a pinch of the mother tongue when they need it saves a lot of time and does
not seem to be considered breaking the rules.
The methods also differ in the way teachers evaluate students. A teacher applying
CLT evaluates students’ fluency and accuracy formally and informally. They do this
informally in their role as advisor or co-communicator and formally by giving students
integrative tests which have real communicative functions (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson,
2011, p. 125); Teachers can give tests at the end of the course giving students a sense of
completion and achievement. However, TBLT teachers evaluate students based on the task
results and the language they use (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, p. 157) by giving
students follow-up tasks, but I feel a teacher sometimes need to give students tests
especially when students are teenagers. After two years of practicing TBLT at our school
avoiding to give any final tests, we realized that the students did not take the classes
seriously. They simply avoided taking part in class activities. So we changed our policies
and included final tests in their TBLT English course.
The final distinctive feature is how teacher reacts to students’ errors. According to
Richards (2006, p. 13), “Teacher is tolerant of students’ errors” in CLT and “may note the
errors during fluency activities and return to them later with an accuracy-based activity”
(Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, p. 125). There is not any necessity for any grammar
explanation in CLT but in the case of adults especially working ones some attention seems
to be needed to be paid to explicit grammar explanation because “Most ESL students
expect teachers to correct their grammar errors”, and to be able to correct themselves
(Savage et al, 2010, p. 4). Fotos (as cited in Savage, 2010, p. 4) points out that:

Most ESL students expect teachers to correct their grammar errors, but a more
practical goal is for students to learn to correct their own mistakes. Grammar instruction
assists English learners in becoming aware of a structure and then continuing to notice it in
subsequent encounters.

However, in TBLT, “error correction is done through recasts or modeling by giving brief
grammar explanations” (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson, 2011, p. 157). Compared to adult
learners who like the teacher to explain the grammar, explanation of grammar rules
deductively does not seem to work well with kids. They learn the best in fun situations.
Young children are wonderful in absorbing new language. They can get maximum of
language through games and activities that they find funny. Their success in learning
foreign language does not depend on their knowledge of grammar (Sitorus, 2012). So,
according to students’ age, the teacher can decide to teach the grammar or simply skip it.

References

Fotos, S., (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, Third Edition,
Boston, Heinle & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Anderson, M., (2011). Techniques & Principles in Language
Teaching, New York, Oxford University Press.
Richards, Jack C., (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today, New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers Theodore S., (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Sitorus, Deborah, (2012). Teaching Grammar to Young Learners a Chapter Report.
Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7694429. html